When Sued Don't Tweet
jacquesmattheij.com
jacquesmattheij.com
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.
However even posting honest, accurate articles online can come back to haunt you. Unless written very precisely, words can be interpreted by different people differently and often in a way that wasn't intended by the author.
This process doesn't have to be a cynical twisting of words - naturally, a reader's interpretation will be informed by their pre-existing point of view. When that view is one of a litigant, it can open up new issues in a case and lead to new ways to analyse evidence.
If you are posting about a case, make sure you're doing it calmly and definitely get it edited by your lawyer!
[edited for accuracy, typos]
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.
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.
Whilst I would nearly always go for shutting up, we've probably all witnessed the David being sued by a Goliath and their only viable action is to make it know and get support.
That isn't what's happening here though... but no rule is black and white.
1. GET OFF SOCIAL MEDIA. Everything you say and do will make you a target. The only things you can say that might help you would be contrition, so if you're not willing to do that, get the hell off social media. This is also good because it removes you from having to read things about yourself that people are saying. People's talk will not harm you; your reaction to people's talk will harm you.
2. GET AN OFFLINE JOURNAL. If you have strong feelings, write them out. Write until you can't feel anymore. But don't put it online; keep it offline. The purpose is to have an exercise that gets your thoughts out, and to be able to read through your thoughts and clarify them later. Write letters to the people you're angry with, then review them and edit them many times, and never send them.
3. TALK TO FRIENDS. It's incredibly easy to let internalizing your feelings change how you think, change your memories, and turn you into a shell of your former self. You can even develop anxiety disorders or PTSD if this gets out of hand. Talk to people who understand and love you and let them keep you in check. You need positive outside influences to keep yourself sane. Talk to a good psychiatrist if you can.
4. KEEP THE BIG PICTURE IN MIND. It's easy to confuse yourself and wrestle over details. Start by considering the intent of your actions, and work from there to understand the whole chain of events, impartial and without emotion. It takes a while to get there. Be totally honest with yourself, but don't convince yourself of things that you didn't do.
The only thing I'd add is that it can be worth being visible about this. If you can make a polite and neutral statement before disappearing, that can help. E.g., "I wasn't expecting such a strong reaction; I obviously need to take some time to think this over and talk with friends before saying more in public."
IANAL, but this seems like bad advice. If there's litigation involved, any sort of apology could be taken as an admission of guilt.
It seems you'd almost need another lawyer, who knows the best people in each specialty, to advise you.
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.
Our online form had basic functionality like that, but calling let you talk to a staff member who could help you clarify what you might actually need.
(I worked as a web developer for a number if years there, and the form didn't get updated much while I was there.)
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)
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, "bro bono" (para 19), first time I seen that one - taking on a job for free under obligation to family/friends.
--
Edit: typo at para.85 adds more weight to my previous thoughts on needing more contextual spell checking. "scare resources" is almost always going to be a typo.
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.
See also: http://www.popehat.com/2011/05/27/how-to-cold-call-a-lawyer-...
We talk maybe once a year, as I rarely need legal advice, but it's enough to keep the relationship alive. If I ever needed a legal specialist, I'd instantly go to him for a referral. And I'd use him to double-check any advice from the specialist.
The first time, it seems a little weird paying somebody $200-500 to, say, look over an employment contract. I was used to half-assing that myself, which cost nothing. But now I look at it as two kinds of insurance. First, you're drastically lowering the risk that there's something in the documents you missed. Second, if something bad does go down, your lawyer's now involved; it's not a new matter, it's something they blessed. And as a practical matter, negotiating contract points is much easier when you can, "My laywer says X" instead of, "I'm no expert, but I think X".
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 quietly hired an employment lawyer after being forced out.
1. http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/19/5526574/github-sexism-scan...
2. http://recode.net/2014/04/21/julie-ann-horvath-on-github-inv...
3. http://www.dailydot.com/business/julie-ann-horvath-names-git...
