Since even the plaintiff/defendant resorted to using websters:
So from this, I would interpret that they have permission/rights/authorization to embed the Cryengine in their game (with restrictions) and are not necessarily “forced” to use it. As long as they don’t use two engines in their game simultaneously, then they would be exclusively using Cryengine. Though given Lumberyard is a fork of Cryengine, they could possibly have had Cryengine code still hanging around after they declared they had switched to Lumberyard. i.e. dual, non-exclusive engine usage.
This part is a little sticky, but I would assume it to mean that they aren’t allowed to make a competing engine and market/license it (if we’re going to show you our code, we don’t want you making/marketing/licensing a competing engine during the license term)…but it only says they won’t engage in the “Business” of “licensing” any competing game engine, which could confer an exclusivity if business can be taken to mean they couldn’t also license an engine from someone else (for this particular “game” of course). I think that’s a weak argument though.
Oh and the term of license is:
…yeah…the rest of the game’s commercial life…
the next termination conditions are just:
a. breach of contract
not going to drop a large paragraph there.
The buyout option that CIG referenced only seemed to resolve future royalties:
The rest of section 5 just discussed payment requirements, though they give very specific dates as to when several payments need to be made. If they didn’t make payments on time, I think that could potentially be considered a breach of contract, but I don’t recall seeing the court filing claiming they missed payment dates. I also didn’t see CIG filing any evidence of them exercising this option.
I personally don’t think it’ll come down to the buyout, though. I think it will come down to when and if they fully changed to Lumberyard and maintaining exclusive use before/after announcing the switch and formally removing their logo. That may of course get sticky if Lumberyard still looks an awful lot like Cryengine under the hood. i.e. it’s hard to tell where one engine begins and the other ends.
As for the copyright infringement, I don’t really know…I think it’ll still depend on timing of the above. I.e. they shared an engine with a non-valid 3rd party, but which engine did they really share?