John Carmack on expert witnesses and 'non literal' copying • Hacker News Board

Re: John Carmack on expert witnesses and 'non literal' copying

#41

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Feb 02, 2017, 5:06 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #32

pyb wrote: post #12

"The expert witness circuit is surely tempting for many academics, since a distinguished expert can get paid $600+ an hour to prepare a weighty report that supports a lawyer’s case. I don’t have any issue with that, but testifying in court as an expert should be as much a part of your permanent public record as the journal papers you publish. In many cases, the consequences are significant. There should be a danger t…

If the "expert witness" is either lying (in court) or incompetent, shouldn't there be consequences to their professional reputation? Or do you think such things should be consequence-free?

There is already a consequence to lying as a witness, it's called perjury prosecution.

It's unfortunately infrequently pursued when the perjury occurs in a civil case, but if you want to agitate for consequences, agitate for prosecutors willing to enforce the law.

(Or for a civil cause of action for perjury, but that would have to be carefully crafted to prevent an infinite regress of lawsuits.)

Re: John Carmack on expert witnesses and 'non literal' copying

#42

Post by albedoa » Thu, Feb 02, 2017, 5:06 PM UTC

pavel_lishin wrote: post #17

addisonj wrote: post #10

I don't have the evidence so I can't make a judgement about whether Zenimax or Carmack is in the wrong here, but this does point out something strange in our court system and that is where a "jury of peers" which translates to normal people with little to no knowledge of the underlying subject matter. As our society becomes more specialized it seems a bit absurd to have people make judgements mostly based on how well…

> this does point out something strange in our court system and that is where a "jury of peers" which translates to normal people with little to no knowledge of the underlying subject matter. Nothing in the constitution says anything about peers, and the fact that most juries are comprised of people who don't know much about the subject matter comes from lawyers wanting those people on the bench, since they're less l…

"jury of one's peers" is in reference to "an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed" from Article VI (criminal prosecutions) and preserved through Article VII (civil suits). It has been interpreted to mean a broad representation of the population.

Re: John Carmack on expert witnesses and 'non literal' copying

#43

Post by bitexploder » Thu, Feb 02, 2017, 5:06 PM UTC

pyb wrote: post #12

"The expert witness circuit is surely tempting for many academics, since a distinguished expert can get paid $600+ an hour to prepare a weighty report that supports a lawyer’s case. I don’t have any issue with that, but testifying in court as an expert should be as much a part of your permanent public record as the journal papers you publish. In many cases, the consequences are significant. There should be a danger t…

I think he is saying if someone skilled and knowledgeable in the area of the expert witness' testimony shines a light of truth on such testimony it must stand up to the scrutiny. If it does not then you are not being true to your knowledge and are being misleading on purpose to get paid. He argues all such testimony, good or bad, must be a part of your public record so we have that opportunity to examine your body of work. This seems reasonable when your work has the potential to deeply impact groups of individuals or the public.

Re: John Carmack on expert witnesses and 'non literal' copying

#44

Post by Dotnaught » Thu, Feb 02, 2017, 5:07 PM UTC

6stringmerc wrote: post #34

An interesting statement on things that may be relevant in the grand scheme of the trial, but, unless I'm really missing something here, the verdict was about busting an NDA (the Code being downstream of the NDA violation). Hence the $500M vs the $4B in damages. If it was just about code, then I'm sure Carmack's points would hold up just as well as they read in hindsight. But - and it's a big but - keep in mind his p…

About half the damages followed from infringement of ZeniMax's software copyrights. The other half came from the NDA breach.

Re: John Carmack on expert witnesses and 'non literal' copying

#45

Post by meanduck » Thu, Feb 02, 2017, 5:07 PM UTC

ue_ wrote: post #25

addisonj wrote: post #10

I don't have the evidence so I can't make a judgement about whether Zenimax or Carmack is in the wrong here, but this does point out something strange in our court system and that is where a "jury of peers" which translates to normal people with little to no knowledge of the underlying subject matter. As our society becomes more specialized it seems a bit absurd to have people make judgements mostly based on how well…

This is a very common argument against juries, and I think it's one of the most powerful. Of course if you start to fill a jury with people competent in the area being judged, you run different risks, such as bias within the field. And it's still not clear that it would help with delivering justice. But if we take the idea of a jury to be about judging by one's peers, it should be patently clear (heh) that the jury o…

What if

    jury_of_peers = random12(peers(defendant) + peers(prosecutor)) OR random6(peers(defendant)) + random6(peers(prosecutor));
    peers(X) is declared/set by X. num(peers(X)) >= num_citizens/10 so that corrupt X cant set 12 yes men.
    This would incentivize X to be good to peers(X).

