31–40 of 118 posts
If someone makes a spurious allegation against you then I think you should defend yourself as much as possible, including via tweets or any other communication channels. Refuse to go quietly into the night.
If someone makes a spurious allegation against you then I think you should defend yourself as much as possible, including via tweets or any other communication channels. Refuse to go quietly into the night.
One thing I've often wondered: how does one even find the best lawyer, with the most appropriate experience etc.? It seems you'd almost need another lawyer, who knows the best people in each specialty, to advise you.
You have a couple options, as I see it (there could be more): Find someone who's had to deal with something similar to find out who they used and their experience. Contact a state or local bar association. In Wisconsin our state bar has a lawyer referral program. They're not necessarily the best in their field, but they're a good start, and a limited consult might be free or of little cost.
While that may help you in the courtroom, the court of public opinion doesn't wait for a verdict. It confuses silence with guilt. Acquittals are less likely to make front pages than acquittals.
Does the public care about this? I really don’t think so. This is a case about some boring legalities. I really can’t see it having any impact on how Carmack is viewed. There are probably many other situation in which that is not the case, but here I really can’t see anything bad happening as a consequence of Carmack not responding publicly.
About other things that people, particularly celebs, are taken to court for - absolutely.
An interesting counterpoint to this is Julie Ann Horvath, who leveraged Twitter to expose a toxic culture at Github (1) and eventually forced the CEO and his wife to leave the company (2), and has kept Github and certain employees on the defensive (3). She may have to deal with legal repercussions because of her actions on Twitter, but I can't help but think that nothing would have changed had she kept silent or quie…
One thing I've often wondered: how does one even find the best lawyer, with the most appropriate experience etc.? It seems you'd almost need another lawyer, who knows the best people in each specialty, to advise you.
This recent high-profile case has been thrown out because nobody that legal aid is willing to pay (for the defendants) for is capable of handling it. Even the first step, "read 10,000 pages of documents", is not affordable since the legal aid cuts.
That document describes the desperate search for someone suitable and willing ("silk" == barrister or QC, required at this level of court)
Tweets aren't under oath or anything, but it opens up Carmack to lots of questions and possibly affects his credibility.
Often times cases come down to "he said / she said" types of claims and how a jury views them.
If ZeniMax mentions the tweets in court, it will likely be to try and make Carmack look like he acted out of hand, and that he rushed to make claims that arne't true (i.e. the IP / code distinction the poster makes).
Here's the thing about software suits. Most judges / juries are in a TERRIBLE position when it comes to evaluating the nuance involved in a suit like this. Think about the average person and how much they understand about what you do.
Lawyers will try to boil it down to themes and narratives that portray you as "bad." "Winning" in terms of how you evaluate claims or the press or your followers evaluate claims does not matter. It's all about how the lawyers convince a judge or jury you are wrong.
One thing I've often wondered: how does one even find the best lawyer, with the most appropriate experience etc.? It seems you'd almost need another lawyer, who knows the best people in each specialty, to advise you.
An interesting counterpoint to this is Julie Ann Horvath, who leveraged Twitter to expose a toxic culture at Github (1) and eventually forced the CEO and his wife to leave the company (2), and has kept Github and certain employees on the defensive (3). She may have to deal with legal repercussions because of her actions on Twitter, but I can't help but think that nothing would have changed had she kept silent or quie…
When you're on the offensive things change considerably.