Qbopper wrote:cedarbridge wrote:lntigracy wrote:>We didn't license you to use our engine for two games
>OMG WHY AREN'T YOU USING OUR ENGINE LIKE WE AGREED
both of these statements are in the same lawsuit
Presuming this hasn't gone past pleadings that's entirely 1) expected 2) reasonable 3) contemplated in American law.
yeah i must be misunderstanding his post because i fail to see how "we licensed the engine to you for one game and you used it for more than that" is in any way unreasonable
I mean that, legally, pleadings just have to be sufficient to stand on their own. So theoretically you could include all sorts of contradictory shit in your initial filings as long as whatever shakes out after discovery is at least coherent.
Edit: Not that this really matters too much re-reading the original post. Those two statements are entirely in harmony. The suit itself is because Roberts decided to go against agreements with Crytek to use their engine and display their trademarks on the game and associated marketing materials. Roberts, like an idiot, expressly went against that agreement and 1) started using a different engine 2) started announcing what they had been using as though it were using some special in-house, self-named engine software called "Star"-something.
tl:dr This is a slam dunk for Crytek's lawyers. They could draft this complaint in a day and go home early.
