Star Citizen maker says engine suit “never should have been filed”

CIG accuses Crytek of selective and misleading reading of license agreement.

Read the whole story

 

[katiejk]

I'm not pretending they are the same thing, the wording of the GLA might be ambiguous but the intent on Cryteks behalf is clear, and CIG's actions until this point reinforce that, as they are esentially now making the argument that their new engine choice, lumberyard, was improrperly licensed from Crytek (for 50 million dollars). And that doesn't even take into account all the other cryengine licenses issused over the last 5 years. The fact that they had no greivences with that issue are telling.

I think you're mistaking the meaning of the word "exclusive" here, assuming it's ambiguous. It isn't, insofar as it has a long-established legal meaning in this context. It means specifically that the rights being licensed are "exclusive," which means you do not get to transfer the rights you are purchasing to another party, should you wish to do so (for example, if another party offers to pay you for the license -- perhaps because Crytek declined to offer the license to said third party). So for example, they can't license the engine, and then turn around and sell their license to a different party. If I'm understanding things correctly, this is what CIG is claiming the agreement meant.

Now, it IS ambiguous in the sense that Crytek is claiming this is NOT what the agreement meant. But that's what the court of law is for: To settle disagreements such as this.