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 have changed had she kept silent or quietly hired an employment lawyer after being forced out.
I can't help but think the court of public opinion has been used to bludgeon an opponent, not achieve justice.
The public absolutely lacks the facts necessary to judge the merits of the accusations, and the objectivity necessary won't be forthcoming through inciting angry internet mobs. This wasn't something as simple as Sterling's overt racism -- and even then, the public's ability to observe and act on his overt racism wasn't possible until it saw the cold light of day through objective and verifiable evidence.
The safest and likely most productive way for GitHub to be held to account, if GitHub as an organization needed to be held to account, was by providing a clear, objective statement of the allegations, vetted by her lawyer, and if possible, a tenacious lawsuit and refusal to settle for anything less than a public statement.
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.
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.
* The rules that say the government is not allowed to define marriage further than "two humans say they want to live together and want us to give them stuff for it" are very new, and Eich was fighting to not have this become the rule.
* Gay people should be perfectly comfortable working for people who supported Prop 8 or they're going to have a hard time, as there's a > 50% chance that a random stranger will have done so.
* Eich's ideas on what relationships the government should reward does not materially affect his performance as CEO. He'd already promised to keep Mozilla's inclusive policies.
* If you really want to say gay people would find it impossible to work for Eich, I find it hard to believe that any such persons at Mozilla are less replaceable than Brendan Eich. If they do resign in protest, Eich would've had no trouble replacing them. However, Mozilla's official statement indicated the vast majority of the company supported him, with "less than ten" current employees threatening resignation if Eich maintained his post.
* The board didn't fire or pressure Eich to leave. He resigned voluntarily as damage control. Mozilla's official statement is clear about this.
Casting anyone who supported Prop 8 as a villain is a wholly untenable philosophical stance. It condemns the majority of Californians and Americans. You can't live life with that large of a chip on your shoulder, it's completely disruptive. If you are doing so, I recommend you seek a shoulder-chip repair professional before further damage to self and others is perpetrated by political intolerance.
* Immaterial.
* There is a difference between "voted for" and "funded". Further, Eich refused to say whether his opinion had changed. And obviously, you don't get to say what gay people are comfortable about.
* Incorrect. Promising to be bigoted only in his off hours is not a promise that will convince everybody.
* Your view apparently is that as long as you're not powerful, injustice is fine. That's not a view many share. Especially at Mozilla.
* Fair enough.
At one point vast majorities of people opposed interracial marriage. And, earlier, were in favor of slavery for black people, an institution maintained through brutality and torture. I'm not saying those people are villains, but I am saying they were wrong, and bigoted in a way that was deeply problematic. And I'm saying the same thing about people who supported Prop 8. Thankfully, as the statistics show, people are more quickly waking up to their anti-gay bigotry, so it's a dead issue here in California, and it soon will be in the rest of the nation.
OK, again, it's not that "the right to marry" is constitutional. It's just that some judges have decided "marriage" means giving benefits to any two humans who claim they want it. This isn't what marriage is supposed to be, but that's beside the point at the moment. Bans on same-sex marriage were considered unconstitutional because marital benefits were granted to persons who engaged in opposite-sex permanent coupling, and the judiciary decided that since the existence of sex was acknowledged, it was unfair. Enforcing this massive blind spot is obviously absurd, but again, currently beside the point. The point is there is not a constitutional right to marital benefits.
>* There is a difference between "voted for" and "funded". Further, Eich refused to say whether his opinion had changed. And obviously, you don't get to say what gay people are comfortable about.
Eich's contribution was minor, so not much of a difference in this case. Perhaps, as a wealthy individual, he routinely donates to political causes that accord with his beliefs and considers this good citizenship. You can't say that this issue was critical to Eich simply because a small contribution exists.
There was no reason to demand Eich recant his position. This is still a hot mainstream political topic. As Mozilla stated, almost the entire company was content to follow Eich; only a negligible number of employees threatened to leave. Eich resigned to prevent damage to Firefox and its users.
