6 ms·

If people are wondering why this dry legal summary from two weeks ago is at the top of HN, it's probably because John Carmack just tweeted about how there's bee

If people are wondering why this dry legal summary from two weeks ago is at the top of HN, it's probably because John Carmack just tweeted about how there's been a media blackout since their win: https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/1452758104735723526 https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/1452758104735723526 According to Palmer Luckey there were tech reporters in the courtroom as the verdict was read, but they chose not to publish articles about it, presumably because something bad happening to Luckey/Oculus/Facebook would have been news, but something good doesn't fit the narrative. https://twitter.com/PalmerLuckey/status/1452753156895506433 https://twitter.com/PalmerLuckey/status/1452753156895506433

rdw 5y ago
Or maybe the reason is that it's not interesting. "Meritless lawsuit against huge company fails, status quo remains the same" stories play out every day. I'm sure it was a big deal for the participants, as most trials are, but, for anyone outside, its resolution is super boring.
- nsxwolf 5y ago
  Why did they cover it at the beginning then?
- dntrkv 5y ago
  The problem is the one-sided coverage. There was coverage of the lawsuit filed against FB & Co. They got the bad press. Then once the lawsuit was ruled in their favor, there was no coverage. Whereas, if they lost, you bet there would be coverage.
  - taneq 5y ago
    This happens all the time at all scales. "Pop culture figure accused of rape by fan!!" -> front page headlines. "Pop culture figure acquitted" -> not news.
    - Robotbeat 5y ago
      Imagine how utterly infuriating that would be if you were the one accused.
      - modeless 5y ago
        Also imagine what it means about the beliefs you have formed over the years based on what you've read in the news.
        oezi 5y ago
        You make it sound it is the news media's fault, when it is just a symptom of the public's attention and interest.
        modeless 5y ago
        No, I agree with you. As I said downthread, it's not a vast conspiracy, it's just incentives at work. But it's still a big problem that people should be aware of and care about and try to fix.
        concordDance 5y ago
        Yes, misleading bullshit stories get more clicks, but selling misleading things is unethical, even if it does get more sales. You can't blame the public for buying something if they are being mislead about it.
        oezi 5y ago
        But most of the time the media is not misleading. They are just reporting. They take the information they get and the repeat it. Most journalists wouldn't have the time nor energy to do anything but repeat the first layer of facts as they perceive it.
        concordDance 5y ago
- slownews45 5y ago
  I guess my question - given this lawsuit is so "boring" why do places like forbes go big into covering it early (facebook evil) but then when it is exposed as a sham, don't cover that outcome. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/ex-facebook-vr-founder-cant-avoid-technology-theft-lawsuit https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/ex-facebook-vr-founder-... https://www.forbes.com/sites/joeparlock/2020/06/16/lawsuit-against-oculus-founder-palmer-luckey-reinstated-a-year-after-it-was-tossed-out/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/joeparlock/2020/06/16/lawsuit-a... They literally have tech journalists in courtroom for the outcome. But if it's not anti-facebook no coverage. It is a bit weird.
  - Nullabillity 5y ago
    > why do places like forbes go big into covering it early Forbes "sites" are just glorified blogs. They reflect Forbes to the same extent that some random Blogger blog reflects Google/Alphabet. > They literally have tech journalists in courtroom for the outcome. But if it's not anti-facebook no coverage. Facebook losing would be an interesting result that may carry repercussions. Facebook winning is.. business as usual. > It is a bit weird. Meh, personally this is the first time I've heard of this debacle at all, and neither of the sources you mentioned are particularly prominent either. And even then, those articles were over a year ago. Priorities and interests change over time.
    - dntrkv 5y ago
      This isn't a one-off occurrence. This happens all the time. It's so frustrating seeing people, especially here on HN, get their pitchforks out over some accusations that reaffirm their views of an entity. Then when those accusations prove to be bullshit, crickets.
      - gopher_space 5y ago
        This isn't the denouement it's a Monday.
      - WalterGR 5y ago
        Then when those accusations prove to be bullshit, crickets. In my experience, at the conclusion of a story, people never link to their previous comments that turn out to be incorrect or off-base, offering a mea culpa. I wonder if you’re seeing is that sites have audiences that aren’t split 50/50 on potentially controversial subjects?
- jcranmer 5y ago
