231–240 of 478 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We aren't throwing a hissy fit lol. We're just stating the facts and are working with our lawyers to resolve this.
why not just respond to their subpoena with one line answers....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Welcome to the American legal system. Facebook did nothing wrong here. When I was an attorney and involved with these kinds of subpoenas, we always worked with the third-parties to make document production less burdensome for them. SimulaVR should be working with Meta's attorneys on this instead of throwing a hissy fit online.
We aren't throwing a hissy fit lol. We're just stating the facts and are working with our lawyers to resolve this.
Look, I get that you guys are a small shop but you should not be surprised to be asked to provide evidence in an antitrust litigation over the VR market. I'm guessing you haven't seen a subpoena before - they are all like this, and your attorneys will be able to negotiate something much less burdensome.
So get off Hacker News and let your lawyers handle it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
This shows that SimulaVR is run by a bunch of children. Every subpoena says this, but you work with the attorneys to figure out the time and manner that works best for the deposition. I routinely flew thousands of miles to do depositions in places that worked best for the deposed. And complaining about how the subpoena's asking for tons of documents. Again, every subpoena does this; you have to negotiate with the att…
They received a letter that looks important and official to them, and looks to them like something they have to comply with.
Are you giving legal advice to ignore letters from lawyers?
Also RE some speculation in this thread, it seems very unlikely to me that Meta's legal team was looking to get some free market research, but it is interesting to consider.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The parent is already going grey via downvotes, which I think is a bit harsh: "hire a lawyer and let them hire PR people" is in fact generally good advice. This thread is 1 part "this isn't the place to litigate this" and 2 parts "i've got a beef with big tech", so it's unlikely to be germane and therefore the all caps are likely to be a bit much. But it's good advice generally, and that shouldn't be downvoted.
Hiring a lawyer was the first thing we did. For the rest, I'd gladly do this if we had the funds to do so. We don't. Plus, we as a company are (maybe excessively) open. Of course we're going to get involved in legal proceedings, that's a fact of life. Doesn't mean we won't talk about it.
But the GP's advice is still as good as when it was printed: for the most part, the under-resourced party is courting nothing but trouble by courting public opinion litigation.
Do talk to a lawyer, don't say more than you can help on the Internet. It's good advice.
I’m surprised to see that Apple isn’t on the list of companies being subpoenaed. Maybe one advantage of not announcing your hotly rumored VR project until it’s done and available is that no one can subpoena you to ask about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.…
> Meta did nothing wrong here Doesn't this depend on whether Meta is actually guilty of what the FTC is accusing them of? If they are, then clearly the wrong thing they did was behave anti-competitively. If they are guilty of that, then it is fair to blame them for being dragged into their defense. While everyone has the right to defend themselves, it is fair to be upset at having to be called in the defense of someo…
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!
Yes, but in practice, this is just an opening offer in a negotiation. Parties will typically counter with something like: depose me in my home town for no more than x hours, and I'll produce what docs I have if you sign a protective order that makes produced info attorney's-eyes-only, i.e., business people cannot review. Unlikely a court would require more than this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quest runs Android and Android run on Linux.
That's only technically correct. I'd say given the words I said around "Linux," your response is pedantic at best. Android is in no way what I want. And is it Open and Free? Can I do whatever I want with it? Can I install NixOS Mobile? Jailbreaking doesn't count since we are talking about official product offerings. If I can't run my own software from source + make my device completely decoupled from Meta, it isn't a…