Live data from Hacker News

John Carmack on expert witnesses and 'non literal' copying

facebook.com

251–260 of 322 posts

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

#251

Carmack is a hero for me but he seems to come across as very naive here. I employ other people now and employees who argue this sort of stuff isn't copying are toxic to the culture and ethics of work. When you are paid a salary every month, I actually don't care if you are productive. But the least I expect you to be is loyal. And I am no monster for expecting that.

You have unrealistic expectations for 2017, i think.

The loyalty you receive will be proportional to the loyalty you demonstrate. When I am paid a salary every month, my expectation is that I am being paid for services rendered, and that what I am paid is a fraction of the value I produced. There is no loyalty demonstrated there; it's just business.

As the company I work for now had in the past kicked me to the curb with only 3 days of notice and no severance whatsoever, I don't feel particularly loyal to them. But I'm still doing their work [again], and they are paying me salary for it [again]. I'm just a worker bee to them, and they're just a mealticket to me. It works out fine as long as I sleep with one eye open.

The instant I can secure a better deal for me, I will pack up my personal possessions and go. I won't take a few weeks to wrap things up in a neat little package. I'll just turn in my badges and walk out. I will stop caring about the company that used to pay my salary on the day I get my last paycheck from them. I know they never cared about me; they only ever cared about my work product.

In practice, in the real world, US employees won't be loyal, because US companies have in aggregate treated them like fungible resources, rather than people. The instant they are no longer profitable to keep, they are fired. So it isn't the employees that are polluting the workplace culture. The employers will eventually be hoist on their own collective petard, but it isn't as though the rest of us will come away clean from that disaster to bask in our schadenfreude, either.

It's nice that you think that temporarily supporting unproductive employees until things turn back around is good business practice, but you're sort of swimming against the tide. I started my career with a small measure of loyalty, but a series of disloyal acts has conditioned me to instead be strictly mercenary. You're no monster, but you shouldn't expect that other employers are anywhere near your level of cooperation with their employees.

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

#252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Insulting. But doesn't make it any less true or false. To presume that your average joe has bothered to play in the realm of academic, diligent logic and reason is a mistake. I am not saying you need to go into a university, I'm not claiming a piece of paper will lend you credibility in this regard. It's about the time and effort that people spend practicing these subjects. How many people do you know outside of STEM…

Do we have evidence that STEMers are paragons of logical reasonable minded virtue outside of their particular domains?

If we did, who would you ask to validate that it was statistically significant?

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

#253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The employer of John Carmack is buying his work product for as long as he remains an employee. The company cannot buy his knowledge and expertise from him, as that is an integral and indivisible part of him. So if you hire Carmack to write a rendering engine, then he quits and goes to work for another company, to write a different rendering engine, he is not "copying" the engine you bought. His memories of all the so…

> The employer of John Carmack is buying his work product for as long as he remains an employee. The company cannot buy his knowledge and expertise from him, as that is an integral and indivisible part of him. This is the entire point of non-compete agreements. To deny competitors the expertise the person has developed during their time at your company.

I'm not entirely certain that you read all the way to the end of my reply.

To really lock someone up, you need both a non-disclosure and a non-compete. And anyone worth a non-compete should make it really expensive for the company that is asking for it. You're trading away potentially several years worth of lost opportunity costs to basically not be what you are for some time after leaving a company.

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

#254
post #246
post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that cross examination helps. I agree lawlessness is bad. However, what you you are proposing is pseudo-random solutions instead of lawlessness, which doesn't seem much better. Picking any subset of trials and saying it is okay for them to be wrong could mean setting wrong precedent for years to come. It can also mean bad outcomes and suffering for many and disproportionately poor people. If the jurors don't…

I mean if a group of experts might chose A 55% of the time and B 45% of the time then a 50/50 random outcome is not a real issue. A few places have elections where in case a tie they do a coin flip. The important thing is to remove bias not get extreme accuracy. As to our court cases being biased for the wealthy that's a little more systemic than just highly technical cases. Even in clear cut cases having a competent…

Clearly we aren't running in circles!

I agree that those coinflip cases exist, but if cases are so close a coinflips (or elections) can decide them then why do sums like $500 million depend on them as in the article?

A system which promotes charisma instead of factual accuracy doesn/t just result in muddy grey areas where things were already close. Things like climate change, which pretty much all experts agree on, are grey areas to many people. Charisma is how we get trump instead of any other politician.