  In support of this comment, compare the dockets on courtlistener in this case (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4181898/total-recall-technologies-v-palmer-luckey/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4181898/total-recall-te...) versus, say, Epic v Apple (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17442392/epic-games-inc-v-apple-inc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17442392/epic-games-inc...) or Google v Uber (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4609586/waymo-llc-v-uber-technologies-inc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4609586/waymo-llc-v-ube...). What jumps out at me is how little is available via RECAP on this case. The amended complaints, for example, aren't available--and that's literally the most important of the lawsuit! In the more interesting cases, far more of the docket is available, and often even some of the uninteresting minutiae of the docket (e.g., applications for pro hac vice) are sometimes available, presumably because someone unfamiliar with how the courts work wonders why this isn't available, buys it themself only to discover that it actually was uninteresting.
- modeless 5y ago
  If reporters were in the courtroom to cover it, that means they thought that it would have been interesting, but only if Luckey had lost. This is fine if you see news as only entertainment. But if you expect news to be informative, then this kind of publication bias is presenting to you a warped version of the world and pretending that it's the truth. See also how everyone believes crime is getting worse due to increasing news coverage, when the statistics say crime is decreasing.
comex 5y ago
I just searched a number of sites for "palmer lucky total recall". Many of the ones I checked (tech: The Verge, Gizmodo, cnet; mainstream: NY Times, Washington Post) never published any articles about this lawsuit. IGN published one article when the lawsuit was first filed, and Destructoid published a copycat article. I'm not surprised the result was not interesting enough to write out, if they were even aware. TechCrunch published an article when the case was dismissed in 2017 (before being resuscitated by the 9th Circuit), but nothing else before or after. Given that that was good news for Luckey, it shows an opposite 'bias' to the one being alleged. Reuters did publish a number of articles about the case's progress and hasn't published anything about its ending, so I guess you can blame them? But overall, this is just not a case that's gotten a lot of media attention.
- modeless 5y ago
  Seems like it was covered in the enthusiast press. IGN and Destructoid as you noted. I also found coverage on Engadget, Gamespot, Polygon.com, VRFocus, UploadVR, Gamersnexus, Gameinformer, VentureBeat, Forbes. As well as mentions of the suit in other articles, used as a way to frame Luckey as someone who is constantly getting sued. It seems very difficult to find old news articles actually. Google News doesn't turn up most of the stuff I found, I had to explicitly search the individual sources. Who knows what else is missing.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
stupidcar 5y ago
While I do think many media sources have an obvious self-interested bias against Facebook, I think Luckey is biased himself in how he portrays this affair in his tweets. He talks about how the press covered the filing of the lawsuit, but neglects to mention that it was originally filed in 2015, and has been through numerous twists and turns since, being dismissed, reinstated upon appeal, etc. before finally reaching a jury trial.[1] Coverage in general has declined as the years have gone by, and this latest trial garnered little attention when it started. It wasn't as if there was minute-by-minute reporting that went dark as soon as the verdict came in. Yes, a loss for Oculus would have been an interesting story, and would have been reported on, but the reality is that Oculus and VR are simply not the zeigeisty topics they were in 2015, or even 2017, and so a "Goliath beats David after six year legal slog" story was never likely to be make headlines. As someone who spent years fighting against a meritless suit, Luckey is entitled to feel aggrieved, and to wish that its end would be as big news as its beginning. But objectively its easy to see why it wasn't, without necessarily ascribing it to an industry-wide conspiracy of silence. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/10/oculus-catches-a-break-as-trt-lawsuit-is-dismissed/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/10/oculus-catches-a-break-as-...
- pdw 5y ago
  I think this wasn't even a lawsuit against Oculus/Facebook, as far as I can tell Luckey was the sole defendant.
  - jcranmer 5y ago
    Poking around at the case on courtlistener, it does seem that Oculus was added at some point, which eventually became Facebook.
- modeless 5y ago
  > It wasn't as if there was minute-by-minute reporting that went dark as soon as the verdict came in. Luckey alleges that reporters were there and ready to cover it in case he lost. So there was still interest, just not interest in anything that was good for him. > a "Goliath beats David after six year legal slog" story was never likely to be make headlines. This is pretty much a statement of the problem right here. If your goal in reading the news is to be entertained, then it's not a problem. But if your goal is to become informed, then this bias against a certain kind of story is presenting a warped version of reality to you while pretending that it is the truth. It's not a vast conspiracy. It's just incentives at work, but the outcome is lamentable.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
johnjj257 5y ago
Even the headline reads like the jury is letting them off the hook "handing them victory". Of course people wanted to continue to pile on and get those clicks.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

rdw 5y ago

Or maybe the reason is that it's not interesting. "Meritless lawsuit against huge company fails, status quo remains the same" stories play out every day. I'm sure it was a big deal for the participants, as most trials are, but, for anyone outside, its resolution is super boring.

