3 ms·
This is a very interesting part: [0] >The liability of Defendants was established by uncontradicted evidence presented by ZeniMax, including (i) the breakthrou
by Jerry2 10y ago
This is a very interesting part: [0]
>The liability of Defendants was established by uncontradicted evidence presented by ZeniMax, including (i) the breakthrough in VR technology occurred in March 2012 at id Software through the research efforts of our former employee John Carmack (work that ZeniMax owns) before we ever had contact with the other defendants; (ii) we shared this VR technology with the defendants under a non-disclosure agreement that expressly stated all the technology was owned by ZeniMax; (iii) the four founders of Oculus had no expertise or even backgrounds in VR—other than Palmer Luckey who could not code the software that was the key to solving the issues of VR; (iv) there was a documented stream of computer code and other technical assistance flowing from ZeniMax to Oculus over the next 6 months; (v) Oculus in writing acknowledged getting critical source code from ZeniMax; (vi) Carmack intentionally destroyed data on his computer after he got notice of this litigation and right after he researched on Google how to wipe a hard drive—and data on other Oculus computers and USB storage devices were similarly deleted (as determined by a court-appointed, independent expert in computer forensics); (vii) when he quit id Software, Carmack admitted he secretly downloaded and stole over 10,000 documents from ZeniMax on a USB storage device, as well as the entire source code to RAGE and the id tech® 5 engine —which Carmack uploaded to his Oculus computer; (viii) Carmack filed an affidavit which the court's expert said was false in denying the destruction of evidence; and (ix) Facebook's lawyers made representations to the court about those same Oculus computers which the court's expert said were inaccurate. Oculus’ response in this case that it didn’t use any code or other assistance it received from ZeniMax was not credible, and is contradicted by the testimony of Oculus programmers (who admitted cutting and pasting ZeniMax code into the Oculus SDK), as well as by expert testimony.
[0] http://www.polygon.com/2017/2/1/14478258/zenimax-oculus-injunction http://www.polygon.com/2017/2/1/14478258/zenimax-oculus-inju...
- zaroth 10y agoWow... Very damn compelling and puts the $500m in perspective. I always wonder when they are able to show someone made a particular Google search months after the fact, where are they pulling that data from? Surely the browser history is long gone...
- toomuchtodo 10y agoGoogle cloud data is not exempt from discovery.
- aedron 10y agoCompanies monitor and log network traffic. Usually looking for inappropriate content, sometimes other things (like which employees are looking at job sites).
- rbobby 10y ago> Carmack intentionally destroyed data on his computer after he got notice of this litigation and right after he researched on Google how to wipe a hard drive—and data on other Oculus computers and USB storage devices were similarly deleted (as determined by a court-appointed, independent expert in computer forensics); Disappointing behavior right there.
- erikpukinskis 10y agoEvidence destruction aside, The idea of Zenimax preventing Carmack from accessing the id tech 5 source code is heartbreaking to me. That's like cutting out a part of someone's brain. The free software third wave can't come soon enough.
- swang 10y agoUh, then maybe Carmack shouldn't have sold id software to Zenimax? id software was a independent company, not beholden to any public shareholders so it was a conscious decision to sell to them for $$$.
- nikcub 10y agoAfter reading the details of the case i'm wondering why Facebook even took this to trial. Would love to have been in the room when Facebook lawyers found out about Carmack deleting discovery material after receiving the claim and after Googling how to remove it safely. That's a hall of fame level dumb criminal move.