Epic's Motion to Dismiss SK Suit Denied

The ongoing saga of the suit/counter-suit battle between Epic Systems and Silicon Knights continues, with Epic's motion to dismiss dismissed. GameDaily reports: "GameDaily BIZ briefly spoke with SK's attorney on the case, Christopher T. Holland, an Equity Partner at Krieg, Keller, Sloan, Reilley & Roman, LLP. Holland confirmed to us that all of SK's initial claims will not be thrown out and 'remain in play for the trial.' An exact date for the trial has yet to be set. 'We're a long way from a verdict in this case, but certainly as a plaintiff we're pleased that the court has recognized the merit in our claims and we're happy that we can now proceed as planned with all the claims we brought for discovery and trial,' Holland said."

Comments

A spinning we will go

[Krozy]

My instincts are telling me that Epic is in the wrong here, simply from the commentary. From the article... Epic VP Mark Rein said. "Often these requests are denied. It is important to note that this was not a decision on the merits of Silicon Knights' claims. We are confident that the evidence will show Silicon Knights breached its license with Epic Games and violated our copyrights and trade secrets." So Epic licenses the Unreal Engine to SK. SK doesn't get all the working elements of the engine per the contract, and meanwhile, Gears of War goes forward using the engine. SK and other licensees are scrambling to make something work from nothing, and Epic turns around and says its SK that violates the copyright and trade secrets? Sounds like deflection to me, just like their counter-claim.

Re:A spinning we will go

[HandsOnFire]

I have a few friends that are in the know at SK.

From what I've been told, (this could be wrong, or a lie, I'm not sure) is that Epic didn't give them a working engine. It was so bad that it would be impossible to make a game from it. I could see why this would result in delays from them and other companies.

I'd say more, but I promised this person/these people I woldn't. :p

Re:A spinning we will go

[moderatorrater]

But they made Gears of War. Assuming they used the same engine, what's the problem?

Re:A spinning we will go

[Krozy]

Well it's suggesting that Epic kept portions of the engine to themselves to build Gears of War, touted what could be done with it, but didn't turn the essential capabilities over to the licensees.

Re:A spinning we will go

[bateleur]

On top of which there's the issue of documentation.

If I turned an engine I'd written over to someone else with next to no documentation, they very probably wouldn't be able to use it effectively. Scale this up to something as state-of-the-art and tough to use as Epic provide and it's a showstopping problem.

Re:A spinning we will go

[AcidLacedPenguiN]

what about the tens of other games that were done with UE3 and had no issues with it? Are SK saying that they were ostracized from all other developers using UE3? Epic doesn't like us, boo-hoo, etc? wasn't the game they're working on supposed to come out 2 console generations ago?

Re:A spinning we will go

[p0tat03]

Tens of games? To-date there's only been one AAA title made with UE3, and that's BioShock. Other have all been delayed, or in the case of Rainbow Six Vegas, switched engines (downgraded and then heavily hacked version of UE2). I'll admit, SK's track record is pretty lacklustre, but something definitely smells fishy from Epic's camp.

Re:A spinning we will go

[Lane.exe]

The thing is, a motion to dismiss is a decision on the merits... sort of. The judge did find that there was at least some merit (perhaps not enough evidence to preponderate in SK's favor, but enough to warrant continuing the suit) to SK's claims.

Re:A spinning we will go

[AcidLacedPenguiN]

sorry I was wrong, on closer inspection I count 11 games that are either out now or out within 3 weeks, and you are wrong about Vegas.
Bioshock
Blacksite: Area 51
Fatal Inertia
Hour of Victory
Mass Effect
Monster Madness
Stranglehold
Vegas
Medal of Honor: Airborne
Fury
and Unreal Tournament 3

then there are also a few XBLA games that use UE3.

if there was a problem on epic's end wouldn't you think at least one other dev team would have taken issue?

Re:A spinning we will go

[im_thatoneguy]

Bioshock - First Person Shooter
Blacksite: Area 51 - First person shooter
Fatal Inertia - First person shooter
Hour of Victory - First person shooter
Mass Effect - Third Person RPG with shooter elements
Monster Madness - Simple third person slasher
Stranglehold - Third Person shooter
Vegas - Third Person Shooter
Medal of Honor: Airborne - First Person Shooter
Fury - RPG Shooter
and Unreal Tournament 3 - First Person Shooter

Now with the exception of 2 or so games on that list almost every single one of them could practically be built on the Gears of War SDK as a Mod and required no extensive engine changes. Now mind you Epic only gave up the Gears of War Source code after widespread complaining from developers.

The claim from SK is that Epic was late (easily verified), with held code (until they finally begrudgingly gave up GoW Code) and didn't release enough of the code on time (per the contract) to meet internal deadlines. As a result they claim that they had to develop an in house engine devoid of the UE3 to continue development.

Now based on an an informal surveying from friends who are developers on many AAA titles... just because they ship doesn't mean that they aren't cheering on SK and off the record agreeing with everything in the claims. The general consensus seems to be "Making Gears of War 2 is pretty easy with the UE3, but trying to deviate from that is an enormous headache and very very difficult."

