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

SimulaVR Has Been Subpoenaed by Meta Platforms, Inc

simulavr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 478 posts

Re: SimulaVR Has Been Subpoenaed by Meta Platforms, Inc

#121

Post by Ajedi32 »

dsign wrote: post #27

This is not Meta demanding to see some privilege information that exists in Simula's drawers, but rather commandeering the entire competing organization to do market research for Meta. It is clever and evil, and nothing anybody says after this will make me think that Meta is not anti-competitive nor that they have an once of ethics. As a consumer, I doubt I will ever again consider their VR products; I rather give my…

Eyeroll. Meta did nothing wrong here. This isn't them going after their competition; they're the defendant in this lawsuit. As the article says:

> In fairness to Meta: the FTC is the one who initiated this fight, leaving them with the burden of demonstrating it isn't behaving "anti-competitively". So naturally, one of the primary (only?) things Meta can do to demonstrate this is to subpoena...well...its competition...to demand documents which might help them in court

To the extent that you have a problem with the subpoena, blame the judge who authorized it, or perhaps the legal system that makes such subpoenas possible. Meta is not the aggressor here.

Re: SimulaVR Has Been Subpoenaed by Meta Platforms, Inc

#122

Post by onepointsixC »

dsign wrote: post #27

This is not Meta demanding to see some privilege information that exists in Simula's drawers, but rather commandeering the entire competing organization to do market research for Meta. It is clever and evil, and nothing anybody says after this will make me think that Meta is not anti-competitive nor that they have an once of ethics. As a consumer, I doubt I will ever again consider their VR products; I rather give my…

This seems like a wildly emotional response that is completely out of line with what is being asked.

The FTC is suing Meta, and it has a right to get other companies to admit that they are in fact competitors to Meta in the VR Space. SimulaVR is being pretty bad faith in claiming that:

"Meta sells reasonably good gaming headsets to customers who want to be entertained in VR; we're selling general-purpose productivity devices which are aimed at replacing PCs"

Meta pretty clearly intends to compete not just in the gaming VR space but to have general purpose and professional use VR Headsets. Likely all that will come from this is a few internal graphs which include Meta as a competitor in the space.

Re: SimulaVR Has Been Subpoenaed by Meta Platforms, Inc

#123

Post by greensoap »

cldellow wrote: post #56
JeezusJuiceTPR wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t really know the rules of evidence, but I don’t think this is coming directly from Meta, nor that they’re allowed to review these documents themselves. The subpoena has to come from the court, and so I imagine it’s the court reviewing the documents, not Meta. I sure hope that’s how it works. I’d love for a lawyer to chime in, though.

? It is literally coming from Meta. That's what the subpoena and court filings that are screenshotted on that page show. Meta sought the subpoena, the court granted it, and now Simula has to testify at a deposition where the questions will be asked by Meta. And... it sort of has to work this way? It's not the job of the court to do Meta or FTC's advocacy for them.

Federal Courts don't usually grant a subpoena. Notably, the notice of third-party subpoeonas from this case wasn't even filed in the case.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64436614/federal-trade-...

Rather a lawyer that is admitted to the case uses his power as a representative to serve a subpoena. These are usually NOT reviewed by the judge or court first. The person receiving a subpoena can ask the court to quash the subpoena (basically void or modify the subpoena) if they believe the subpoena is inappropriate, unduly burdensome, or whatever else.

Re: SimulaVR Has Been Subpoenaed by Meta Platforms, Inc

#124

Post by M4v3R »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #119
dsign wrote: post #27

This is not Meta demanding to see some privilege information that exists in Simula's drawers, but rather commandeering the entire competing organization to do market research for Meta. It is clever and evil, and nothing anybody says after this will make me think that Meta is not anti-competitive nor that they have an once of ethics. As a consumer, I doubt I will ever again consider their VR products; I rather give my…

This is a subpoena from a legal team, NOT a court. You are free to write “we don’t know” for much of the questions or even write “too burdensome to answer”. Such subpoenas have little teeth. Hire a lawyer for a few hours to confirm what I say since I’m some random internet guy.

From the article:

We've also been commanded to drop everything we're doing and go tesify on these matters _in person_, thousands of miles away from us, by the stated deadline :|

So it's not just a matter of writing "we don't know". They have to produce a lot of material and then travel 1000's of miles to show up in the court in person.

Re: SimulaVR Has Been Subpoenaed by Meta Platforms, Inc

#125

Post by benreesman »

dsign wrote: post #27

This is not Meta demanding to see some privilege information that exists in Simula's drawers, but rather commandeering the entire competing organization to do market research for Meta. It is clever and evil, and nothing anybody says after this will make me think that Meta is not anti-competitive nor that they have an once of ethics. As a consumer, I doubt I will ever again consider their VR products; I rather give my…

As modern capitalism goes, Meta is not on the low end of the scale WRT whatever we're calling ethical in a system that has legal penalties for leaving money on the table.

It's a ruthless, profit-drive, shareholder-owned, S&P 500-dominating company like all the rest, so you get all of that into the mix. It's not a particularly flattering group to be in if you're big into modern northern european social-good democracy.

But the idea that Meta is like, worse than the sovereign wealth fund in Riyadh that YC routinely connects founders with, or worse than Exxon, or worse than the pharma cartels, or? I could go on.

