Guard Frequency Episode 225 | Hot Cheesy Blanket

Comments

8 responses to “Guard Frequency Episode 225 | Hot Cheesy Blanket”

1. 

   seannewboy

   August 21, 2018

   Wonderful show everyone.congrats on not blowing anything up in the rpg this time.

   Reply
2. 

   Bdawg

   August 22, 2018

   Regarding the idea that the judge in the Crytek case was trying to hint that there is an argument found in section 2.4… that is not the case. She was stating that Crytek used 2.4 in their pleadings against the motion to dismiss (and she quoted the pleading) but she would not consider it because they did not use 2.4 in their formal filing of the lawsuit. So it can’t now be used to plead against a motion to dismiss. That’s the only thing her note is trying to convey….there is nothing there to indicate she thinks 2.4 has a good argument in it…she’s actually refusing to give her opinion on that matter.

   Reply
   1. 

      Anthony Rosa

      August 22, 2018

      Bdawg says”.there is nothing there to indicate she thinks 2.4 has a good argument in it” I dont think so, and neither did Creyteks lawyers. They filed an ammended pleading to make the very arguments the judge alluded to. I dont think they would have done so if they didnt see something that you, a space lawyer, missed. I understand that they are some of the best lawyers money can buy, and you are not.

      Reply
      1. 

         Bdawg

         August 22, 2018

         Haha! They didn’t refile with 2.4 because the judge found an argument that these “best lawyers money can buy” missed. They refiled with that because they had already started switching to that tactic while defending the motion to dismiss and the judge told them she wouldn’t consider the section if its just introduced in mtd pleadings. It has to be in the formal filling…So they ammended their formal filling with it….exactly what my first comment said. To summarize, Crytek introduced the 2.4 argument, not the judge, the judge just told them they introduced it incorrectly.

         And your opinion of me is irrelevant, that’s called an ad-hominem fallacy.

         Reply
         1. 

            Tony

            August 22, 2018

            Hey there, folks. This is me, sorta reaching for the yellow card. Let’s keep things from getting personal. Anyone not in the courtroom is a “space lawyer,” including me, an actual lawyer on Earth.

            Reasonable minds can disagree.

            Superior minds agree with me. 🙂

            Reply
3. 

   Clown Bobo

   August 23, 2018

   It was just past four years ago. It was on a dark evening, in a narrow side-street near one of the big railway stations. She was standing near a doorway in the wall, under a street lamp that hardly gave any light. She had a young face, painted very thick. It was really the paint that appealed to me, the whiteness of it, like a mask, and the bright red lips. Party women never paint their faces. There was nobody else in the street, and no telescreens. She said two hundred dollars. I —

   times 19.12.14 cr forecasts 4th quarter 42 misprints rewrite fullwise
   times 6.4.15 cr minitrue malquoted rectify
   times 9.10.16 reporting cr dayorder doubleplusungood refs unproducts rewrite upsub antefiling

   MINIPLENTY DECLARES FIRST FIVE YEAR PLAN COMPLETED AHEAD OF SCHEDULE AFTER ONLY SIX YEARS [full stop]

   #goldsteinisbobo
   #boboisnottony
   #tonyishope

   Reply
4. 

   Ajay

   August 25, 2018

   Is this an issue because of CIG’s open development process and sharing the development of Star Citizen with backers?

   If this was a traditional development process i.e. all game behind closed doors etc, would a case with the same circumstances be viable as nothing would be made public and a game would not have been released in any form, be it alpha or beta or dev.

   Which brings up another query. The game itself is not even a complete or finished product. The game has not been released and sold. How can a group charge someone with an offence on software which is not even finished.

   I could understand CryTeks claims if the game was a completed project and being sold, but by the time this happens the 2 year grace period (2016) will definitely be over by the time star citizen is considered finished software and is being retailed.

   Reply
   1. 

      Anthony Rosa

      August 31, 2018

      So you believe that Crytek needs to wait to file till after the game gets released? It may never be released yet Crytek is still an injured party. There are time considerations at play here. I’d be reasonably certain that there is already blood in the water and Cryteks lawyers have pickked up the scent. Perhaps there is previous crytek code that you download as soon as you join as a new member. If this case had no merit Cryteks lawyers would probably have said so and turned down the case. When you look at how many key personell have had delved deeply into crytek and no longer work at CIG I believe that CIG has a mish mash of Crytek code running in game and that alone may substantiate Cryteks claims.

      Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.