Re: John Carmack on expert witnesses and 'non literal' copying

#46

Post by nitwit005 » Thu, Feb 02, 2017, 5:07 PM UTC

gravypod wrote: post #23

addisonj wrote: post #10

I don't have the evidence so I can't make a judgement about whether Zenimax or Carmack is in the wrong here, but this does point out something strange in our court system and that is where a "jury of peers" which translates to normal people with little to no knowledge of the underlying subject matter. As our society becomes more specialized it seems a bit absurd to have people make judgements mostly based on how well…

No matter how removed someone is from your field of expertise you should be able to consisely make a case for why you aren't at fault and why. You should also be able to demonstrate using basic logic that the simplest components of two source trees (something that is extremely basic) can show resemblance to another extremely basic component. For example the similarity of example code. How many example source files ha…

How much time does it take to understand something with sufficient depth to make a sound judgement?

It would be nice if the answer could somehow always be a short expert witness testimony, but the reality seems to be that in some areas it's months or years of study.

In your example, you'd have to explain what source code is, what a graphics library is, methods of representing and comparing source code, and how the applicable laws are supposed to function. Sure, you could probably give them a vague impression in a short time, but not enough to decide something complex.

Re: John Carmack on expert witnesses and 'non literal' copying

#47

Post by Avenger42 » Thu, Feb 02, 2017, 5:09 PM UTC

ue_ wrote: post #25

addisonj wrote: post #10

I don't have the evidence so I can't make a judgement about whether Zenimax or Carmack is in the wrong here, but this does point out something strange in our court system and that is where a "jury of peers" which translates to normal people with little to no knowledge of the underlying subject matter. As our society becomes more specialized it seems a bit absurd to have people make judgements mostly based on how well…

This is a very common argument against juries, and I think it's one of the most powerful. Of course if you start to fill a jury with people competent in the area being judged, you run different risks, such as bias within the field. And it's still not clear that it would help with delivering justice. But if we take the idea of a jury to be about judging by one's peers, it should be patently clear (heh) that the jury o…

Ignoring the idea of a corporation being judged by other corporations, the idea that "peers" should be judged more strictly (i.e., limited to "people in similar situations" monetarily, professionally, etc.), I feel like you would run a very clear risk of creating juries that function similarly to "good-old-boy networks" that are unwilling to judge too harshly.

Re: John Carmack on expert witnesses and 'non literal' copying

#48

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Feb 02, 2017, 5:10 PM UTC

ue_ wrote: post #25

addisonj wrote: post #10

I don't have the evidence so I can't make a judgement about whether Zenimax or Carmack is in the wrong here, but this does point out something strange in our court system and that is where a "jury of peers" which translates to normal people with little to no knowledge of the underlying subject matter. As our society becomes more specialized it seems a bit absurd to have people make judgements mostly based on how well…

This is a very common argument against juries, and I think it's one of the most powerful. Of course if you start to fill a jury with people competent in the area being judged, you run different risks, such as bias within the field. And it's still not clear that it would help with delivering justice. But if we take the idea of a jury to be about judging by one's peers, it should be patently clear (heh) that the jury o…

> Of course if you start to fill a jury with people competent in the area being judged, you run different risks, such as bias within the field.

A bigger problem is defining field boundaries and determine who gets to judge qualifications, both of which introduce points at which biases can be introduced systematically.

Re: John Carmack on expert witnesses and 'non literal' copying

#49

Post by bitexploder » Thu, Feb 02, 2017, 5:10 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #41

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the "expert witness" is either lying (in court) or incompetent, shouldn't there be consequences to their professional reputation? Or do you think such things should be consequence-free?

There is already a consequence to lying as a witness, it's called perjury prosecution. It's unfortunately infrequently pursued when the perjury occurs in a civil case, but if you want to agitate for consequences, agitate for prosecutors willing to enforce the law. (Or for a civil cause of action for perjury, but that would have to be carefully crafted to prevent an infinite regress of lawsuits.)

That is John's point, though, that you don't have to lie. You can use non-scientific abstraction and obfuscation to testify any way you want. Sort of the post-modern interpretation theory where anything is true, as long as your truth is told more charismatically. This seems pretty obviously true to me.

It probably isn't even perjury. Even the law has some room for interpretation. That is the whole point of case history. Technology is so new and fluid that the legal system may never catch up to or well define the things a crafty obfuscator (expert witness or lawyer) can sling out.

Skilled practitioners in the area of science or engineering will immediately identify the obfuscation and unreality of it, but that does not make it perjury, which does have a much more specific and well defined case law meaning.

Re: John Carmack on expert witnesses and 'non literal' copying

#50

Post by 1024core » Thu, Feb 02, 2017, 5:11 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #41

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the "expert witness" is either lying (in court) or incompetent, shouldn't there be consequences to their professional reputation? Or do you think such things should be consequence-free?

There is already a consequence to lying as a witness, it's called perjury prosecution. It's unfortunately infrequently pursued when the perjury occurs in a civil case, but if you want to agitate for consequences, agitate for prosecutors willing to enforce the law. (Or for a civil cause of action for perjury, but that would have to be carefully crafted to prevent an infinite regress of lawsuits.)

> There is already a consequence to lying as a witness, it's called perjury prosecution.

Except that this is an "expert witness", and not a regular witness. The expert witness offers his/her opinions.