Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

John Carmack on expert witnesses and 'non literal' copying

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 322 posts

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

#171

Post by sqeaky »

Retric wrote: post #149
sqeaky wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sticking with my examples of people who fundamentally cannot understand files, how do you explain the core differences of two file managers? I presume the VR software is an order of magnitude more complex than files and file managers.

They don't need to understand files, just the connection with [code] > computers running a program vs. [architectural drawings] > people making a house. Architects don't build houses they design them in the same way computer architects don't build programs they design them. The analogy is a little fiddly as programmers > compilers also works like Architects > construction workers. But the line of thinking is not that…

It seems you are asserting that people who don't understand anything about the core concept can make reasonable decisions based on contrived analogies. Perhaps you are right, but I don't think so.

When both sides put forward equally convincing analogies and few, if any, of the jurors know what is actually going on then how do they choose which analogy to believe?

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

#172

Post by justin66 »

zamalek wrote: post #107
hydrogen18 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was my thoughts exactly. If what the OP was proposing was not legitimate myself and countless others would be in legal jeopardy. I have written code that does the same thing at numerous employers because I am hired to solve the same problem. This doesn't mean I've copied anything, it just means I know what the hell I am doing. If this was not legal, we would all be bound to the same employer for life. This could…

Not to mention that the Zeni prototype was merely adequate, while the Oculus product is polished. I think that ZeniMax are seriously salty about shoving off VR now that it's blossoming. That being said, working on company equipment during company time? Carmack screwed up.

> That being said, working on company equipment during company time? Carmack screwed up.

I'm fairly sure Carmack saw his role as one of a researcher, such that working on VR and sharing knowledge with the outside was part of what he was being paid for. I'm not familiar with his contract but I remember his communications regarding VR at the time and that's the way it appeared.

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

#173

Post by 794CD01 »

intherdfield wrote: post #170
794CD01 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could say the same thing about anything people do in secret. Yet many people still want privacy.

> You could say the same thing about anything people do in secret. I don't think that makes sense. There is no attempt to generalize this to things people do in secret. There is no claim that if something could risk your reputation then it follows that it should be made public. Carmack's assertion is only that this particular work (for which the witness does voluntarily and is paid for) should be made public so that…

The assertion is based on the idea that this thing you did is a reflection on who you are, so people who interact with you have a right to know about it so they can judge you by it.

I agree that in this specific instance, it was the job of Oculus' legal team to discredit the report in front of the court. Publishing it after the fact for review by the public doesn't make sense, and calling for it is petty.

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

#174

Post by deong »

gravypod wrote: post #35
Filligree wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Why is there an assumption that you can explain anything to anyone? There is no law of nature stating that the maximum complexity anyone can invent is smaller than the complexity the average person can understand.

I'd say there are very few people who are doing things so out there that they cannot explain what they are doing. We aren't that special. We aren't magical unicors who work in all corners of our galaxy. No we are programmers, PhDs, mechanics, engineers. Our jobs share a lot in common with each other and can be easily broken down to their base components. That's the job of a programmer like Carmack. To break things do…

The problem is that there's an adversary who, in practice, is not attempting to lead the jury to the correct conclusion, but lead them to a conviction. And that adversary will be equally able to explain in an understandable way why, despite your explanation to the contrary, you in fact are guilty of the charges.

The system works when juries are able to differentiate between expert witnesses, and that may very well require more expertise than just applying everyday common knowledge to two competing expositions.

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

#175

Post by zardo »

gregw2 wrote: post #162

It's kinda hard to square John's post-trial comments "I never tried to hide or wipe any evidence, and all of my data is accounted for, contrary to some stories being spread." with ZeniMax's post-trial comments at http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2017/02/01/zenima... that " (vi) Carmack intentionally destroyed data on his computer after he got notice of this litigation and right after he researched on Google…

I wouldn't trust the testimony of a paid expert witness. They always have strong convictions in favor of the side paying the bill, even if the evidence available clearly can't support such absolute conclusions.

Even if they aren't just liars, the lawyers can just keep trying different 'experts' untill they get one who tells the story they want to hear. It's just cover for making an argument from authority.

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

#176

Post by emmett »

My father was an expert witness in electronic discovery cases for many years in the 90s and early 00s.

I remember so many stories growing up about similar situations. The main lesson was that it was actually way easier to be an expert witness when your side was totally in the wrong, because you could just make stuff up. Explaining the truth about how computers work is hard, compared to making up simpler explanations that don't happen to actually reflect reality.

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

#177

Post by nothrabannosir »

toufka wrote: post #69
nitwit005 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ap…

That's precisely why the experts are asked their opinion. And a jury takes that opinion into account. "Dr. Soandso, do you believe, based on your experience, that such an action would constitute a flagrant abuse? Of a kind that is unprecedented? And such an action would damage the reputation of many, you say? And were such an action to take place it would cause harm to the industry for decades?" The jury needn't be a…

This thread is now so far removed from the original article, it has gone full circle.

The article is, literally, about this not working.

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

#178

Post by jonknee »

gregw2 wrote: post #162

It's kinda hard to square John's post-trial comments "I never tried to hide or wipe any evidence, and all of my data is accounted for, contrary to some stories being spread." with ZeniMax's post-trial comments at http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2017/02/01/zenima... that " (vi) Carmack intentionally destroyed data on his computer after he got notice of this litigation and right after he researched on Google…

> Carmack intentionally destroyed data on his computer after he got notice of this litigation and right after he researched on Google how to wipe a hard drive

Somehow I think John knows how to wipe a drive...

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

#179

Post by maxlybbert »

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…

After I served on a jury, I became convinced that the biggest benefit they provide is that they put an upper limit on how complex, convoluted, and one-sided the law can be.

I think there is some value in occasionally rounding up average citizens, explaining the law to them, and making them listen to a trial.

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

#180

Post by MaxfordAndSons »

gregw2 wrote: post #162

It's kinda hard to square John's post-trial comments "I never tried to hide or wipe any evidence, and all of my data is accounted for, contrary to some stories being spread." with ZeniMax's post-trial comments at http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2017/02/01/zenima... that " (vi) Carmack intentionally destroyed data on his computer after he got notice of this litigation and right after he researched on Google…

Is it possible he wanted to protect other proprietary code from being exposed in discovery? I guess he could have tried to explain that, but that might still have constituted an admission of guilt anyway.
Post reply on HN