Wish youtube saved the chat, there was some funny stuff in there.
A lot of the response’s language seems to weaken the original allegations further, things they were claiming were contractual are now claimed promises that only existed exterior, those are things that would need to be unearthed in discovery. Intentionally making hard to prove claims is part of the strategy for making sure it doesn’t get thrown out here.
It seems likely that in discovery crytek’s other contracts and the interpretations of those contracts will come into question, those contracts will probably be similar since this is a standard GLA, and their more long-armed interpretations aren’t likely to stick. RSI is mentioned in the Autodesk license and nowhere else, talk about trying to win on technicalities.
They’re still pushing contradictory claims too, they insist they aren’t using the engine but say that their use of the engine is copyright infringement, simultaneously that they should have used their trademark on a different engine. Supposedly faceware had access to an engine crytek says CIG switched to yet simultaneously faceware’s access to public lumberyard code is supposed to be a breach. Trying to approach the same case from conflicting angles simultaneously probably wont go over well with the judge.