Every year that passes I am less in favor of the idea of democracy than I was the year before. The aggregate of a great many untrained people is generally stupid. Its just better than any system reliant on experts we have devised so far. This seems to be caused by the corruption of our method of choosing experts. Once we a get a reliable system that empowers experts I will be behind wholeheartedly.

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

#255

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…

In the USA, there is no special right to a "jury of your peers"; just to an impartial jury of sufficient size. The "peers" thing was intentionally avoided, since it was tied up with the British class system.

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

#256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's more that Zenimax thinks it owns the unique ideas that Carmack, a top talent in his field, created while he was working there. They're not angry that he wrote the same 4x4 matrix inverse function for both them and Oculus. Or more specifically, if Zenimax's claims are correct, while he was working on company time and equipment.

What is the alternative? Do we force everybody to undergo mind wipes whenever they leave the company so they don't take any skills they picked up on the job with them? How many people can forget everything they know every time they get a new job?

The alternative is probably non-compete contracts (which are enforceable if paid) so that people don't immediately go from one company to its direct competitor.

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

#257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's more that Zenimax thinks it owns the unique ideas that Carmack, a top talent in his field, created while he was working there. They're not angry that he wrote the same 4x4 matrix inverse function for both them and Oculus. Or more specifically, if Zenimax's claims are correct, while he was working on company time and equipment.

What is the alternative? Do we force everybody to undergo mind wipes whenever they leave the company so they don't take any skills they picked up on the job with them? How many people can forget everything they know every time they get a new job?

I think it's a balancing act with plenty of gray area. Personally, I almost always side with employees in cases like this, because it's ridiculous to me that a company could claim ownership of things that its employees create which are unrelated to their jobs, or which they produced with their own time and resources.

But I also think that there are some people who are exceptional cases. The real high earners in a company, especially if they're technical staff, are probably real luminaries in their field, and the company is paying them a significant premium in both money and autonomy because they believe that such an employee will produce a lot of valuable new ideas for the company.

So if your rock star programming wizard quits to start a new company, taking a project that they've been iterating on during work hours on their company computer for the past 6 months while they were drawing a paycheck...well, if you look at it from the company's point of view, you can understand why they would feel like they got robbed blind.

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

#258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An API is not just a "listing of resources."[1] API design often is the most creative part of code. It involves all sorts of creative choices in terms of what abstractions to expose, how to expose them, etc. Take the STL, for example. There is nothing particularly interesting there about the code that does stuff. Oh, it's another red-black tree implementation, yawn . The creativity is all in the API: the container ab…

> I don't get your point about "after the fact. To pick a name is creative. To use that name afterword is not - it's literally referring to something by its given name. My mother was being creative, you're just reading my business card. > Even minor things like order of operands are creative choices. They can be. But where they're standardized, they aren't. If the API specifies these things they're now functional. >…

"Literally referring to something by its given name" is like calling an API, not copying an API. Oracle didn't sue Google for writing software that merely called the Java APIs, or writing software that included information about the APIs. If you wrote out a prose description of each Java class, each method, and the types and order of each parameter, that would not be copyright infringement, even under the Federal Circuit's definition.

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

#259
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Not how it works; that's leading the witness, and just because you are an expert in one field (comparing code) doesn't mean you are an expert in another (assessing the value). I've actually been in this exact situation as an expert witness. The defendant had written code in language "A", sold it, then wrote similar code in language "B". The question was whether code "B" had been written while looking at code "A". The…

New code won't have the same history, and therefore should not have the same structure. If it does, the code must have been copied.

This seems a little weird--what if the author just remembers to, for example, make sure and handle those edge cases when starting again?

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

#260

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…

I may be wrong but don't both sides get to choose the jury? If that's in fact the case, then the jury is made up of a group of people that both sides want making the decision.

> I may be wrong but don't both sides get to choose the jury?

For what it's worth, based on my expert knowledge (I once was summoned for jury duty, but was not needed), neither side gets to choose anyone, only to exercise a limited number of dismissals. That is, they can only decide 'no' (a certain number of times), not (except indirectly) 'yes'. Thus this:

> the jury is made up of a group of people that both sides want making the decision.

is more like "the jury is made up of a group of people who were judged least likely to make an undesireable decision", which I think is meaningfully different.

Post reply on HN