36 ms·

SimulaVR Has Been Subpoenaed by Meta Platforms, Inc

754 points by phiresky 4y ago

mlatu 4y ago
endominus 4y ago
From their post, it appears that Simula don't intend to comply with the subpoena. IANAL. Does receipt of these documents carry an obligation to provide the documents and deposition requested? Does this open them to later legal action if they refuse? It seems like a strange thing for a corporation to be able to demand that other companies hand over stuff like this, no matter the circumstance.
- pyb 4y ago
  Nowhere does it say that they don't intend to comply.
- georgewsinger 4y ago
  Just to clarify: we're seeking legal counsel and intend to comply with the law. Many other larger companies have fought these subpoenas (Snap, etc) and, as far as we can tell, still had to hand over items.
  - endominus 4y ago
    Apologies, I apparently read too much into your statement about difficulty of hiring a legal defense and your "hope [that] they leave us alone." Good luck and I hope this doesn't take the wind out of your sails too much.
  - TakeBlaster16 4y ago
    If that's true, it sounds like companies have been weaponizing the legal system to get access to proprietary information from their competitors. Surely that has got to be illegal somehow?
    - mekkkkkk 4y ago
      The court decides whether a subpoena should be upheld or not. If the judge has signed off on this one, then it's all legit. Failing to comply would be contempt of court.
      - Algent 4y ago
        I'll never understand how US court system basically allow you to randomly force anyone unrelated to a case into it and suffer the legal cost. It make it so easy to weaponize any case to your advantage.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        bombcar 4y ago
        Like many things in the world, it all only works because the vast majority of people aren't assholes. As it gets more and more weaponized the slow arm of the law will move to prevent it.
        mekkkkkk 4y ago
        What if a ruling requires information held by someone else? Should the case just be dismissed because of lack of evidence? Having a functional justice system is probably worth some snags. The legal cost aspect is unfortunate. However, as others have mentioned, the court probably doesn't require the assembly of new documents, but rather submission of existing ones. So while there is a cost, it's not devastating. The interesting question is whether or not this specific subpoena has real merit, or if the court was played by Meta.
  - moron4hire 4y ago
    I know it's not helpful at this point, but you really should have had a relationship with a lawyer already. But now is the next best time. This is just the first time you're running into issues. As you grow, you're almost guaranteed to hit more. You'd also be smart to have a lawyer available to review all of your intellectual property, terms of service, privacy policies, etc. I'm just a solo punter myself, but having my legal counsel already setup, knowing that I can call them at any time, rather than having to scramble to find someone in the moment a problem happens, gives me a lot of peace of mind. Given how you're positioned as an Open Source company, maybe the Electronic Frontier Foundation can help you find someone good.
    - kanetw 4y ago
      We already have standing legal counsel. George made it sound like we're just now seeking a lawyer, but we already reviewed our policies etc in the past.
  - aliqot 4y ago
    Time to get well-versed in malicious compliance.
    - BiteCode_dev 4y ago
      A game in which a small startup can only choose among different bad endings
    - colejohnson66 4y ago
      Malicious compliance is a good way to get thrown in contempt. Courts aren't stupid.
- extropy 4y ago
  The subpoena is issued by a judge for a pending case, you can either fight it by submitting an opposing motion or be held in contempt of court which in this case is pretty much a loss.
- ajross 4y ago
  A subpoena is a court order (and the service requirement constitutes legal proof that it was delivered). Refusal to comply is contempt, which can be punished as a crime. No, you don't get to ignore a subpoena. In this particular case it looks like they're just being asked to testify about their product in an unrelated case. They aren't being sued. Call your lawyer first and do what they say. Most likely you can arrange a deposition more convenient to your schedule and location.
  - georgewsinger 4y ago
    Just want to clarify: we're not ignoring this subpoena and intend to comply with the law. We're in contact with a lawyer and are discussing our options with them.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Who pays for all the costs associated with this? Can you abuse the legal system to drive a company into bankruptcy by repeatedly subpoenaing them?
    - dugmartin 4y ago
      There are anti-SLAPP laws but those are for more for protecting freedom of speech: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_publ... but you can be labeled a "vexatious litigant" which causes you to be radioactive for representation (nobody wants to disbarred): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation (IANAL but I enjoy watching them on TV)
      - bombcar 4y ago
        From what I understand vexatious litigant is a really, really high bar to cross, and any remotely competent lawyer should be able to prevent you from crossing it.
