 |
 |
|
If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these Think Services sites:
 Game Career Guide (for student game developers.)
 Indie Games (for independent game players/developers.)
 Finger Gaming (news, reviews, and analysis on iPhone and iPod Touch games.)
 GamerBytes (for the latest console digital download news.)
 Worlds In Motion (discussing the business of online worlds.)
 Game Set Watch (the Group's alt.game weblog.) |
|
|
|
| |
Latest Epic Filing Calls Technical Foul On Silicon Knights
by Brandon Boyer
|
|
| |
|
September 26, 2007
|
| |
Epic has filed its latest court document, charging that Silicon Knights' last set of counterclaims should be disregarded not so much for its specific charges, but on the letter -- or lack thereof -- of the law itself.
"Epic's motion to dismiss," starts the memorandum, "contrary to Silicon Knights' assertion, does not seek to adjudicate disputed facts. It calls for dismissal of the Complaint because of the numerous legal deficiencies that permeate Silicon Knights' pleading."
Charging that the developer "wants to defer any consideration of the sufficiency of its pleading so it can oppress Epic with burdensome and expensive discovery,” Epic says Silicon Knights' claims of false representation lack a "false statement of material fact," and therefore are invalid.
Nowhere, Epic claims, has the developer provided this but instead, on its concession, are "at best predictions of the Unreal Engine 3's future capabilities" and "are not part of any contractual undertaking", instead coming from alleged emails and meetings preceding the license agreement.
Epic also notes that Silicon Knights has said Epic has ignored allegations that the engine provider couldn't demonstrate compatibility with PlayStation 3 by February 2007, which, Epic says "is of no moment since Silicon Knights also alleges that it abandoned the Unreal Engine 3 by May, 2006."
Epic further says Silicon Knights has made a "disingenuous" argument when it argued that Epic couldn't make a "successful demonstration" of the Xbox 360 version of the engine in March of 2006, instead making it two months later at the 2006 E3 in May.
"Silicon Knights' breach of contract counts do not seek damages because the Engine’s successful demonstration was delayed by two months," says Epic. "Silicon Knights alleges that the engine was never compatible with the Xbox 360... The difference between March and May, 2006 is meaningless in the context of Silicon Knights' lawsuit."
Epic concludes in the filing, "Silicon Knights' brief does not overcome the multiple legal defects in the Complaint. Silicon Knights' arguments are factually misplaced and at odds with the law. The Court should grant Epic’s motion to dismiss."
|
| |
|
|