Yes. Mass Effect is releasing on time (SK isn't actually *that* far behind) but don't mistake having the full backing of Microsoft game studios to fund an army of programmers to overcome the shortcomings of UE3 as UE3 working well.

Given enough time a code team can create an entire engine from scratch (and often do). So starting from UE3 might save a few years and it might save a few days. In the end Mass Effect for all we know might be 99% independent engine. SK just decided it wasn't worth it and Epic breached their contract.

Re:A spinning we will go

[hedwards]

I remember reading a long time ago, when the quake engine was still the engine of choice for 3d games, that id would sell the license for 100k and include a cd with the appropriate source. That was it, no support, just a disc with the appropriate code and a formal agreement over agreed upon uses.

The engine doesn't have to include extensions, unless the contract indicates that it should. It really depends what the contract specified should be included. Unless the contract stipulated that the engine should be the same as the one that was used in gears of war, the likelihood of there being anything substantive to litigate is unlikely.

Based upon what I read, it doesn't look like SK has grounds, it sounds like they didn't really spend the time to look into what they were really getting for their money. If they only paid 75k, I would be surprised if epic included support on the code, its hardly unheard of for an engine to be provided without support.

I think that this will end up being ruled based upon language in the contract, and as far as I know, we don't have access to that anyway.

But I am not personally surprised that the motion was denied, these motions are made every trial,and in this case the judge just ruled that there was sufficient evidence for a trial to move forward.

Re:A spinning we will go

[DarkMantle]

Umm... yeah, there's a few more then that announced on the unreal technology website.

Plus at least one US state is using it and 3 US school boards to make interactive 3d learning modules.

So there must be lots of problems with the engine. Either that or one company doesn't know how to read the UDN.

Re:A spinning we will go

[Joelfabulous]

I think you forgot that robot game. Roboblitz, I think it is? I was under the impression that it was the first to use the engine in a demo and perhaps first released too.

Re:A spinning we will go

[Cornelius the Great]

Handing over the source is one thing. Most newer technologies consist of some header files and documentation, and force you to dynamically link their stuff (you're not given access to the source), depending on the kind of license. $75k sounds sounds relatively cheap, so it wouldn't surprise me if Epic gave SK nothing more than header files and precompiled binaries to link against. I work for a firm that licenses middleware to companies for use in simulations and games, and this is what we typically do for "value" licenses.

This, unfortunately, puts the licensee at the mercy of the middleware provider, relying solely on documentation and promises of new features. I don't know the details of this case in question, but if the documentation is lacking, and Epic couldn't provide the promised level of support, SK may very well have a case.

Re:A spinning we will go

[AcidLacedPenguiN]

but why would you license a FPS engine if you're not going to make an FPS? If you license a shooter's engine and expect it to work for anything other than a shooter expect to have to do something yourself. It's a little far-fetched to demand that Epic make an RPG or a platformer for you because you licensed their engine to make a game mechanic that the engine wasn't originally designed for.

Re:A spinning we will go

[im_thatoneguy]

But Epic isn't licensing an "FPS Engine" They're marketing a 'flexible' middleware rendering engine.

A lot of studios are feeling like Epic exagerated the specs of their technology. I remember some of the claims they were making before GOW was even announced things that were more demonstration hacks than engine features.

Epic over promised, under delivered and failed to meet their deadlines. As a result Silicon Knights effectively said "Screw it it's easier to start from scratch" and now want out of their contract and the court to recognize that the engine they developed is not Unreal 3 but their own IP. (Epic is claiming the inhouse engine SI Developed instead of UE3 is Epic property.)

There are some other demands being made for compensation but as far as the claims of wrong doing go, it sounds like SI has a pretty good case.

Re:SK Does (did) have access to everything

[p0tat03]

Everyone is still ignoring the main (and only concrete) claim in the entire case: that the contract stipulated an exact date by which Epic must deliver a working Xbox 360 build of the engine. The contention here is that Epic did not. This claim is so trivially easy to prove/disprove that I have no doubt Epic missed the deadline, and honestly, on this alone Epic will be paying out to SK, no questions asked.

SK Excuses?

[ScotchForBreakfast]

I don't doubt that some or many folks have been having difficulty with the Unreal engine. Having said that Silicon Knights development of Too Human has seemed epically bumbling so I have trouble trusting them much. Too Human was at first a PlayStation game (claimed to be 5 disks), then a GameCube game, now a 360 game. Silicon Knights in general seems to have their own issues with getting a game out the door. Is this the fault of Epic's support? A continuation of SK's inability to finish a game? or a bit of both?

Re:SK Excuses?

[DDLKermit007]

Other developers are having said issues. They just find it easier to bitch privately, and work around Epic's refusal to provide them with the final GOW code. It's still far easier to pay for an engine that has most of what you need rather than go it alone.

Pitty it was Epic instead of iD...

[FoolsGold]

Not that I wish any ill-will against Carmack and co., but it would certainly have been funny if he had to rock up to court, restate his motion to dismiss, at which point the judge would reply "DENIED!" and frag Carmack on the spot.

Re:Pitty it was Epic instead of iD...

[Satanboy]

but then we wouldn't have gigapixels . . .