    - ajross 4y ago
      People are really (really) misinterpreting this. The OP isn't being sued, they aren't being attacked as a competitor to Meta. (In fact the obvious guess here was that they're being asked to testify in this antitrust case to the fact that their product is successful!) A subpoena is just a demand for testimony. The court wants to "know what you know" so it can make a better decision. Testimony before courts of law is part of your civic duty as an inhabitant of a nation under the rule of law. Yes, it has costs. You have to bear them for the same reason you need to pay your taxes, because a civilization without courts isn't one we want to live in.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
LeonenTheDK 4y ago
Well that is unfortunate. I would not want to be in Simula's position, I'm sure they've got enough on their plate without having to deal with stuff like this that they barely have an impact on in the first place. I understand that Meta needs to prove they're not a monopoly, and apparently the way to do that is through other companies laying their cards on the table, but my goodness would I feel uncomfortable giving core business plans, outlooks, and associated data to a huge (and arguably unethical) company like Meta. It's unreal that this is just a thing that can be done, but I'd expect those documents to never reach the eyes of anyone who guides business decisions at Meta. Or so I hope. Or maybe this kind of information isn't as sensitive as I think, I don't run a business and have no plans to currently, so I'm not savvy in that department.
- throbintrash 4y ago
  - marcinzm 4y ago
    Why does it matter how other companies are to their point?
    - throbintrash 4y ago
      I'm just saying there are no ethical companies of that size so it's a disengineous point to bring up. the deeper realization is that is not fair (nor conducing to good social outcome) to try and hold an entity such as Meta (formerly facebook) to individual person standards such as being ethical. this is more important in other discussions around rights of corporations (and other comparalby powerful institutions) in contrast with the righs of human individuals (see also: censorship by 'private persons' but this person is google or something) but let's just bury my ancestor reply before going any deeper. gosh.
      - meesterdude 4y ago
        > so it's a disengineous point to bring up. In the public eye, Meta is particularly unethical. It's a large part of their current downfall. So I don't agree with you that it is a disingenuous point.
blantonl 4y ago
Times are getting tough generating revenue from customers.
Raed667 4y ago
Can someone explain why is meta entitled to see a 3rd party's business plans, financials and statistics?
- kodah 4y ago
  It's explained in the post. The FTC accused them of being anti-competitive. The only way to show you're not anti-competitive is to demand documents of your opponents that demonstrate you still have competition.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - ekianjo 4y ago
    Then why not share to the FTC themselves and not META so that you can still keep it confidential from your competition?
    - neltnerb 4y ago
      In general it's a good idea to let the defendant decide how to argue their case and have access to evidence, for better and worse.
    - piggybox 4y ago
      Because FTC isn't the defendant. How would anyone share counter evidence to the plaintiff?
      - ekianjo 4y ago
        then how about a neutral third party?
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
madamelic 4y ago
Sounds like ~~Meta~~ Facebook is planning on moving into SimulaVR's turf and wants to know all the details for free and is abusing a legal process to get it. Doesn't seem like a coincidence they are the only tiny headset subpeonaed while others are big (public) corporations.
- pid_0 4y ago
traverseda 4y ago
Well I am not a lawyer, and if I was a lawyer I wouldn't be a lawyer in that country, but my understanding is that SimularVR is under no obligation to create any new documents or gather any new information. So for example the answer to "Fine-grained usage statistics of our software" can legitimately be "we don't have any". If I was SimulaVR I would gather all documents that currently exist, and be very careful about creating any new documents regarding any of this before consulting with a lawyer. I imagine that creating new documents in answer to this might create further obligations, but I really don't know. Of course I'm not a lawyer and don't really know what I'm talking about, and this is not legal advice.
dsign 4y ago
This is not Meta demanding to see some privilege information that exists in Simula's drawers, but rather commandeering the entire competing organization to do market research for Meta. It is clever and evil, and nothing anybody says after this will make me think that Meta is not anti-competitive nor that they have an once of ethics. As a consumer, I doubt I will ever again consider their VR products; I rather give my money to Satan, or even Google.
- kordlessagain 4y ago
  This. I will never give money to Meta for anything.
- JeezusJuiceTPR 4y ago
  I don’t really know the rules of evidence, but I don’t think this is coming directly from Meta, nor that they’re allowed to review these documents themselves. The subpoena has to come from the court, and so I imagine it’s the court reviewing the documents, not Meta. I sure hope that’s how it works. I’d love for a lawyer to chime in, though.
  - jjulius 4y ago
    IANAL, but I would imagine that at the very least, Meta's lawyers would need to be able to see the documentation so that they can adequately prepare their argument/defense.