>Incorrect. Promising to be bigoted only in his off hours is not a promise that will convince everybody.
It doesn't materially affect his performance as CEO no matter what he chooses to believe on a social issue about as far removed from computer software as you can get.
>Your view apparently is that as long as you're not powerful, injustice is fine. That's not a view many share. Especially at Mozilla.
No, my view is that Eich committed no injustice by expressing his opinion via political contributions, and that we shouldn't displace extremely well-qualified persons because a very small percentage of people chose to have their feelings hurt by Eich's completely reasonable, defensible, and valid actions. It has nothing to do with anyone's power, just their value and contribution. Eich, as the inventor of JavaScript, provides irreplaceable value, and as he did nothing wrong, he shouldn't have been displaced.
>At one point vast majorities of people opposed interracial marriage. And, earlier, were in favor of slavery for black people, an institution maintained through brutality and torture.
However deplorable you consider these things, you need to understand the context in which such people were developed and some basics about human moral development. The black and white, scorched earth view is not beneficial to anyone except those primarily concerned with stroking their victim complex. After the South surrendered, widespread amnesty was offered, not widespread condemnation of all "bigots". One needs to learn to live with the fact that vast majorities of his contemporaries have different belief and value systems, instead of trying to force them to adopt the same value system by shame and bullying.
I don't want to get into it here, but I believe there are major differences between opposition to same-sex marriage and racial issues. Pretty much the only thing they share is that they were controversial political issues.
I agree that in the short-term, discussion on gay marriage will be chilled and it will be grudgingly accepted in light of absurdly hypocritical bullying and shame campaigns orchestrated by gay rights activists. But I don't think it will last. I think the fact that gay marriage is even entertained demonstrates that western society has been stretched to its breaking point, and I expect it to break, at which point these realities that we prefer to ignore will pronounce themselves starkly and demand recognition, as has happened over and over again when a society gets enough wealth to drink and imbibe itself into major social stupor.
I don't have a black-and-white, scorched-earth view of this. I have a lot of compassion for the people who find themselves on the wrong side of a social change. And if people want to be bigoted in the quiet of their own homes, far be it from me to try to change them. But people using the power of the state to be bigoted don't get that pass until they renounce their attempts at active harm. And they also don't automatically get to be the boss of people that they're bigoted against.
Regarding the "society is about to collapse from the liberals" bit: that has been a popular line at least since Lincoln freed the slaves. Wake me when it happens. And also fuck you for suggesting that letting my friends raise their families in peace is somehow akin to drunken self-indulgence.
The issue here is that you see this as a matter of bigotry. As long as your view of the opposition is that narrow, a constructive dialogue is impossible. I understand it may be difficult to overcome that impulse with activists constantly trying to shame people into exactly that submissive position that doesn't allow them to consider the arguments of any opposition figure without automatically self-incriminating, but I hope that people can learn not to fall for that shaming.
True, there are always people anticipating major social collapse. It just so happens that occasionally, those people are right. The fact that some of them have been wrong in the past doesn't mean the suggestion is automatically invalid.
Your belligerent, empty retort only further illustrates the validity of my arguments. The attitude of "Fuck you, and the half of society that agrees with you" doesn't really make for social cohesion or stability.
You might believe permanent cohabitation between gay people is different, just like most people who were opposed to interracial marriage. But, in both cases, it's not materially different with respect to civil marriage. Not with regards to equal protection, because no anti-gay bigot has been able to demonstrate in court a rational basis for making that distinction. And not in my experience, where what I see is just like what I see when I visit my straight friends. Happy couples and struggling couples; childless couples and couples with happy, laughing children. Children who deserve society's protection, just like any others.
Regarding the last bit, you can't claim half of society on that. An ever-declining portion of society is anxious, concerned, confused, or misled on gay marriage. I have lots of compassion for them. There are also some people who believe it's against what their god(s) want, but correctly recognized that using the power of the state to impose their religious views on others is wrong. Them, I appreciate.
