5 ms·

Doom co-creator defends his code against ZeniMax copying accusations

35 points by happy-go-lucky 10y ago

wmil 10y ago
> "As for the denial of wiping, the Court’s independent expert found 92 percent of Carmack’s hard drive was wiped—all data was permanently destroyed, right after Carmack got notice of the lawsuit, and that his affidavit denying the wiping was false. Those are the hard facts." Lines like this are why the expert reports from the lawsuit should be public. Carmack would naturally have very unusual computer use patterns. It's easy to picture him creating an editing tool that accidentally used up almost all available swap space. Or filling up almost all of his drive space with generated textures and immediately deleting them. That would look like use of obfuscation tools to a mediore expert.
- Impossible 10y ago
  I strongly agree. Although Carmack's usage patterns might seem unusual for an average office computer user or even an average developer, the scenarios that you mentioned are common in AAA games, even if you aren't a programmer. A new feature or bug in a AAA asset pipeline can cause a wipe and rebuild of hundreds of GB of generated data. Compressed textures for multiple platforms, compiled optimized level geometry, platform encoded audio and baked light maps are standard culprits.
  - jerrycruncher 10y ago
    He also searched on how to format a drive[1] (presumably securely) after receiving notice of litigation. I know that the folks here really, really love Carmack, and want to give him every benefit of the doubt; but, for most people, that's pretty damning evidence. [1] http://www.pcgamer.com/zenimax-statement-reveals-john-carmack-googled-how-to-wipe-a-hard-drive/ http://www.pcgamer.com/zenimax-statement-reveals-john-carmac...
    - jackmott 10y ago
      One might want to wipe their drive even if they hadn't copied code, for any number of nefarious and non nefarious reasons.
      - GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
        Is there any level of evidence that could convince you?
        chris_wot 10y ago
        Dunno about him, but it would have to be a hell of a lot better than what they presented. They accuse Carmack of securely wiping evidence, so they had better present evidence that adequately proves it. And they haven't, so tough for them.
        rayiner 10y ago
        Whether anyone wiped evidence was not a fact that Zenimax had to prove. That data was deleted from Carmack's hard drive after he received a litigation notice is simply a piece of evidence the jury considered alongside all the other evidence (including testimony about alternative explanations for why data was deleted). From that evidence, Zenimax just had to prove that it was more likely than not code had been copied.
        graedus 10y ago
        > Zenimax just had to prove that it was more likely than not code had been copied. Isn't the standard in the US that one must "prove beyond a reasonable doubt", which seems like a higher standard than "more likely than not"?
        stock_toaster 10y ago
        "beyond a reasonable doubt" is only required in criminal cases. a "preponderance of evidence" is the requirement for civil cases.
- etnos 10y ago
  common now? ; )
excitom 10y ago
"Substantial similarity" can result in a copyright violation? How is it possible there is more than one cookbook describing how to make a peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwich without "substantial similarity"?
- bboreham 10y ago
  "Copyright law does not protect recipes that are mere listings of ingredients." "Copyright protection may, however, extend to substantial literary expression—a description, explanation, or illustration, for example—that accompanies a recipe" https://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html https://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html
- rayiner 10y ago
  "Even in the absence of verbatim copying, a copyright owner may show infringement by showing that the infringer had access to the work and that the two works are substantially similar." Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of Am. Inc., 975 F.2d 832, 844 (Fed. Cir. 1992). "This doctrine prevents a plagiarist from escaping infringement by making immaterial changes in the protected work." Id. To answer your question, then, the reason is that this doctrine only kicks in when the accused infringer had access to the original code. (I have, in fact, seen cases where it was pretty obvious that someone had just taken code from an SDK or something similar and just changed the variable names.)
yarou 10y ago
Excuse my French, but what the fuck does "non-literal copying" mean?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- elliottcarlson 10y ago
  I assume a non-clean-room design -- looking at the code and reinterpreting it to be different enough. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design
  - loup-vaillant 10y ago
    If it was just that, it would be legal. Clean room is a way to prove you couldn't possibly have infringed copyright. It is not mandatory.
    - elliottcarlson 10y ago
      Right - the point is that it would be non-clean room.
- oddevan 10y ago
  Given other comments in this thread, it means (1) viewing the original work (in this case, the source code), (2) making superfluous changes to avoid literal copying (changing variable names, find-replace company name, etc), and (3) passing this off as original. It sounds like it's not "You made a knockoff, that's 'non-literal copying,'", it's "You made a literal copy, changed a couple of things, and called it yours."
  - bitwize 10y ago
    No. Structure, sequence, and organization of a computer program -- not just code -- is subject to copyright per Whelan v. Jaslow. Note that the Whelan standard became relevant again after Oracle v. Google.
simplicio 10y ago
I didn't realize expert testimony could be non-public. That seems to undermine the entire idea of a public trials, IMHO. Is there some justification for it that I'm not seeing?
- jonathankoren 10y ago
  I imagine It had something to do with the fact they we're discussing trade secrets. If the secrets weren't under seal, then they wouldn't be secret, and irreparable harm would be done.
- rayiner 10y ago
  According to the article, it was the expert report that wasn't public, not the expert testimony. An expert report is not evidence, it is not reviewed by the jury. What is presented to the jury is the expert's testimony, which is subject to cross-examination by the other party. That testimony is almost always public. The expert report is prepared before trial, and explains to the other side what the expert's opinion will be and the basis for that opinion. It is used to help prepare cross-examination when the expert ultimately testifies at trial.
- candiodari 10y ago
  Yes. This is a private trial, not a criminal one. Only criminal trials are public. Private law trials are only necessarily public for the complainant and defendant. Essentially what's happening here is that there are 2 parties that signed a contact, and then one of the parties violated said contract. The only people involved are those 2 parties (and anyone they hire/ask/... to represent them). Nobody else has a right to know.

wmil 10y ago

> "As for the denial of wiping, the Court’s independent expert found 92 percent of Carmack’s hard drive was wiped—all data was permanently destroyed, right after Carmack got notice of the lawsuit, and that his affidavit denying the wiping was false. Those are the hard facts." Lines like this are why the expert reports from the lawsuit should be public. Carmack would naturally have very unusual computer use patterns. It's easy to picture him creating an editing tool that accidentally used up almost all available swap space. Or filling up almost all of his drive space with generated textures and immediately deleting them. That would look like use of obfuscation tools to a mediore expert.