  - cldellow 4y ago
    ? It is literally coming from Meta. That's what the subpoena and court filings that are screenshotted on that page show. Meta sought the subpoena, the court granted it, and now Simula has to testify at a deposition where the questions will be asked by Meta. And... it sort of has to work this way? It's not the job of the court to do Meta or FTC's advocacy for them.
    - greensoap 4y ago
      Federal Courts don't usually grant a subpoena. Notably, the notice of third-party subpoeonas from this case wasn't even filed in the case. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64436614/federal-trade-commission-v-meta-platforms-inc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64436614/federal-trade-... Rather a lawyer that is admitted to the case uses his power as a representative to serve a subpoena. These are usually NOT reviewed by the judge or court first. The person receiving a subpoena can ask the court to quash the subpoena (basically void or modify the subpoena) if they believe the subpoena is inappropriate, unduly burdensome, or whatever else.
Entinel 4y ago
These types of things are incredibly silly. During the Epic vs Apple charade, Apple subpoenaed Steam for financial records as well which the judge forced Steam to comply with. The fact that a situation completely unrelated to me can force me to hand over what I would consider business secrets is a bit absurd.
- ohgodplsno 4y ago
  Exposing those "business secrets" still has value, even to the general public. However, Apple should also have been forced to reveal their financial records.
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    What "business secrets" did Valve hide?
cableshaft 4y ago
>We're don't view ourselves in competition with Meta >...Meta sells reasonably good gaming headsets to customers who want to be entertained in VR; we're selling general-purpose productivity devices which are aimed at replacing PCs and laptops. Hate to break it to you, but if you don't think that Mark Zuckerberg is actively trying to create VR devices that are general-purpose productivity devices aimed at replacing PCs and laptops, you haven't been watching some of their recent videos about the new headsets and prototype headsets they're working on. He very much is aiming for that market with future devices (not the Quest 2). Here's a couple: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMpWH6vDZ8E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMpWH6vDZ8E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zHDkdkqd1I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zHDkdkqd1I Also he's described their Project Cambria headset as intended for productivity, as in the following article: "What’s different about Project Cambria? The most important description we’ve received about Project Cambria comes from The Information; according to the publication, Meta employees have alternately described the headset as a “laptop for the face” or a “Chromebook for the face.” It’s a device Zuckerberg hopes people will use to get work done rather than being aimed primarily at gamers as with previous headsets." https://thenextweb.com/news/meta-project-cambria-what-we-know https://thenextweb.com/news/meta-project-cambria-what-we-kno...
- Raed667 4y ago
  Mark wants to be able to sell apps and ads on his end-to-end controlled platform, that is it. He missed the boat on browsers and smartphones, so he is aiming for total monopoly of what he believes is the next-big-thing™.
  - JKCalhoun 4y ago
    I'm still skeptical that it is The Next Big Thing. I wonder if Zuckerberg suspects it might not be as well but, hey, Hail Mary!
    - sam1r 4y ago
      Then again, however, a 100b size company — like meta —inevitably has to go for moonshots when their primary source of revenue is steadily declining. Seems like he has no choice. Even if it doesn’t work or we’re all skeptical — he better play along and go for it.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
incomingpain 4y ago
If I were simulaVR, I would make this very painful to meta. You would put together business plans that literally say no other vendor can compete against meta. Basically confirm the anti-competition. That even that subpeona is anticompetive and an attempt to further crush them. Malicious compliance the entire way.
- haneefmubarak 4y ago
  I think the subpoena is mostly for existing records and novel records of existing plans. IANAL, but I think if you were to create novel documents that were most certainly less than honest for the purpose of swaying the case, there could be legal consequences for you. Courts aren't stupid - if it becomes apparent that you are attempting to maliciously comply, they can still get you based on your apparent intent.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Yeah, don't go creating bullshit in response, but anyone who is remotely connected to anything Meta, Google, Apple are involved in should have in their documents details on why they won't be competing with the big names.
