Live data from Hacker News

John Carmack on expert witnesses and 'non literal' copying

facebook.com

71–80 of 322 posts

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

#71
post #7

I often wonder if John was involved with the story telling aspect of his games, not just the code.

I think it has a recurring theme that any time he got involved, things didn't go well so he decided to let go of it. That's not to say he didn't have influence; many times the games' stories were derived FROM the tech, not the other way around. Doom was originally supposed to be much more story- and character-driven, but that took a backseat given the focus on the development side was on the gameplay mechanics. Also,…

He was the Dungeon Master in their Dungeons & Dragons games. John Romero loved Carmack's campaign world, but John Romero destroyed it, Opening up a gateway to hell, and then immediately regretted it (but they got the idea for Doom from it), since it was a long running campaign in a world completely designed by John Carmack. I think Heretic/Hexen and Quake also borrowed heavily from their D&D games. Masters of Doom is an awesome book.

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

#72

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…

No matter how removed someone is from your field of expertise you should be able to consisely make a case for why you aren't at fault and why. You should also be able to demonstrate using basic logic that the simplest components of two source trees (something that is extremely basic) can show resemblance to another extremely basic component. For example the similarity of example code. How many example source files ha…

> demonstrate using basic logic that the simplest components of two source trees (something that is extremely basic)

If you think that is "extremely basic" I think you may be overestimating how poorly 1 in 12 people understand computer related concepts. I suspect it is far more, but I am biased.

Before software development I worked tech support. I have heard some nightmarish misunderstandings. I have had people who literally thought files in the computer were tiny pieces of paper (and just magnified or something, this person's view was not logically coherent). When explained otherwise many met my explanation with conspiracy theories, disbeliefs, explanation of the physical impossibility of solid state transistors and sometimes, the very best of times, interest and a promise to do extra research on the the off chance I might be right.

I have conversed with many, perhaps hundreds who literally could not understand the concept of a file. They knew that inside the magic box was 1s and 0s. In general they even had the vaguest idea that electrons or magnetism somehow stored those 1s and 0s, but the idea they could be organized into a into units smaller and more discrete that "the magic box" was so alien and unacceptable to their world view that they could not or would not accept it. Many simply didn't want to know, but a few brave souls tried and sometimes got themselves in to great trouble needing many help tickets to undo the results of their learning experiments.

There were several people who thought there computers were terminals to some server somewhere and could not accept that their information was stored locally. No amount of explanations that the C: Drive was a device in their computer could shake the notion that Earthlink or whoever else I was working for had the files. These people wanted so badly to believe their lives where so simple (or whatever they wanted to believe) that they could not possibly have a device the size of a laptop that was powerful to hold the contents of a bookshelf filled with novels and reference material. Maybe these people were just too confused about where facebook (myspace back then) posts went and could not compare that to where ms word documents went.

Then there were people who could never learn to navigate file tree. People, hundreds and hundreds of people, who could save and open documents, but when they accidentally clicked and dragged a document lost the moved document forever despite it just being in the wrong subfolder. These sad people would often have 10 versions of a document sometimes in the same folder with subtlety different names and they could never quite understand what they were looking when presented with the list of files produced by their misguided instruction. At least one such person is in my immediate family, I no longer do tech support for only because she has medical conditions that prevent computer use entirely, but after 15 or so years she never gained and understanding of file tree.

You want to explain to a group of 12 with no guarantee of prior knowledge how two files trees can be alike, yet not be so similar as to be copyright infringement. I commend you for your effort, I consider it a heroic task, and entirely possible if the 12 people all take to your explanation. I think it is more likely to fail entirely for some amount of those people.

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

#73

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 didn't know the US had juries even in civil cases. That seems a bit effed.

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

#74
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a very common argument against juries, and I think it's one of the most powerful. Of course if you start to fill a jury with people competent in the area being judged, you run different risks, such as bias within the field. And it's still not clear that it would help with delivering justice. But if we take the idea of a jury to be about judging by one's peers, it should be patently clear (heh) that the jury o…

Ignoring the idea of a corporation being judged by other corporations, the idea that "peers" should be judged more strictly (i.e., limited to "people in similar situations" monetarily, professionally, etc.), I feel like you would run a very clear risk of creating juries that function similarly to "good-old-boy networks" that are unwilling to judge too harshly.

