Hacker News Reader

Comment by LeonenTheDK | Hacker News Reader

Well that is unfortunate. I would not want to be in Simula's position, I'm sure they've got enough on their plate without having to deal with stuff like this that they barely have an impact on in the first place.

I understand that Meta needs to prove they're not a monopoly, and apparently the way to do that is through other companies laying their cards on the table, but my goodness would I feel uncomfortable giving core business plans, outlooks, and associated data to a huge (and arguably unethical) company like Meta.

It's unreal that this is just a thing that can be done, but I'd expect those documents to never reach the eyes of anyone who guides business decisions at Meta. Or so I hope. Or maybe this kind of information isn't as sensitive as I think, I don't run a business and have no plans to currently, so I'm not savvy in that department.

View on HN

Surely if Meta need another company to help them prove something, Meta should have to compensate them. Sure, the government should be able to COMMAND a company to appear, but for one legal entity to COMMAND another legal entity to perform work and make an appearance at a place, in my mind as a Brit, seems entirely wrong.

Time to throw my Quest on eBay, not sure I want to be a part of this.

> in my mind as a Brit, seems entirely wrong.

I guess Meta is following the "If you have money, you are not wrong" strategy.

I thought it was clear in the post that Meta is being compelled by the federal government to prove they are not a monopoly and as part of this they need to present a case where they establish they have legitimate competitors. This requires information about the competitors.

The federal government is compelling action.

Yes and I’m compelled to rob a gas station because the government has compelled me to pay property taxes /s

This is typical for court cases. Even if a party may have little to do with what’s going on trial, if they’re a relevant party in any way they can get sucked in and be forced to give a deposition. It’s totally possible to “plead the 5th” here, but the rationale here is all the relevant facts to a case have to be brought to light in order to make an informed judgment.

First of all, the 5th amendment only applies to individuals, not entities like corporations. Second, it's main purpose is to not incriminate yourself - sharing business plans is hardly incriminating in itself (unless the business plan is specifically to commit a crime, but that would be dumb... Oh wait).

To me this feels like that Meta is trying to simultaneously measure up the market by making their competitors give out business plans that, frankly, are none of Meta's business, while also tying up smaller companies they feel threatened by in legal battles, as to drain their resources and run them into the ground (or, just a more appealing position where Meta can buy them up). And the latter isn't really new - I mean, Amazon pretty much "fired" mid-level executives and "placed" them at various competitors with the sole task of driving down the valuation of the competitor for easier purchase.

Either way, this kind of abuse of the legal system is disgusting, and even if the subpoena has legitimate reasons, it places an unfair amount of responsibility on an otherwise uninvolved party. The federal government could compel your company to produce an employee who can jump over a 5m wall, that doesn't mean it's suddenly possible.

There is no need for the executives at Meta to see these documents themselves to derive value from them. A lawyer seeing them and providing a verbal summary is more than good enough when deciding on strategy.

> I understand that Meta needs to prove they're not a monopoly, and apparently the way to do that is through other companies laying their cards on the table, but my goodness would I feel uncomfortable giving core business plans, outlooks, and associated data to a huge (and arguably unethical) company like Meta.

This seems too considerate to Meta. IMO, part of Meta's intention is to hurt SimulaVR. It wouldn't be by accident.

IANAL, but it came from a court because it's a court order. Failing to respond would be contempt of court - an imprison able offense.

AIUI, the reason that courts order cooperation for this sort of thing is that every party deserves the right in court to defend themselves as best as is possible. If in order to defend themselves they require information that they cannot present themselves but that someone else can (say your alibi was being at work - your boss could confirm that), then it becomes that party's civic duty to cooperate with the courts and make sure that the appropriate information can be yielded to ensure a just decision. If there are concerns about cost or potential secrecy/privacy implications, someone who is subpoenaed can bring that up with the judge who can then work with all parties to appropriately manage the situation.

> then it becomes that party's civic duty to cooperate with the courts

How is that compatible with the 5th amendment?

The (relevant part of the) 5th amendment does not say "you never have to cooperate with the courts" it says you can not be compelled to incriminate yourself. People and companies are compelled to cooperate with courts all the time - that's literally what a subpoena is.

> it says you can not be compelled to incriminate yourself.

and who decides if you can or cannot incriminate yourself?

Btoh you and the justice system. You could plead the fifth on personal incrimination, but that may result in an investigation into your personal matters now that you've indirectly hinted that the facts you were asked to present could indicate wrongdoing.

The system could also consider your testimony to be so important as to proclaim that you shall not be prosecutable for anything that you say as part of your testimony.

Of course, all of this applies only to things within your mind. You cannot use the 5th to get out of presenting any and all existing materials that may even be perceived to be relevant to the court order. That's likely to be as initially broad as emails, business plans and documents, road maps, etc. Obviously, impeding these efforts would be contempt of court or (in the case that you destroy anything) possibly worse.

In practice though, your attorney works with the court and other parties' attorneys to identify what exactly would be relevant to the case and if any special secrecy regarding those materials and testimony is warranted. Case gets worked out, life moves on.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com