  - incomingpain 4y ago
    Obviously playing with very hot fire. Simula has to have a business plan. Has to list their competitors like HTC and Meta who are anticompetitively working together on a virtual world. viveverse is literally called metaverse; technically i don't know if it's literally the same virtual world. You can then look at Lenovo, Microsoft, Valve and Google whose VR stuff died. Your assumption is they cant compete against them. Then you explain your business plan of finding a wierd open source niche. Entirely because competing against meta is impossible. I'm not saying fabricating evidence or like try to get your accounts banned off facebook to make it look like they are trying to crush you. You simply make the reasonable argument and business case a unresourced startup can't compete against a 350billion $ org with an army of devs. Meta's fault for bothering you. Then again you're literally holding a paper vial of anthrax on this one if you do it. #YOLO
- 4y ago
adwi 4y ago
I know this story won’t make headline news but boy, Meta sure seem to be going out of their way to shred every last bit of goodwill they have with, well, everyone?
legohead 4y ago
Not exactly on top but in the SimulaVR video linked in the article there is a HN easter egg [1]. [1] https://youtu.be/x293SiEdv4M?t=55 https://youtu.be/x293SiEdv4M?t=55
bee_rider 4y ago
One annoying thing about Facebook is that they already have zero goodwill among anybody who pays attention to this kind of stuff, so it isn't like these kind of shenanigans will really hurt their reputation.
afrcnc 4y ago
I will never understand the US legal system. How is this even allowed? This is IP pilfering through a sham lawsuit and the courts.
fencepost 4y ago
Not a lawyer or involved in the legal system, but is this a situation where you can respond with your rates for providing this expert witness service? If so, this may be a situation where you can charge them $500/hr plus costs (eg atty) for the service of extracting, redacting and summarizing some of the information they've requested. Edit: your attorney may have a better idea of what rates for this might be, but I'd suggest looking into what it costs to have a known and respected third party physician do chart review and testify in court in malpractice cases, then consider what they'd charge if they were also expected to anonymize and show information from their own practice and patient charts.
bilekas 4y ago
This seems a bit wild and super anti-competitive, of course it's hard to say with only hearing from simulaVR's perspective. The content of information they're required to handover also seems incredibly sensitive, wouldn't that basically give Meta more 'Market Research' simply by reviewing these documents ? It does seem a little bit like the corporate version of a 'Slap suite' also given how financially restricted Simula seem.
Roark66 4y ago
If this is actually how US's justice system works it is even more bonkers than I thought. Could someone versed in this legal system explain, please? Is is any accused that can demand documents/data/free research from vaguely related third parties, or only large companies? Enquiring minds want to know!
- colejohnson66 4y ago
  If one is accused of antitrust practices (as Meta is by the FTC), your defense is to show that there's actually competition. It's not that Meta that wants the documents for corporate espionage (or whatever), but that they want to prove that SimulaVR is competing just fine in the market that contains Meta. This is explained in the article, which many here clearly didn't read past the headline. This is roughly the same as subpoenaing someone as a witness; you don't really have a choice. In fact, Meta themselves won't be looking at the documents; their lawyers, the FCC, and the rest of the court will. This is standard procedure, and no different from if SMALL_CORP sued BIG_CORP; BIG_CORP would still have to comply with subpoenas from SMALL_CORP.
  - Huh1337 4y ago
    So someone is sued for anticompetitive practices and that gives them alibi for looking directly into others' books, and they're just supposed to trust Meta will forget all the information afterwards?
    - haneefmubarak 4y ago
      IANAL, but AIUI in theory all major competitors get subpoenaed and then everything they say becomes part of the public record - so everyone sees everyone's cards laid out.
      - Huh1337 4y ago
        How exactly does that change anything? Meta is a 100000x larger company, they can do much more with that info than the others. And what about foreign competitors? What about not yet founded/stealth competitors? What about competitors only maybe planning to release a product (e.g. Apple)?
notrealyme123 4y ago
I hope SimulaVR does crowdfounding the legal costs instead of folding to facebook. This is the first and yet only VR Product i am deeply interested in.
- kanetw 4y ago
  We're going to absorb the legal expenditures as part of our overall expenses, but you can crowdfund us by preordering a headset :)
m3kw9 4y ago
What if you just give them a very loose summary and see. Do the minimum first
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
AlwaysRock 4y ago
Frankly there is nothing worse than seeing a legal notice. At best it means thousands of dollars in lawyer fees and added stress/lost time. At worst its the end of a company.
benreesman 4y ago
Maybe I've just been on a too-long coding stretch, but speaking for myself, it's just really unsavory to read so much "red/blue"-style sloganism around the big tech companies. Obviously I'm biased because I worked for one, and so I saw up close the process that produces the decisions that seem to routinely generate comment threads with people comparing Google/FB/MSFT/etc. to e.g. "Satan". It's just not that simple folks: and a hallmark of why this forum is great is that we tackle "not that simple" with a relentless curiosity rather than 1-bit generalizations. I routinely whack these megacorps for their shady dealings. But this "Marg bar Āmrikā" shit is an unflattering look for such a thoughtful community and it ignores that huge parts of this community are a direct personal object of very nasty remarks made "in general" on a fairly daily basis. People are quite pleased to enjoy the corporate funding of all the open-source projects that wouldn't exist without the megacorps: try saying something bad about Kubernetes if you don't believe me. It's not a 1-bit thing, and Hacker News is Hacker News because when people (and I've been that guy) throw rocks, we demand better.
