When Sued Don't Tweet • Hacker News Board

Re: When Sued Don't Tweet

#91

Post by darkarmani » Fri, May 02, 2014, 3:44 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #58

motdiem wrote: post #51

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".

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.

> 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.

How exactly? Plenty of people sue a company, lose the case, and still do a lot of damage to the company because of the distraction and public confidence. One example, is startups getting sued that are looking for another round of investment. They are definitely harmed even if they win the lawsuit. It cuts both ways. Sometimes a victory can be made to cost more than settling -- for either side. That's why people settle. If you can make the PR cost higher, the price to settle comes down.

Re: When Sued Don't Tweet

#92

Post by jacquesm » Fri, May 02, 2014, 3:45 PM UTC

TodPunk wrote: post #68

This article has some flaws. For instance, Carmack isn't getting sued, Oculus/Facebook is. Also, I didn't get the impression that Carmack was "angry" when he tweeted that. I always get the impression that he is pretty calm about all of the things he's saying, and the two tweets being referenced are just statements about his perception on the case. Since anger is the tone of the entire "mistake" from the article's per…

Good points! Have an upvote...

The actual defendant for now is Oculus Rift (because I suspect that's where the money is), but Carmack is very much in the line of fire (as the one who allegedly did the deed) and is currently CTO of Oculus Rift, so even if he's not the named party he definitely is in a defensive position here.

On top of that his current interest is in this particular case probably not aligned with Oculus Rift.

That means that your words should be weighed on a gold scale, especially when uttered through a public medium. I've fixed the post to take into account your comments.

Re: When Sued Don't Tweet

#93

Post by simonebrunozzi » Fri, May 02, 2014, 3:50 PM UTC

This is a HARD thing to cope with. I've been through it once, and I lost much sleep over many nights just because of it. Especially the first time, you have NO idea on how to deal with it. I can say that the best advice is to do nothing UNTIL you talk to your lawyer, and I can confirm that YOUR lawyer means the one YOU pay. Try to stay calm. Things like this take months, sometimes even years, to unfold. Good luck.

Re: When Sued Don't Tweet

#94

Post by ceejayoz » Fri, May 02, 2014, 4:11 PM UTC

teacup50 wrote: post #55

ceejayoz wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Github was willing to go on the record at https://github.com/blog/1826-follow-up-to-the-investigation-... stating " The investigation found Tom Preston-Werner in his capacity as GitHub’s CEO acted inappropriately, including confrontational conduct, disregard of workplace complaints, insensitivity to the impact of his spouse's presence in the workplace, and failure to enforce an agreement that his spouse should not work in the office."

Re: When Sued Don't Tweet

#95

Post by larrys » Fri, May 02, 2014, 4:15 PM UTC

danielweber wrote: post #72

larrys wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

To add on, some attorneys spend their whole lives tearing apart people who lie. Unless you are professional psychopath, you are completely outclassed here.

Agree. Would also add that if you lie infrequently you are probably not prepared to know all the potential pitfalls of lying and how the other person can tear you a new one if you want to call it that.

Additionally I've noticed a loose correlation between people who lie and who their parents are or how they were raised. Nothing scientific of course, but people whose parents don't hold their feet to the flame are generally more likely to think that they can get away with something because "the other guy is stupid". People whose parents are either very intelligent or hold them on everything they say are generally more practiced at thinking of the various possibilities that can come about to refute something they would say.

Re: When Sued Don't Tweet

#96

Post by personZ » Fri, May 02, 2014, 4:27 PM UTC

TodPunk wrote: post #68

This article has some flaws. For instance, Carmack isn't getting sued, Oculus/Facebook is. Also, I didn't get the impression that Carmack was "angry" when he tweeted that. I always get the impression that he is pretty calm about all of the things he's saying, and the two tweets being referenced are just statements about his perception on the case. Since anger is the tone of the entire "mistake" from the article's per…

I've gotten my karma pummeling elsewhere in this thread for taking this to task, but this is one of those cases where raw speculation is voted up on HN purely because the speaker panders to this audience, and the audience returns the favor. Put that blog post under a less known (on HN at least) name and it would would rightly have disappeared as raw uninformed speculation.

Re: When Sued Don't Tweet

#97

Post by namenotrequired » Fri, May 02, 2014, 5:53 PM UTC

Hansi wrote: post #54

erso wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The same question can be asked, yes.

Re: When Sued Don't Tweet

#98

Post by delinka » Fri, May 02, 2014, 6:30 PM UTC

capex wrote: post #85

apalmer wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When sued the appropriate action is to immediately higher a qualified lawyer with expertise in the specific area. Then follow his advice. Until you do that... do not do ANYTHING.

You probably meant 'hire', not 'higher'

In this age of technology that tries to predict and guess our intentions based on patterns and hand wavy algorithms, it's also safe to assume that autocorrect just outright got it wrong when it corrected an entire phrase. Much as grammatical faux pas irritate my mild obsessiveness, I've learned to just let them slide. Personally, I try not to let such edits slip past me, but they often do. It's usually IM and the person on the other end gets a good laugh, but the intent is typically evident.

Re: When Sued Don't Tweet

#99

Post by personZ » Fri, May 02, 2014, 6:38 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #78

personZ wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unnecessarily defensive. Was there something, anything, in my comment that is incorrect? Are you actually a contract/IP lawyer? Note that I'm not saying that you are wrong , because honestly I don't know. Because I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know all of the specifics of this case. But am I wrong in what I said about the authority of the post? This is why people preface things with IANAL. People often petition to the…

Don't shoot yourself in the foot is good advice, even when it doesn't come from your surgeon.

That analogy hardly fits such a complex situation. This advice is more akin to "if someone is breaking into your house, call the police and hide in a closet". Situations may be a little more complex than that.

Re: When Sued Don't Tweet

#100

Post by wpietri » Fri, May 02, 2014, 9:42 PM UTC

personZ wrote: post #87

wpietri wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's someone who has been involved in the business of technology for a long time, so I'd give his opinion substantially more weight than the average HN comment. It's also bog-standard legal advice, so I'd say it doesn't need a lot of footnoting.

Years in technology means exactly nothing relating to IP/Copyright/Contract lawsuits, and I find that claim extraordinary: It is the sort of thing that builds false confidence and pseudo expertise. It's also a bit ironic given that in this case it's someone telling John Carmack -- guy who was a founder and partner at a number of businesses to great success and for many years -- what he should do. John clearly made hi…

Years in the business of technology definitely mean something in relation to both IP and lawsuits. The former being a key ingredient to tech businesses, and the latter being a a risk you must consider any time you sign a contract.

The fellow clearly says that, having been through a couple of lawsuits, that it's tempting to react to the initial wave of emotion. So he's not questioning Carmack's knowledge, he's using Carmack's situation as a handy illustration of his point.

Also, his advice isn't to shut up until trial. It is to wait out the initial wave of emotion, to talk to your lawyer, and think things through until you are truly ready to speak on the permanent record. Which is indeed bog-standard advice.