11 ms·

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,

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.
        chris_wot 10y ago
        Yup, and it's not a preponderance of evidence. As has been shown, it's quite possible the things they state are quite innocent.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  - jackmott 10y ago
    I don't even have an opinion at this point, I'm not educated enough on the case. Though I think the case is sort of fundamentally absurd, in that Zenimax made games, Carmack helped get their games working on a VR headset. Then left to make VR headset, which Zenimax didn't make. The whole premise is odd to me. I wouldn't really care if he did copy his own code.
    - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
      many of us wouldn't. In fact, this was my initial reaction. However, many (especially people within the industry, so most of HN) disagree, as does the US legal code.
- rayiner 10y ago
  It's generally a good idea not to delete anything on a relevant drive after receiving a litigation hold. The jury is not going to draw a favorable conclusion from that combination of facts if you do. And they shouldn't. A good way to think about the task of a jury is to ask: if I take 100 situations where these facts are present, what conclusion is correct in the plurality of cases? They are not there to speculate about alternative explanations, they are there to pick the explanation that is more likely than the others.
loup-vaillant 10y ago
Who wouldn't perform a search on secure wipe when they learn they're being sued for computer related stuff? Pretty much nobody in my opinion. From that premise, probability theory says this is a tiny piece of evidence. Then again, most people are very bad at probability theory.
- eridius 10y ago
  Most people wouldn't. Destroying evidence is very very very bad.
  - loup-vaillant 10y ago
    I'm not talking about destroying evidence. I'm talking destroying unrelated yet embarrassing or potentially incriminating stuff: porn collection, downloaded movies…
    - eridius 10y ago
      One would hope you aren't storing that sort of thing on your work computer to begin with.
      - loup-vaillant 10y ago
        …non-commercial software you didn't pay a licence for (yet?), harsh email you regret… We all have something to hide.
- EpicEng 10y ago
  So, faulty premise, faulty conclusion.
- nkurz 10y ago
  I'm not sure if I'm interpreting you correctly. Do you mean "Most people aren't paranoid enough to be afraid to search for 'secure wipe' after being sued for an unrelated matter"? Or do you mean "Upon being sued, most peoples immediate reaction would be to search the web about how to destroy evidence"? My guess would that most people who believe they are innocent would have no interest in destroying evidence, and that most people who considered themselves guilty would have already taken care of hiding the evidence before being sued. probability theory says this is a tiny piece of evidence. In which direction? Slightly more likely to be guilty, because why else would the person be searching? Or slightly more likely to be innocent, because any guilty person would know not to search?
Retric 10y ago
Formatting a drive is fairly common when doing game development/3D, in other cases you would often use VM's and, but you don't want the extra abstraction layer. It's also both imortant and uncommon enough that you may do this search on a regular basis. His search history over the last 10 years has probably included formatting instructions several times.
- mwfunk 10y ago
  It's not common when you're an engineer involved in an IP lawsuit. Getting notified of this type of lawsuit also means getting a data retention notice requiring you to not do this. All sorts of special requirements come into play, and not complying with them is an immediate and huge red flag. Even if it was innocent, it looks incredibly fishy. If he did securely wipe a volume on the drive of a machine he worked on after being notified of the suit, there are literally only four explanations, all of which can be attributed to malice or ignorance: (1) Malice: he intentionally destroyed evidence. This would be on him. (2) Ignorance: he was given a retention notice by Facebook's lawyers, but didn't understand it and innocently blew away the volume. This would be on him. (3) Ignorance: Facebook's lawyers didn't immediately give him a retention notice when the suit started. This would be on Facebook's lawyers. (4) Ignorance: Facebook assigned the most incompetent IP lawyers imaginable to defend Carmack, and it never occurred to them to issue a retention notice. This would be on Facebook. This all only applies if Carmack actually did securely reformat a volume on a work machine that was relevant to this case, after being informed of this lawsuit. If that's not true, then there are other possible explanations, and this could in fact be a misrepresentation by ZeniMax.
  - Retric 10y ago
    You are ignoring the vastly more likely 5) he wiped a test machine that lacked relevant information or 6) he wiped a new machine that had no data from him or his company. If you break something, starting over and not doing the same thing is often a vastly better than trying to debug what happened and then fixing it.
    - harryh 10y ago
simplicio 10y ago
I like Carmack, but my first instinct is actually that there's something to the claims. He and Romero basically founded ID software by using their than current employers resources/paychecks. So engaging in similar behavior when going from Zenimax to Oculus wouldn't exactly shock me.
- qwertyuiop924 10y ago
  Good point. OTOH, that wasn't actual theft, IP or otherwise, just abuse of office materials and computers. Infocom did similar things at MIT in their early days, IIRC. So this accusation is much more serious than anything that Carmack did when he was founding id.