- georgewsinger 4y ago
  I agree, and just want to reiterate what was written in the article: we genuinely feel no animosity towards Meta and its gaming headsets. We don't even feel animosity that they have leveraged their economies of scale to provide them very cheaply to consumers (something we aren't able to do yet[1]). We just disagree with their product vision, and are pursuing our own. We also think subpoenaing us for this case seems unreasonable. [1] https://simulavr.com/blog/why-is-the-simula-one-so-expensive/ https://simulavr.com/blog/why-is-the-simula-one-so-expensive...
  - benreesman 4y ago
    I suspect that with all such things, that a hacker's opinion on the relevant law is probably `/r/ConfidentlyIncorrect`. I have no opinion on the substantial legal matters at question. It's been my observation that the ranking folks at Meta in the VR world are as ethical as fiduciary obligation permits, but YMMV. I thank you for your reply and hope that you agree that a substantial legal matter which will inevitably be resolved by people competent to do so shouldn't become a political football in a small but influential forum of people who on average know as little about IP law as I do :)
expensive_news 4y ago
I’m surprised to see that Apple isn’t on the list of companies being subpoenaed. Maybe one advantage of not announcing your hotly rumored VR project until it’s done and available is that no one can subpoena you to ask about it.
- bombcar 4y ago
  The iPhone already has "AR" so yeah, I'm surprised they weren't on the list. If Meta could argue that Apple is a competitor, they'd've already won.
nailer 4y ago
Off topic but their product seems awesome - VR computers specifically designed for coding, including displaying small text, running Linux, etc. Beats working from a coding laptop: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x293SiEdv4M&t=25s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x293SiEdv4M&t=25s
- kanetw 4y ago
  It's a bit tooting my own horn but when I first put on the prototype it was really satisfying. Incredibly crisp.
- whateveracct 4y ago
  It really is - and on the topic of "competition".. Meta is not a competitor to Simula and honestly never will be because they will never give you Freedom to run Linux and hack to your heart's content. But Simula is a competitor to Meta in that their existence gives people like me a serious (non-toy) VR headset they'd actually buy. So the reason Meta has competition from Simula is because they're terrible from a consumer-privacy and -respect perspective.
  - MikusR 4y ago
    Quest runs Android and Android run on Linux.
    - selfhoster11 4y ago
      So? Android is Linux only in the most technical sense, but not in the sense most people care about. - you’re not free to switch distros like you can with conventional Linux hardware - you cannot run a conventional Linux userland except for sad parodies of it that work out of a “chroot” - X11 and Wayland support is limited Android is diet Linux, not the real thing.
    - whateveracct 4y ago
      That's only technically correct. I'd say given the words I said around "Linux," your response is pedantic at best. Android is in no way what I want. And is it Open and Free? Can I do whatever I want with it? Can I install NixOS Mobile? Jailbreaking doesn't count since we are talking about official product offerings. If I can't run my own software from source + make my device completely decoupled from Meta, it isn't a competitor of Simula to me.
unknownaccount 4y ago
This is exactly the type of thing that made me lose All faith in the US Justice System and consider defecting.
- ivraatiems 4y ago
  What, why? This is normal legal process. I hate Meta plenty, check my comment history, but this isn't an unusual or corrupt thing.
  - unknownaccount 4y ago
    Being forced to divulge your trade secrets to a competitor company’s legal team + cover the cost of travel to court in a far away state + denial of income- under circumstances in which you’ve done nothing wrong -might be “normal legal process” but it’s highly unethical in my opinion. Just one of many ways in which a small business in USA can get wreaked by the legal system over the most frivolous of things.
WaitWaitWha 4y ago
You need to get a lawyer. I am not a lawyer, but I annoy them daily. You can decide not to appear, but you can be held in contempt. Note that your subpoena comes from the court, not Meta. You need to get the lawyer to negotiate down what to provide. The first salvo is always everything, including the kitchen sink. You need a lawyer to know to whom to talk to. You need to get the lawyer to negotiate the expenses associated with this. Read Rule 45 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45) much of what you describe (distance, financial burden) are addressed there. Did I mention, you need a lawyer?