nsxwolf 5y ago
Why did they cover it at the beginning then?
dntrkv 5y ago
The problem is the one-sided coverage. There was coverage of the lawsuit filed against FB & Co. They got the bad press. Then once the lawsuit was ruled in their favor, there was no coverage. Whereas, if they lost, you bet there would be coverage.
- taneq 5y ago
  This happens all the time at all scales. "Pop culture figure accused of rape by fan!!" -> front page headlines. "Pop culture figure acquitted" -> not news.
  - Robotbeat 5y ago
    Imagine how utterly infuriating that would be if you were the one accused.
    - modeless 5y ago
      Also imagine what it means about the beliefs you have formed over the years based on what you've read in the news.
      - oezi 5y ago
        You make it sound it is the news media's fault, when it is just a symptom of the public's attention and interest.
        modeless 5y ago
        No, I agree with you. As I said downthread, it's not a vast conspiracy, it's just incentives at work. But it's still a big problem that people should be aware of and care about and try to fix.
        concordDance 5y ago
        Yes, misleading bullshit stories get more clicks, but selling misleading things is unethical, even if it does get more sales. You can't blame the public for buying something if they are being mislead about it.
        oezi 5y ago
        But most of the time the media is not misleading. They are just reporting. They take the information they get and the repeat it. Most journalists wouldn't have the time nor energy to do anything but repeat the first layer of facts as they perceive it.
        concordDance 5y ago
slownews45 5y ago
I guess my question - given this lawsuit is so "boring" why do places like forbes go big into covering it early (facebook evil) but then when it is exposed as a sham, don't cover that outcome. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/ex-facebook-vr-founder-cant-avoid-technology-theft-lawsuit https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/ex-facebook-vr-founder-... https://www.forbes.com/sites/joeparlock/2020/06/16/lawsuit-against-oculus-founder-palmer-luckey-reinstated-a-year-after-it-was-tossed-out/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/joeparlock/2020/06/16/lawsuit-a... They literally have tech journalists in courtroom for the outcome. But if it's not anti-facebook no coverage. It is a bit weird.
- Nullabillity 5y ago
  > why do places like forbes go big into covering it early Forbes "sites" are just glorified blogs. They reflect Forbes to the same extent that some random Blogger blog reflects Google/Alphabet. > They literally have tech journalists in courtroom for the outcome. But if it's not anti-facebook no coverage. Facebook losing would be an interesting result that may carry repercussions. Facebook winning is.. business as usual. > It is a bit weird. Meh, personally this is the first time I've heard of this debacle at all, and neither of the sources you mentioned are particularly prominent either. And even then, those articles were over a year ago. Priorities and interests change over time.
  - dntrkv 5y ago
    This isn't a one-off occurrence. This happens all the time. It's so frustrating seeing people, especially here on HN, get their pitchforks out over some accusations that reaffirm their views of an entity. Then when those accusations prove to be bullshit, crickets.
    - gopher_space 5y ago
      This isn't the denouement it's a Monday.
    - WalterGR 5y ago
      Then when those accusations prove to be bullshit, crickets. In my experience, at the conclusion of a story, people never link to their previous comments that turn out to be incorrect or off-base, offering a mea culpa. I wonder if you’re seeing is that sites have audiences that aren’t split 50/50 on potentially controversial subjects?
jcranmer 5y ago
In support of this comment, compare the dockets on courtlistener in this case (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4181898/total-recall-technologies-v-palmer-luckey/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4181898/total-recall-te...) versus, say, Epic v Apple (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17442392/epic-games-inc-v-apple-inc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17442392/epic-games-inc...) or Google v Uber (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4609586/waymo-llc-v-uber-technologies-inc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4609586/waymo-llc-v-ube...). What jumps out at me is how little is available via RECAP on this case. The amended complaints, for example, aren't available--and that's literally the most important of the lawsuit! In the more interesting cases, far more of the docket is available, and often even some of the uninteresting minutiae of the docket (e.g., applications for pro hac vice) are sometimes available, presumably because someone unfamiliar with how the courts work wonders why this isn't available, buys it themself only to discover that it actually was uninteresting.
modeless 5y ago
If reporters were in the courtroom to cover it, that means they thought that it would have been interesting, but only if Luckey had lost. This is fine if you see news as only entertainment. But if you expect news to be informative, then this kind of publication bias is presenting to you a warped version of the world and pretending that it's the truth. See also how everyone believes crime is getting worse due to increasing news coverage, when the statistics say crime is decreasing.