That's the whole (original) point though. Historically, people would be taken away from people who had known them all their lives, be accused of something fantastical, and be condemned on the strength of he-said, she-said. In the specific case of the USA, a big complaint of colonists is that they would be whisked back to England for trial ("For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:")

Peers are supposed to know you, your character, and your history. It's the only hope you have of being truly considered innocent until proven guilty. The default situation of a juror should be "I can't believe they did it; convince me", not "I have no idea". More important, if a jury starts at "I have no idea", they're realistically starting at "this person wouldn't be here if they hadn't done something; they're probably guilty".

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

#75

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 think the Google v. Oracle example actually cuts against your theory. In that case, the jury found non-infringement on the patent claims, and literal infringement of portions of the code and API. The real question in that case was a legal one: whether the structure and organization of APIs was copyrightable. On appeal, the federal circuit found that it was, and remanded for a determination on Google's fair use defense. Another jury then found that Google's incorporation of Oracle's API was fair use (and that is on appeal).

I'm not really sure how a jury of software developers would have changed the result.

And as a general matter, I'm wary of assertions that judges or juries would decide things differently if only they had "knowledge of the underlying subject matter." In Oracle v. Google, for example, the policy question was: does the fact that Google copied Oracle's API for interoperability purposes outweigh the fact that Google is making a profit by leveraging a platform Oracle built? The disagreement between the Federal Circuit and software developers did not have anything to do with knowledge of the subject matter. Everyone understood what an API was, etc. It had to do with values and priorities. "Interoperability" is something with a lot of value in the software field, but is more or less irrelevant to copyright. On the other hand, protecting authors from others profiting off their efforts is the primary value underlying copyright.

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

#76
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of course if you start to fill a jury with people competent in the area being judged, you run different risks, such as bias within the field. A bigger problem is defining field boundaries and determine who gets to judge qualifications, both of which introduce points at which biases can be introduced systematically.

I'd settle for not actively weeding out experts as we do in the current voir dire process.

The issue with having experts on the jury is twofold:

- If they're experts in the field, they may have had enough interaction with the case in question (or the people involved in the case) to have formed an opinion without having heard any testimony

- Due to their expertise, the jury could decide "it's easier (more convenient, more likely to be correct, etc) to defer to the expert" and just vote whichever way the expert votes

By not having experts, everyone makes their own decisions on how to weight different pieces of evidence, and no one's opinion drowns out anyone else's (at least, any more than would have happened anyway with that particular jury).

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

#77
post #66
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have an actual example of this? Contracts get really complex in the same way programs get complex. But, juries have mediated contract disputes for a very long time.

Only because judges get to tell the jury what certain phrases in the contract mean, because judges are experts at understand contract complexity. We don't actually expect juries to learn contract law; the judge interprets the relevant parts of the contract for the jury, and tells the jury to decide whether it was broken.

Meaning what? Jury's can decide complex issues if there is a neutral expert on complex topics?

If anything that sounds like a complaint about expert witnesses not juries.

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

#78

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…

It would be interesting to know if any CS people were actually in the jury pool for this case, and if so, were they selected or dismissed.

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

#79
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No matter how removed someone is from your field of expertise you should be able to consisely make a case for why you aren't at fault and why. You should also be able to demonstrate using basic logic that the simplest components of two source trees (something that is extremely basic) can show resemblance to another extremely basic component. For example the similarity of example code. How many example source files ha…

Average Joe does not know what source code is, nor is he able to tell one piece of source code or one programming language apart from another, it is all gibberish to probably the majority of the jury. Hell, a few years back most Americans did not know that McDonald's was unhealthy, they had to be told this...

To further your point, the expert had to use Harry Potter as an analogy. In my opinion, analogies should be banned from courtrooms. They are fine for casual discussions, but they are often misleading.

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

#80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the "expert witness" is either lying (in court) or incompetent, shouldn't there be consequences to their professional reputation? Or do you think such things should be consequence-free?

Perjury is already a crime. What further consequences are warranted?

If no-one can call out the bad behavior, that consequence is blocked off. A seal on the testemony blocks review/scrutiny.
Post reply on HN