- kanetw 4y ago
  First thing we did was get a lawyer.
  - MikusR 4y ago
    And they suggested that you write a blog post?
    - kanetw 4y ago
      We ran it past them and they ok'd it. We as a company are fundamentally very open. It is quite literally a core facet of our business, and that includes not just the technical parts. Of course there's stuff that's internal, but something that's literally a matter of public record isn't it.
  - WaitWaitWha 4y ago
    Thank you. It did not come across in your blog post. May your lawyer be cheap, vicious, despicable, and never-losing.
- awinter-py 4y ago
  rule 45 allows attorneys of record in a case to issue subpoenas without leave of the court, I think subpoena may not 'come from the court' per this https://media.goldbergsegalla.com/uploads/sll-mpl_forthedefense_oct2013.pdf https://media.goldbergsegalla.com/uploads/sll-mpl_forthedefe... (but this doesn't change your point about risk of contempt + it being a good idea to respond)
danielmarkbruce 4y ago
I'm not a lawyer but: you can get all this stuff done in an hour. It's not an exercise in creating new material. You pull all the documents you already have on stuff like this, and anything you don't have you can say you don't have. When you appear and are asked, give a short, high level but honest description of the industry - it's pretty simple really - "it's early stages, there are a number of players, Meta is the big dog as it currently stands."
- nickstinemates 4y ago
  > you can get all this stuff done in an hour "I am not a developer, but adding multi tenancy to our product is as simple as adding a tenantid to every field in our database! Should only take a day or two"
  - danielmarkbruce 4y ago
    Not quite the same.... There isn't a state licensing requirement to be a software developer. Any person off the street can start writing software tomorrow and call themselves a developer. There are a good number of jobs where someone needs to know a lot about the law, has taken courses or read a lot about it, makes decisions on legal matters on a day to day basis, but cannot call themselves a lawyer. A couple examples include anyone who works on mergers and acquisitions or distressed debt investing. It's similar to "im not a financial advisor" or "this isn't financial advice". It can be from someone who knows an awful lot about the topic.
    - nickstinemates 4y ago
      I think making assumptions about operating models, how easy something is or isn't to gather, etc. is inappropriate. In the same way a random 3rd party may make assumptions about you or your life based on these posts. They don't know you or anything about you. Unless you have some unique insight into the situation, your assessment of the simplicity of dealing with this subpoena is not useful. Obviously, SimulaVR feels differently or they wouldn't have written a blog post about it, wouldn't be in these comments, and we wouldn't be talking about it. And they'd know how onerous it is, given it affects them and they've said it is.
iamjk 4y ago
Someone fix the grammar on that last statement! "We're don't view ourselves in competition with Meta"
cwkoss 4y ago
SimulaVR should try to explain to the courts how the subpoena itself is having an anticompetitive effect.
m00x 4y ago
Can't wait for armchair lawyers making wild accusations on things they don't understand in these comments
chirau 4y ago
Who pays the legal fees in this case?
- bombcar 4y ago
  From what I'm gathering it's on SimulaVR to respond to the subpoena, but there's nothing preventing them from having their solicitor contact Meta's and arrange for payment to cover costs.
tmpfile 4y ago
Couldn't SimulaVR request all the same documents from Meta in response? Or is it a one-way process? I'm sure Meta's legal team would find reasons why they wouldn't have to be responsive or other ways narrow the scope. SimulaVR in turn could use the same arguments against Meta.
- awinter-py 4y ago
  simulavr isn't a party to the suit, their powers here are going to be more limited
micimize 4y ago
I don't begrudge them their annoyance (or click-through harvesting) but there is a straightforward legal process for objecting to and quashing a subpoena. Seems like it might apply here, at least in part: https://www.klgates.com/Litigation-Minute-Responding-to-Third-Party-Subpoenas-10-15-2020 https://www.klgates.com/Litigation-Minute-Responding-to-Thir... Also RE some speculation in this thread, it seems very unlikely to me that Meta's legal team was looking to get some free market research, but it is interesting to consider.
- thesausageking 4y ago
  If you never been through discovery, it can seem that way, but nothing is straightforward or cheap about responding to a subpoena in a high profile case with a $500B company. Samsung, Nintendo, and the other parties listed likely will spent $1-2m on these subpoenas. It likely involves thousands and thousands of messages and documents. A lot of back and forth with lawyers ("Each of these 12 employees exported everything with the word 'roadmap' in their email? what about Sandy's personal phone; I see a reference to an SMS elsewhere"), IP council to redact things, and then prep and support for the deposition. SimulaVR is a tiny startup. It very well could kill them.