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.
        chris_wot 10y ago
        Yup, and it's not a preponderance of evidence. As has been shown, it's quite possible the things they state are quite innocent.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
- jackmott 10y ago
  I don't even have an opinion at this point, I'm not educated enough on the case. Though I think the case is sort of fundamentally absurd, in that Zenimax made games, Carmack helped get their games working on a VR headset. Then left to make VR headset, which Zenimax didn't make. The whole premise is odd to me. I wouldn't really care if he did copy his own code.
  - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
    many of us wouldn't. In fact, this was my initial reaction. However, many (especially people within the industry, so most of HN) disagree, as does the US legal code.
rayiner 10y ago
It's generally a good idea not to delete anything on a relevant drive after receiving a litigation hold. The jury is not going to draw a favorable conclusion from that combination of facts if you do. And they shouldn't. A good way to think about the task of a jury is to ask: if I take 100 situations where these facts are present, what conclusion is correct in the plurality of cases? They are not there to speculate about alternative explanations, they are there to pick the explanation that is more likely than the others.

loup-vaillant 10y ago

Who wouldn't perform a search on secure wipe when they learn they're being sued for computer related stuff? Pretty much nobody in my opinion. From that premise, probability theory says this is a tiny piece of evidence. Then again, most people are very bad at probability theory.

eridius 10y ago
Most people wouldn't. Destroying evidence is very very very bad.
- loup-vaillant 10y ago
  I'm not talking about destroying evidence. I'm talking destroying unrelated yet embarrassing or potentially incriminating stuff: porn collection, downloaded movies…
  - eridius 10y ago
    One would hope you aren't storing that sort of thing on your work computer to begin with.
    - loup-vaillant 10y ago
      …non-commercial software you didn't pay a licence for (yet?), harsh email you regret… We all have something to hide.
EpicEng 10y ago
So, faulty premise, faulty conclusion.
nkurz 10y ago
I'm not sure if I'm interpreting you correctly. Do you mean "Most people aren't paranoid enough to be afraid to search for 'secure wipe' after being sued for an unrelated matter"? Or do you mean "Upon being sued, most peoples immediate reaction would be to search the web about how to destroy evidence"? My guess would that most people who believe they are innocent would have no interest in destroying evidence, and that most people who considered themselves guilty would have already taken care of hiding the evidence before being sued. probability theory says this is a tiny piece of evidence. In which direction? Slightly more likely to be guilty, because why else would the person be searching? Or slightly more likely to be innocent, because any guilty person would know not to search?

Retric 10y ago

Formatting a drive is fairly common when doing game development/3D, in other cases you would often use VM's and, but you don't want the extra abstraction layer. It's also both imortant and uncommon enough that you may do this search on a regular basis. His search history over the last 10 years has probably included formatting instructions several times.

mwfunk 10y ago
It's not common when you're an engineer involved in an IP lawsuit. Getting notified of this type of lawsuit also means getting a data retention notice requiring you to not do this. All sorts of special requirements come into play, and not complying with them is an immediate and huge red flag. Even if it was innocent, it looks incredibly fishy. If he did securely wipe a volume on the drive of a machine he worked on after being notified of the suit, there are literally only four explanations, all of which can be attributed to malice or ignorance: (1) Malice: he intentionally destroyed evidence. This would be on him. (2) Ignorance: he was given a retention notice by Facebook's lawyers, but didn't understand it and innocently blew away the volume. This would be on him. (3) Ignorance: Facebook's lawyers didn't immediately give him a retention notice when the suit started. This would be on Facebook's lawyers. (4) Ignorance: Facebook assigned the most incompetent IP lawyers imaginable to defend Carmack, and it never occurred to them to issue a retention notice. This would be on Facebook. This all only applies if Carmack actually did securely reformat a volume on a work machine that was relevant to this case, after being informed of this lawsuit. If that's not true, then there are other possible explanations, and this could in fact be a misrepresentation by ZeniMax.
- Retric 10y ago
  You are ignoring the vastly more likely 5) he wiped a test machine that lacked relevant information or 6) he wiped a new machine that had no data from him or his company. If you break something, starting over and not doing the same thing is often a vastly better than trying to debug what happened and then fixing it.
  - harryh 10y ago

simplicio 10y ago

I like Carmack, but my first instinct is actually that there's something to the claims. He and Romero basically founded ID software by using their than current employers resources/paychecks. So engaging in similar behavior when going from Zenimax to Oculus wouldn't exactly shock me.

qwertyuiop924 10y ago
Good point. OTOH, that wasn't actual theft, IP or otherwise, just abuse of office materials and computers. Infocom did similar things at MIT in their early days, IIRC. So this accusation is much more serious than anything that Carmack did when he was founding id.