There are also some bigots -- a much smaller number than the other groups -- who say hateful and false things, as you have. They, and you, can go fuck yourselves. We survived the much greater social upheavals of reducing anti-black bias; we'll certainly make it through accommodating the smaller number of homosexuals. You and your friends can go on to be the Jesse Helmses and the Don Sterlings of your day, muttering into your bran flakes about how it's all going to fall part any day now while your grandchildren politely ignore you and get on with their lives. Enjoy it.
You're seriously arguing that people should be okay with being oppressed, as long as a lot of people are oppressing them? Like, maybe we should be flattered by all the attention?
He wasn't brought down by a case that proved his practices were discriminatory. As far as I know no one has claimed that he was discriminatory in whatever hiring capacity he had with the Clippers (which for the record is probably not major). No one would know or care if the news media had something worthwhile to talk about instead of celebrity gossip. They can replay a sound bite over and over and turn a whole city against someone, someone who didn't do anything wrong other than possessing an opinion that's considered uncouth or presented as troublesome, and more than just "public outrage", they can then get his property taken against his will. The fact that this is possible, regardless of the content of the sound bite, should be very scary to anyone interested in maintaining free dialogue.
Free dialogue necessarily requires people to feel capable of expressing very unpopular things without major ramifications. Adverse governmental action is one element of this, but not the only element. I understand that the proceedings against Sterling are held in accordance with NBA bylaws to which Mr. Sterling supposedly agreed and that they're not an external legal proceeding (though I don't doubt there would be such a proceeding if the NBA didn't have provision to strip Sterling of ownership), but as stated, public hostility toward the principles of free speech, which is becoming quite massive, is nearly as problematic, especially when our media is so conglomerated.
Our modern communication media are inherently dangerous due to the extreme barrier to entry. This is changing partially with the internet, but for the time being and foreseeable future, it's still no competition with cable and establishment outlets. This is a major social and cultural threat and the FCC should do something about it.
Don't confuse disagreement with subjectivity. Racism is objectively harmful, and typically based on factual beliefs that are objectively false. Some people disagree with that, and it's their right to hold that opinion, but they're wrong.
The NBA's decision was probably driven largely by a fear of private boycotts. Do you think such boycotts are wrong, too? I.e., do you think Don Sterling's right to say racist things is more important than my right to choose not to do business with racists? Or do you think the boycott would've been ok, but the NBA should've ignored it?
However, I think the much larger problem than boycotts from random groups (which are unlikely to be effective long-term) are the steps taken to purge Sterling entirely and divest him of his property.
I prefer to judge individual actions based on their consequences and/or likely consequences, without forfeiting my right to formulate an opinion due to a popular media outlet applying an abstract negative label. In the context of news media, calling something "racist" is more about trying to forcibly project a view onto the audience than anything else.
I think it's great when people speak up about bad conditions: it's a big way that exploitative and oppressive behavior gets remedied. It seemed like Horvath knew the risks she was running, and I admire her bravery. But I wouldn't want people speaking up to be heedless about the risk they're taking.
It's worth stating that because people are treating it as if a famed IP lawyer has made a pronouncement of fact, when in actuality it's just someone giving, like, an opinion, man.
Attack the contents, if you can.
There are several lawyers that I know of right here in this thread and I don't see anybody contradicting the advice.
This is why people preface things with IANAL.
People often petition to the public (Tesla quite recently) in such cases -- regardless of pending lawsuits -- because the damage in perception can be larger than any possible legal damage. And stating simple facts of truth (such as "I copied 0 lines of code") seems doubtful to aggravate anything if they are truthful. So there are separate issues of IP: Great, but they are neither worsened or relieved by a statement about code, are they?
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 his own analysis and decisions, and he is hardly a green entrant to the industry. And maybe Carmack is making the wrong calls, because again years in technology mean exactly nothing.