  - micimize 4y ago
    yeesh – one would hope that would fall under "undue burden or expense" but yeah I guess you never know how this kinda thing plays out until you've been through the ringer (like everything). Thinking again, I can't believe I included the descriptor "straightforward"
robg 4y ago
The problem here is the FTC trying to regulate a nascent industry by fiat. The startup is caught up in the silliness of trying to define competition in an area of trade that doesn’t really exist yet. Exactly when the FTC should go find something better to do, like health claims in supplements.
- 0x457 4y ago
  > Exactly when the FTC should go find something better to do, like health claims in supplements. That's FDA.
bbarn 4y ago
I get the arguments that Meta is forced to defend it's claim it's not being anticompetitive, but isn't part of a small business like SimulaVR's sole competitive advantage being secretive with it's plans because it doesn't have to publicly state everything it's doing? Wouldn't this take that away from them? Is it not a simple enough point to object to the subpoena on?
sushiburps 4y ago
The irony of an antitrust lawsuit hurting smaller competitors.
ilrwbwrkhv 4y ago
As Facebook slowly dies we will see more and more thrashing from the monster.
diceduckmonk 4y ago
Just stumbled upon this article about Meta getting a 3rd party Instagram client removed. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33108032 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33108032 Wondering if it’s just a coincidence that Meta is taking all these measures now.
stazz1 4y ago
The interesting takeaway is that even if you don't consider SimulaVR a competitor of Meta, Meta does O_O
danielmarkbruce 4y ago
Meta is allowed to defend themselves against lawsuits. SimulaVR is a startup in the space. They have a shot in VR, or at least believe they do. SimulaVR a great example for Meta to use to defend themselves against a stupid lawsuit. The FTC shouldn't be bringing this case. VR is still up for grabs. Defining the relevant market as the "dedicated fitness virtual reality app market" is questionable, and the idea it "proves the value of virtual reality" is nonsense. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/07/ftc-seeks-block-virtual-reality-giant-metas-acquisition-popular-app-creator-within https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/07/... The idea that meta have some dominant position that can't be overcome is like suggesting Excite or Altavista had a dominant position in search that couldn't be overcome in the 90's, or MySpace in social in the early 00's. It's too early to call this market "won".
- ece 4y ago
  > VR is still up for grabs Curious statement, considering the FTC is trying to preserve competition in the space. Excite and Altavista weren't trying to buy up the biggest websites around at the time.
  - danielmarkbruce 4y ago
    Yes and they are overreaching in response to a perceived miss many years ago when FB bought Instagram. The VR market is so young and small that it doesn't need regulatory intervention. Let's allow it play out a little bit before we get regulators involved who think things like: this app is something which "proves the value of virtual reality to users". And yeah, they were, and they were being bought and sold, and Yahoo too. There was lots of m&a action in the space. Virtually everyone involved went under despite having a dominant position for a hot minute.
    - ece 4y ago
      From your link, the FTC says: > "Meta already owns a best-selling virtual reality fitness app, and it had the capabilities to compete even more closely with Within’s popular Supernatural app. But Meta chose to buy market position instead of earning it on the merits." I don't buy that VR is so young, we're a couple generations in now on multiple platforms. There are still new entrants in the space, which is good, and they would be negatively impacted if there were less established independent developers. Facebook had a head start, and they're trying their best to lock up the market before Apple/others enter it.
ineedasername 4y ago
Meta’s defense on not being anti-competitive is to use the legal system to force all potential competitors to turn over incredibly sensitive information about their business & operations… how is this even allowed under the law? Can Facebook really just demand this?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ivraatiems 4y ago
  That's not really what's happening here. Meta can't just steal that info; it goes to Meta's lawyers, who will review it and decide what to do based on it. Meta itself won't get to see it, necessarily, unless the court lets them. You might say "well, you can't trust lawyers" - but most attorneys actually take the security of processes like these extremely seriously, because they'll lose their jobs (and law licenses) if they don't. But anyway, the right thing to do if SimulaVR doesn't want to reveal this info is to oppose the subpoena and try to get it quashed. Not write angry blog posts.
  - ineedasername 4y ago
    Are there rules preventing Meta from seeing the info? It seems like they would be allowed, themselves, to look at anything considered evidence in the case, barring an order from the judge to the contrary.
    - ivraatiems 4y ago
      I believe what SimulaVR would do is petition the court to seal their responses and put conditions on who and how those responses can be viewed. Not an uncommon thing to do.