That's just silly now, come on.

Re: SimulaVR Has Been Subpoenaed by Meta Platforms, Inc

#126

Post by vkou »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #62
Raed667 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mark wants to be able to sell apps and ads on his end-to-end controlled platform, that is it. He missed the boat on browsers and smartphones, so he is aiming for total monopoly of what he believes is the next-big-thing™.

I'm still skeptical that it is The Next Big Thing. I wonder if Zuckerberg suspects it might not be as well but, hey, Hail Mary!

It doesn't matter if it is the next big thing, or a large flop.

Meta is in trouble, and it needs to do something to retain relevance. This is something, and Meta is doing it.

Re: SimulaVR Has Been Subpoenaed by Meta Platforms, Inc

#127

Post by incomingpain »

haneefmubarak wrote: post #64
incomingpain wrote: post #48

If I were simulaVR, I would make this very painful to meta. You would put together business plans that literally say no other vendor can compete against meta. Basically confirm the anti-competition. That even that subpeona is anticompetive and an attempt to further crush them. Malicious compliance the entire way.

I think the subpoena is mostly for existing records and novel records of existing plans. IANAL, but I think if you were to create novel documents that were most certainly less than honest for the purpose of swaying the case, there could be legal consequences for you. Courts aren't stupid - if it becomes apparent that you are attempting to maliciously comply, they can still get you based on your apparent intent.

Obviously playing with very hot fire.

Simula has to have a business plan. Has to list their competitors like HTC and Meta who are anticompetitively working together on a virtual world. viveverse is literally called metaverse; technically i don't know if it's literally the same virtual world.

You can then look at Lenovo, Microsoft, Valve and Google whose VR stuff died. Your assumption is they cant compete against them.

Then you explain your business plan of finding a wierd open source niche. Entirely because competing against meta is impossible.

I'm not saying fabricating evidence or like try to get your accounts banned off facebook to make it look like they are trying to crush you. You simply make the reasonable argument and business case a unresourced startup can't compete against a 350billion $ org with an army of devs.

Meta's fault for bothering you. Then again you're literally holding a paper vial of anthrax on this one if you do it. #YOLO

Re: SimulaVR Has Been Subpoenaed by Meta Platforms, Inc

#128

Post by dtech »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #78
Roark66 wrote: post #70

If this is actually how US's justice system works it is even more bonkers than I thought. Could someone versed in this legal system explain, please? Is is any accused that can demand documents/data/free research from vaguely related third parties, or only large companies? Enquiring minds want to know!

If one is accused of antitrust practices (as Meta is by the FTC), your defense is to show that there's actually competition. It's not that Meta that wants the documents for corporate espionage (or whatever), but that they want to prove that SimulaVR is competing just fine in the market that contains Meta. This is explained in the article, which many here clearly didn't read past the headline. This is roughly the same…

In the US legal system a non-government entity can force any 3rd party to spend time and money for their benefit? That seems pretty weird.

Re: SimulaVR Has Been Subpoenaed by Meta Platforms, Inc

#129

Post by onepointsixC »

georgewsinger wrote: post #51
cableshaft wrote: post #40

>We're don't view ourselves in competition with Meta >...Meta sells reasonably good gaming headsets to customers who want to be entertained in VR; we're selling general-purpose productivity devices which are aimed at replacing PCs and laptops. Hate to break it to you, but if you don't think that Mark Zuckerberg is actively trying to create VR devices that are general-purpose productivity devices aimed at replacing PC…

We understand Meta sometimes future projects that their devices will have broad office applications, but we're skeptical it has any teeth. Consider that Atari tried to compete with office PCs in the early 80s with their 8-bit family, and failed: https://images.fastcompany.net/image/upload/w_596,c_limit,q_... It's hard to focus on multiple things at once, and we're skeptical that the bureaucratic forces in play at a l…

>It's hard to focus on multiple things at once, and we're skeptical that the bureaucratic forces in play at a large company like Meta will allow them to do a good job at making their gaming platform also one that people actually want to work in.

The problem with your assertion is that you over count how many multiple things Meta has to do. What will make for a very good gaming VR Headset will also be a very good professional and productivity headset.

The key aspects which Mark Zuckerberg laid out personally in the recent VR Prototypes unveil pretty universally hit both targets. Comfortable light weight headsets with incredible fidelity is desirable for all VR applications. Not just gaming.

Re: SimulaVR Has Been Subpoenaed by Meta Platforms, Inc

#130

Post by vkou »

dtech wrote: post #128
colejohnson66 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If one is accused of antitrust practices (as Meta is by the FTC), your defense is to show that there's actually competition. It's not that Meta that wants the documents for corporate espionage (or whatever), but that they want to prove that SimulaVR is competing just fine in the market that contains Meta. This is explained in the article, which many here clearly didn't read past the headline. This is roughly the same…

In the US legal system a non-government entity can force any 3rd party to spend time and money for their benefit? That seems pretty weird.

Yes, that's what a subpoena is. And it can be done in pretty much any legal system.

If you're on trial for murder, and your alibi is 'I was at work', you're going to need your boss to come in to testify on your behalf. If he doesn't feel like it, the court will compel him to show up and testify, on his time, and on his expense, under penalty of prejury.

This is a good thing.

Post reply on HN