Without commenting on why Zenimax would launch such a lawsuit now and be public about it, I can't help but see Carmack's response as a potential intimidation move, e.g "You may win in court, but you will lose in the court of public opinion, and this will hurt your business more than losing this suit. Now think again about wether you really want to sue".
When Sued Don't Tweet
51–60 of 118 posts
Re: When Sued Don't Tweet
#52I understand what the common wisdom is ("shut-up") when it comes to this type of thing, and I understand the stated reason why ("it will get used against you!"), but I don't understand the "how" part.
Carmack made a very clear, short public message about it. Rather than being any kind of admission, it was the opposite. A complete denial. How could Zenimax use that to strengthen their case? He's likely to repeat the same denial to the court anyway.
I'm not pretending I know better than the common wisdom, just trying to understand it better. If you were Zenimax, how would you use this tweet against him?
Re: When Sued Don't Tweet
#53While 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.
What about gamers? They are their customers, and they can be a fickle bunch under the right circumstances. A recent example could be the reaction to the DRM in the latest sim city, and other games. A counterexample however could be EA, which most gamers loathe but continues to sell plenty of games. (Edit: Although now that I actually look it up EA is behind sim city. So who knows.)
Re: When Sued Don't Tweet
#54(another attorney here) 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 /…
I'm curious to know if, were the tweets to be used, they would also have to prove it was he that made them. Sure, they're from his account, but would that hold up in court? See: the many celebrities who have people tweet on their behalf with their (the celebrities') account.
Couldn't the same be said about e-mail? Which does hold up in court.
Re: When Sued Don't Tweet
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's an interesting counter-point, but I'm not sure it's an example to be lauded; most of her complaints were found to have no basis in fact, and she's likely poisoned any future legal suit she might wish to bring. Additionally, she's incurred significant personal liability in the process. > She may have to deal with legal repercussions because of her actions on Twitter, but I can't help but think that nothing would…
> most of her complaints were found to have no basis in fact Enough of them had a basis in fact to get a founder fired.
> Enough of them had a basis in fact to get a founder fired.
Which allegations were true? What did that founder actually do? Did she expose herself to liability through libelous statements?
On this, The Court of Public Opinion lacks the standing to rule. Your comment is a case-in-point as to why.
Re: When Sued Don't Tweet
#56I understand what the common wisdom is ("shut-up") when it comes to this type of thing, and I understand the stated reason why ("it will get used against you!"), but I don't understand the "how" part. Carmack made a very clear, short public message about it. Rather than being any kind of admission, it was the opposite. A complete denial. How could Zenimax use that to strengthen their case? He's likely to repeat the s…
It wasn't a complete denial ('code' and 'patents' are not the only work products protected by IP laws and by employment contract terms).
That alone makes me believe this was not vetted by his lawyer unless they specifically wanted to misdirect the opposition. I don't think that's likely, and such misdirection would most likely fail anyway assuming the opposite side is halfway competent.
Making falsifiable claims in public simply does not help.
As for how Zenimax could use this against Carmack, let's not make their lives easier than we have to.
Re: When Sued Don't Tweet
#57(another attorney here) 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 /…
I'm curious to know if, were the tweets to be used, they would also have to prove it was he that made them. Sure, they're from his account, but would that hold up in court? See: the many celebrities who have people tweet on their behalf with their (the celebrities') account.
Ianal, but in a deposition he would be asked whether they were his tweets or not.
If he denied they were, he would be asked further questions and possibly caught in a lie. Such as "is this the only time that your account has been used by someone other than yourself?" or "So you are saying that this is the only tweet that you didn't make but the others before and after you did". And so on. My guess is that he would be advised to tell the truth to prevent getting further trapped as far as his credibility. There may also be other people that he discussed the tweets with that could be brought into the picture as well under oath in court I'm guessing. Bottom line: Denial is easier said than done.
Re: When Sued Don't Tweet
#58Without commenting on why Zenimax would launch such a lawsuit now and be public about it, I can't help but see Carmack's response as a potential intimidation move, e.g "You may win in court, but you will lose in the court of public opinion, and this will hurt your business more than losing this suit. Now think again about wether you really want to sue".
That would be an exceedingly dumb strategy because if such a link could be made then it would open up Carmack to yet another round of damages if the suit would be lost.
Blackmail is not a sound legal strategy if you have a lot to lose. If you're on your last dime and you don't own anything that can be seized you might try this route.
Re: When Sued Don't Tweet
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's an interesting counter-point, but I'm not sure it's an example to be lauded; most of her complaints were found to have no basis in fact, and she's likely poisoned any future legal suit she might wish to bring. Additionally, she's incurred significant personal liability in the process. > She may have to deal with legal repercussions because of her actions on Twitter, but I can't help but think that nothing would…
> most of her complaints were found to have no basis in fact Enough of them had a basis in fact to get a founder fired.
While I'm not sufficiently informed on the daily operations at GitHub, "basis in fact" has nothing to do with whether a C-level remains employed or not. Companies these days are hypersensitive about their reputations and you'll be considered a liability for a single misconstrued statement despite years of stellar (and most importantly, completely politically sanitary) work.
You may even get owned for politically incorrect behavior that occurs in private and completely external to your professional affiliation. Off the top of my head I can cite a handful of such ousters that have occurred in the last month, including but not limited to Brendan Eich and Donald Sterling.
We're in a really bad spot right now. The principles that undergird free society are not well regarded anymore. Make a single statement that stirs the ire of the reigning corporate thought police and you're done for, no matter how innocuous it may or may not be. People don't care about the facts, it's all about perception, and if you're perceived as a thought criminal in any of the many varied channels now considered taboo, you're "toxic" to the company. It's as simple as that.
Considering this status, perhaps aggression and even subtlety are justified if you're seeking to defend yourself against the types of accusations that would get a toxic label applied to your name.
Re: When Sued Don't Tweet
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
There always remains the possibility that you may not be able to find a suitable one at all : http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgment... 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…
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgment... is an interesting case indeed. It's like a DoS on justice, make sure that your case requires the reading of a large document and you can get off because the lawyers, silks, etc., will refuse the work. This is a flaw in the legal system. I'd be surprised that the monarch doesn't have power to order someone, a QC say, to take the trial on. Also, aside, "br…
Monarch does not have those powers; in any case this is effectively a pay dispute.
The complexity issue is important and needs addressing properly. Jury trials for fraud have already been abandoned for this reason. However, I've no idea how you'd reform it; you need to have people who (a) know the law and (b) have read all the relevant documents, which is always going to take time and therefore cost money.