Rein clarifies UE3 lawsuit ruling

By Robert Purchese Published 1 November, 2007

After dismissal motion denied.

The judge in the middle of the squabble between Epic Games and Silicon Knights has refused to dismiss the lawsuit.

The latest motion to put a stop to proceedings was argued to a California judge by Mark Rein and Tim Sweeney, who said Silicon Knights had shown Unreal Engine 3 to those not authorised to see it, leaking all sorts of secrets about how it works to would-be competition.

Rein was also upset that Silicon Knights had signed a new game with SEGA allegedly built on a modified UE3 engine - something Epic never says it never got paid for or asked about.

Speaking to Eurogamer this afternoon, Rein pointed out that the dismissal of the motion is not a ruling on the veracity of the claims at the heart of the case.

"It is important to note that the judge did not rule on the merits of Silicon Knights' claims, despite what Silicon Knights might allege," he wrote in an email.

"Judge Dever's decision simply allows the discovery process to move forward so that he can rule on the facts.

"We are confident that the evidence will show Silicon Knights breached its license with Epic Games and violated our copyrights and trade secrets."

Silicon Knights filed a lawsuit against Epic Games in August, claiming the Unreal Engine 3 creator was in breach of its contract for not providing enough technical support because it was too busy making its own game Gears of War. The result was an elongated and unnecessarily expensive development period for Too Human, the developer said.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (10) Latest comment 4 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • bioreit #1 4 years ago

    He said, she said.

    Still, despite what Rein says, to not get a right-out dismissal is at least a tiny blow. I still have no personal opinion as to who is really in the wrong here, but there is a little part of me that suspects the fault probably does lie with Epic...

  • BrokenSymmetry #2 4 years ago

    From the article:

    "something Epic never says it never got paid for or asked about"
    huh?

    This is going to be a long and ugly trial. Great :)
    Edited by 1 at 01/11/07 @ 16:17

  • Darkedge #3 4 years ago

    Epic screwed up and their defence is resting on yeah but look what they did. Not denying the claims of SK. I'd say that is a countersuit really by Epic not any reason to dismiss the case.

    Rein is like the little kid who's got caught drawing on the wall and is just screaming about his brother stealing cookies.

  • bivith #4 4 years ago

    i'm certain that they shouldn't be talking publicly about this stuff until the case is over. IANAL though

  • BadBoyBonner #5 4 years ago

    “Epic screwed up and their defence is resting on yeah but look what they did.”

    Which is the only option Epic have.

    They had a contract where time was of the essence - and did not deliver on time.

    Clearly they are seeking damages against SK to set-off the damage they did to SK.

    The one thing Epic have in their favour is that obviously anything that impacts on their licensing business - could potentially pose a much larger threat to revenue, than to any one particular company.

    Easy way to get round that would be to submit that Silicon Knights have effectively acted as an unauthorised agent – ultimately their action could have even benefited Epic as opposed to hinder and then put Epic to strict proof – as he who asserts must prove in civil law.

    Therefore –

    Epic’s submissions are quantifiably weaker as an assertion of wrong doing which may constitute a licensing breach.

    Silicon Knights claim’s are multiple fundamental breaches of the contract – both in what was provided, what wasn’t provided and that the collateral terms of the contract have amounted to misrepresentation.

    N.B.

    In contract law, a misrepresentation is a false statement of fact made by one party to another party and has the effect of inducing that party into the contract. For example, under certain circumstances, false statements or promises made by a seller of goods regarding the quality or nature of the product that the seller has may constitute misrepresentation.

    E.G. “our engine definitely supports 30 avatars (x polys) on screen with 8 light sources at 30 FPS” – and then send out an email (post contract) saying that it might be best to have only one light source and only 8 characters on screen in an attempt to hit 30fps.
    Edited by 1 at 01/11/07 @ 16:51

  • M83J01P97 #6 4 years ago

    "i'm certain that they shouldn't be talking publicly about this stuff until the case is over. IANAL though "

    Yeah, I was about to say that surely if Epic were taking this whole case as seriously and professionally as they should be, they wouldn't go around making press interviews about what is now an ongoing case.

  • Triggerhappytel #7 4 years ago

    bivith - "i'm certain that they shouldn't be talking publicly about this stuff until the case is over. IANAL though"

    Ah, this is in America though; they allow TV cameras in courts, and all sorts.

  • Xerx3s #8 4 years ago

    Rein was also upset that Silicon Knights had signed a new game with SEGA allegedly built on a modified UE3 engine

    Interesting, any info on this title?

  • Xerx3s #9 4 years ago

    TBH, this really isn't helping epic. They would have had a much better case if they just got this sorted out without a lawsuit.

  • Freek #10 4 years ago

    Allot of this technical wheeling and dealing is usually kept secret, now it all spills out into the public.
    I can't wait to see what pops up. :D