Impossible 10y ago
I strongly agree. Although Carmack's usage patterns might seem unusual for an average office computer user or even an average developer, the scenarios that you mentioned are common in AAA games, even if you aren't a programmer. A new feature or bug in a AAA asset pipeline can cause a wipe and rebuild of hundreds of GB of generated data. Compressed textures for multiple platforms, compiled optimized level geometry, platform encoded audio and baked light maps are standard culprits.
- jerrycruncher 10y ago
  He also searched on how to format a drive[1] (presumably securely) after receiving notice of litigation. I know that the folks here really, really love Carmack, and want to give him every benefit of the doubt; but, for most people, that's pretty damning evidence. [1] http://www.pcgamer.com/zenimax-statement-reveals-john-carmack-googled-how-to-wipe-a-hard-drive/ http://www.pcgamer.com/zenimax-statement-reveals-john-carmac...
  - jackmott 10y ago
    One might want to wipe their drive even if they hadn't copied code, for any number of nefarious and non nefarious reasons.
    - GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
      Is there any level of evidence that could convince you?
      - chris_wot 10y ago
        Dunno about him, but it would have to be a hell of a lot better than what they presented. They accuse Carmack of securely wiping evidence, so they had better present evidence that adequately proves it. And they haven't, so tough for them.
        rayiner 10y ago
        Whether anyone wiped evidence was not a fact that Zenimax had to prove. That data was deleted from Carmack's hard drive after he received a litigation notice is simply a piece of evidence the jury considered alongside all the other evidence (including testimony about alternative explanations for why data was deleted). From that evidence, Zenimax just had to prove that it was more likely than not code had been copied.
        graedus 10y ago
        > Zenimax just had to prove that it was more likely than not code had been copied. Isn't the standard in the US that one must "prove beyond a reasonable doubt", which seems like a higher standard than "more likely than not"?
        stock_toaster 10y ago
        "beyond a reasonable doubt" is only required in criminal cases. a "preponderance of evidence" is the requirement for civil cases.
etnos 10y ago
common now? ; )

excitom 10y ago

"Substantial similarity" can result in a copyright violation? How is it possible there is more than one cookbook describing how to make a peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwich without "substantial similarity"?

bboreham 10y ago
"Copyright law does not protect recipes that are mere listings of ingredients." "Copyright protection may, however, extend to substantial literary expression—a description, explanation, or illustration, for example—that accompanies a recipe" https://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html https://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html
rayiner 10y ago
"Even in the absence of verbatim copying, a copyright owner may show infringement by showing that the infringer had access to the work and that the two works are substantially similar." Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of Am. Inc., 975 F.2d 832, 844 (Fed. Cir. 1992). "This doctrine prevents a plagiarist from escaping infringement by making immaterial changes in the protected work." Id. To answer your question, then, the reason is that this doctrine only kicks in when the accused infringer had access to the original code. (I have, in fact, seen cases where it was pretty obvious that someone had just taken code from an SDK or something similar and just changed the variable names.)

yarou 10y ago

Excuse my French, but what the fuck does "non-literal copying" mean?

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
elliottcarlson 10y ago
I assume a non-clean-room design -- looking at the code and reinterpreting it to be different enough. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design
- loup-vaillant 10y ago
  If it was just that, it would be legal. Clean room is a way to prove you couldn't possibly have infringed copyright. It is not mandatory.
  - elliottcarlson 10y ago
    Right - the point is that it would be non-clean room.
oddevan 10y ago
Given other comments in this thread, it means (1) viewing the original work (in this case, the source code), (2) making superfluous changes to avoid literal copying (changing variable names, find-replace company name, etc), and (3) passing this off as original. It sounds like it's not "You made a knockoff, that's 'non-literal copying,'", it's "You made a literal copy, changed a couple of things, and called it yours."
- bitwize 10y ago
  No. Structure, sequence, and organization of a computer program -- not just code -- is subject to copyright per Whelan v. Jaslow. Note that the Whelan standard became relevant again after Oracle v. Google.

simplicio 10y ago

I didn't realize expert testimony could be non-public. That seems to undermine the entire idea of a public trials, IMHO. Is there some justification for it that I'm not seeing?

jonathankoren 10y ago
I imagine It had something to do with the fact they we're discussing trade secrets. If the secrets weren't under seal, then they wouldn't be secret, and irreparable harm would be done.
rayiner 10y ago
According to the article, it was the expert report that wasn't public, not the expert testimony. An expert report is not evidence, it is not reviewed by the jury. What is presented to the jury is the expert's testimony, which is subject to cross-examination by the other party. That testimony is almost always public. The expert report is prepared before trial, and explains to the other side what the expert's opinion will be and the basis for that opinion. It is used to help prepare cross-examination when the expert ultimately testifies at trial.
candiodari 10y ago
Yes. This is a private trial, not a criminal one. Only criminal trials are public. Private law trials are only necessarily public for the complainant and defendant. Essentially what's happening here is that there are 2 parties that signed a contact, and then one of the parties violated said contract. The only people involved are those 2 parties (and anyone they hire/ask/... to represent them). Nobody else has a right to know.