Is it bog standard advice to shut up until a trial? Hardly. Many facing such a suit will make statements such as vigorously denies, etc. There is absolutely nothing abnormal or unexpected about that.
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.
Let me use an example: have you ever had a less-than-friendly breakup? Whose fault was it? Do you think both of you would answer that question the same way? At the time of the breakup, how much conviction did you have that you were in the right? How sure are you that a third party, that's not in either of your heads, would share your view with the same conviction?
1. Defending yourself makes you look guilty.
2. Defending yourself can provide legal ammunition to the opposition.
3. If it's not a legal matter, defending yourself can provide the opposition with words to manipulate to make you look even worse.
4. If they're already making spurious allegations against you, your replies will just prompt them to make more spurious allegations, much of which you may not be able to disprove. Their process of continually coming up with "new information", even if it's fake, will seem genuine to outsiders (due to cognitive bias). Responding just gives them new avenues to attack.
5. If you do defend yourself, it has to be in the form of an attack on the opposition, to discredit them. They can continue to come up with new claims all day which will just make people believe them more. You have to make it so people don't buy anything they say.
6. Besides the tactics of one-on-one mud-slinging, multiple parties provides greater weight to claims or concerns. Even if you have proof that someone is wrong, if they have 5 people all claiming the same thing, the crowd will believe them over you.
7. If this involves some kind of tight-knit in-group or community, you have to completely discredit your opposition for anyone to give a crap what you say.
The biggest problem with defending yourself is that you think the truth will win out, or the truth will come out in the end. It doesn't. The most convincing tactics win out. Lies are a lot easier weapons to use than the truth, and a lot more effective. And all of this also becomes a lot more difficult depending on the circumstances of the claims. Nobody will care if you're right if it looks like you might be wrong.
As a very highly paid barrister once said to my father "your mistake is that you think because you're right, you're going to win. You won't."
In a court of law being right may not be enough.
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.
* Public opinion has little or no monetary value where the courts have tremendous costs. Things said in public to influence public opinion can increase your court costs (possibly including judgement costs) tremendously.
* The public's attention span, and thus its opinion, generally is measured in days, maybe weeks. Court verdicts are forever.
No, it confuses silence with confirmation of its prejudice. If the court of public opinion does not think you're guilty your silence will support that, if the court of public opinion thinks you're guilty your silence will support that.
Circular statement error. Parser 'sploded. Go to sleep? [Y/n]
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 perspective, it seems the article author is the one jumping to conclusions and writing things on the internet before they're due.
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.
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.
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.
Corporate lawyers exist to protect the corporation.
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?
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.
My stress levels decreased hugely when all communication was put into the hands of our lawyers - and it was eventually resolved with both sides walking away and paying their own expenses, which wasn't great as we had done nothing wrong but was probably the least worst option.
Honestly - if someone raises a legal action against you - talk to a lawyer who specializes in the relevant area and do what they tell you, which is likely to include no public statement without their approval.
Having been involved in a lawsuit last year, even after I won, I still don't dare to publicly talk about it for fear or repercussions. I simply ask myself: what do I have to gain, and what do I have to lose?
Usually the risks and impact of the things I have to lose outweigh the things I have to gain, and it's a good way of making myself shut up.
For civil matters, although IANAL I think similar reasons apply, so similar answer: Don't Talk to the Public. If you're truly famous enough to need to break this rule, then you need an attorney who specializes in high-profile cases like this.
Edit: By "cases like this", I mean an actor or athlete level of celebrity. Probably not John Carmack, despite how famous and awesome he may be within our circles. Really, the smartest thing is to just "shut up". Even though a false accusation is a genuine personal violation and you want to defend yourself, the best defense usually won't be DIY.
Carmack quite famously made "Fuck You Money" over a decade ago. He was driving garages full of super expensive cars. He should have been the one with the levers.
Instead he became, effectively, an employee again. Why? Why would he do that?