comex 5y ago

I just searched a number of sites for "palmer lucky total recall". Many of the ones I checked (tech: The Verge, Gizmodo, cnet; mainstream: NY Times, Washington Post) never published any articles about this lawsuit. IGN published one article when the lawsuit was first filed, and Destructoid published a copycat article. I'm not surprised the result was not interesting enough to write out, if they were even aware. TechCrunch published an article when the case was dismissed in 2017 (before being resuscitated by the 9th Circuit), but nothing else before or after. Given that that was good news for Luckey, it shows an opposite 'bias' to the one being alleged. Reuters did publish a number of articles about the case's progress and hasn't published anything about its ending, so I guess you can blame them? But overall, this is just not a case that's gotten a lot of media attention.

modeless 5y ago
Seems like it was covered in the enthusiast press. IGN and Destructoid as you noted. I also found coverage on Engadget, Gamespot, Polygon.com, VRFocus, UploadVR, Gamersnexus, Gameinformer, VentureBeat, Forbes. As well as mentions of the suit in other articles, used as a way to frame Luckey as someone who is constantly getting sued. It seems very difficult to find old news articles actually. Google News doesn't turn up most of the stuff I found, I had to explicitly search the individual sources. Who knows what else is missing.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

stupidcar 5y ago

While I do think many media sources have an obvious self-interested bias against Facebook, I think Luckey is biased himself in how he portrays this affair in his tweets. He talks about how the press covered the filing of the lawsuit, but neglects to mention that it was originally filed in 2015, and has been through numerous twists and turns since, being dismissed, reinstated upon appeal, etc. before finally reaching a jury trial.[1] Coverage in general has declined as the years have gone by, and this latest trial garnered little attention when it started. It wasn't as if there was minute-by-minute reporting that went dark as soon as the verdict came in. Yes, a loss for Oculus would have been an interesting story, and would have been reported on, but the reality is that Oculus and VR are simply not the zeigeisty topics they were in 2015, or even 2017, and so a "Goliath beats David after six year legal slog" story was never likely to be make headlines. As someone who spent years fighting against a meritless suit, Luckey is entitled to feel aggrieved, and to wish that its end would be as big news as its beginning. But objectively its easy to see why it wasn't, without necessarily ascribing it to an industry-wide conspiracy of silence. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/10/oculus-catches-a-break-as-trt-lawsuit-is-dismissed/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/10/oculus-catches-a-break-as-...

pdw 5y ago
I think this wasn't even a lawsuit against Oculus/Facebook, as far as I can tell Luckey was the sole defendant.
- jcranmer 5y ago
  Poking around at the case on courtlistener, it does seem that Oculus was added at some point, which eventually became Facebook.
modeless 5y ago
> It wasn't as if there was minute-by-minute reporting that went dark as soon as the verdict came in. Luckey alleges that reporters were there and ready to cover it in case he lost. So there was still interest, just not interest in anything that was good for him. > a "Goliath beats David after six year legal slog" story was never likely to be make headlines. This is pretty much a statement of the problem right here. If your goal in reading the news is to be entertained, then it's not a problem. But if your goal is to become informed, then this bias against a certain kind of story is presenting a warped version of reality to you while pretending that it is the truth. It's not a vast conspiracy. It's just incentives at work, but the outcome is lamentable.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

johnjj257 5y ago

Even the headline reads like the jury is letting them off the hook "handing them victory". Of course people wanted to continue to pile on and get those clicks.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]