The back and forth between CIG and Crytek over Star Citizen and alleged copyright infringement and other issues is heating up. Crytek and CIG are currently filing motions and arguments in attempts to establish the foundations of the case as a whole. You can find the relevant documents here.
This week its CIG who come out fighting picking apart many of Crytek’s claims with choice notes such as these:
“By repeatedly attempting to justify getting waved through Rule 12 by arguing phantom allegations, by proffering absurd interpretations of now-revealed plain contract language, by asserting ever-shifting claims for copyright infringement without identifying the allegedly infringing works, and by seeking remedies that are palpably improper under black letter law (e.g., punitive damages for breach of contract and statutory damages for pre-registration infringement), the opposition demonstrates that both efforts at pleading in this case have been an unmanageable, incoherent mess unworthy of proceeding beyond the pleading stage and all of the attendant time and expense thereafter.”
“Defendants’ opening memorandum demonstrated that, in addition to the fundamental damages problem, three of the breaches alleged by Crytek (switching engines, not crediting Crytek and using the Engine in Squadron 42) fail under the plain language of the omitted but now incorporated GLA and 2016 Press Release. In response,Crytek concedes that the Court may consider these documents, but tries to overcome their dispositive impact by raising a litany of arguments (many absent from the FAC), hoping that one of them sticks. None of them do.”
“If the Court allows the claim to proceed, Defendants will demonstrate that CIG tendered delivery of the bug fixes more than two years ago, but that tender was ignored and then forgotten by Crytek. CIG satisfied any remaining obligation under Section 7.3 of the GLA by delivering an updated version of the bug fixes on January 23, 2018, a delivery that CIG planned to make before Crytek jumped the gun and sued. It is also false. If the Court allows the claim to proceed, Defendants will show that theydid not provide Faceware with access to Crytek’s source code“
As you can see from these snippets of the much larger document, CIG has is not taking this case lying down as they attempt to dismantle Crytek’s claims and the base they’re built upon. The quibbles over definitions and usage of terms as applied within the CIG/Crytek license agreement is important, especially in a motion to dismiss situation. A judge adjudicating this type of situation would typically look favorably on the non-moving party and their presented facts. This means that the party issuing the dismissal motion would be a disadvantage in some respects. Although the judge will only make a ruling based on the established and irrefutable facts of the case up to that point. In this instance, CIG and Crytek will continue to attempt to establish said facts in a way that is favorable to their case respectively.