  - chatterhead 4y ago
jphsnsir 4y ago
Ordered a founders edition many months ago. I hope to use it one day and add it to my nixos config. If not it'll help the open source community. One thing is certain, the VR/AR I want to use won't come from big tech.
ivraatiems 4y ago
This blog post doesn't explain what they are actually going to do about this. It's just a (non-legal) complaint about the fact they got a subpoena, which is honestly a pretty normal and uncontroversial thing. It might be bad for Meta to request this info, but if so, the right thing to do is get a lawyer, submit a motion to quash, and then go after Meta for costs through legal process. What is SimulaVR actually going to do to respond to this? Do they intend to respond? Who's representing them? I can't imagine a lawyer recommended writing this blog post. The "we can't afford this" argument doesn't hold water. Lawyers are expensive but this is not a complicated thing SimulaVR is being asked to do, and they're likely to get their costs back from the court if they ask.
- pid_0 4y ago
awinter-py 4y ago
ianal but if I were drafting simula's motion to quash, I would mention that the categories of information fb wants are confidential or trade secrets under most employment agreements, including probably fb's and that rule 45 requires the court to quash if the subpoena is for 'privileged or other protected matter' and if you can prove undue burden you can sanction their firm (in theory at least) (could also just refresh the northern district's efile until big G responds, then steal theirs)
thom_ 4y ago
_HMCB_ 4y ago
I’d tell FB where to go.
raydiatian 4y ago
That commercial is hilarious. Everybody is clearly mocking this dipshit for wearing a VR headset in public.
gardenhedge 4y ago
TIL how a subpoena can work. I had no idea.
raydiatian 4y ago
Never forget, the company is called Facebook. The Meta rebrand was a desperate ploy to sidestep negative attention surrounding ongoing litigation and to bolster hope in the dying company as they try to pivot toward VR.
shrewduser 4y ago
man, hacker news is just not what it used to be.
chatterhead 4y ago
Forge36 4y ago
Could this subpoena be used by SimulaVR as evidence of behaving anticompetitively by sucking away resources for legal proceedings?
zmmmmm 4y ago
I do wonder if this blog post might be used by Meta in a way the authors didn't intend. Stating that they are not at all worried about competition from Meta is exactly what Meta needs to present as evidence. Aside from that I'm not convinced SimulaVR shouldn't be worried. Regardless of whether Meta is targeting the productivity space intentionally (it is, I think) SimulaVR can very easily be a casualty of their dominance. For example I was interested in buying into SimulaVR but I probably won't if the Quest Pro is even close to good enough because along with that I get access to all the Oculus games etc.
hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
As someone who is not a lawyer, my question is what are the potential response avenues to a subpoena like this. That is, Meta has essentially demanded a ton of work from SimulaVR, for free. I very much agree with Simula's response of "We can't afford stuff like this". So, realistically, what are Simula's options? I imagine a "fuck off" response won't go over well with the court. Can they give some cursory information? Is there some way they can challenge the subpoena as overly burdensome? I hate how our legal system makes it so easy to demand work from someone else, when the burden on the demanding party is so extremely low. Why shouldn't Meta need to pay hundreds of dollars an hour for the information they are requesting? The lawyers are definitely charging that much.
- tannhauser23 4y ago
  This kind of subpoena is boilerplate. No one actually expects SimulaVR to provide all this information or to show up for a deposition. This is actually how it will go down: SimulaVR-Lawyer: Hey Meta-lawyer, I got your subpoena. We're a tiny company and this is overbroad. What do you guys actually want? Meta-lawyer: Totally understand. Can we get a declaration from your founder about what your company is trying to do, who their competitors are, and few info about your financials? If you have pitch decks for investors, we'd love to get that as well. SimulaVR-Lawyer: That seems doable but can the financials be filed under seal and attorney-eyes-only? Meta-lawyer: Yeah that makes sense. SimulaVR-Lawyer: Lemme talk to the founders and follow up with you. Let's talk later about what the declaration will look like. Meta-lawyer: Thank you - appreciate it, and looking forward to hearing back soon.
faangiq 4y ago
Oh look it’s another episode of “USG and bigco collaborate for cartoon-villain style antics.”
seydor 4y ago
SimulaVR should see this as a massive endorsement and indicate they are the one company that threatens the behemoth and are open for investors. In fact they should consider changing their motto to "Injunctioned by Meta"
unhammer 4y ago
https://simulavr.com/blog/software-overview/ https://simulavr.com/blog/software-overview/ VR, Godot, Haskell, Wayland – these people are having too much fun, must be karma

754 points by phiresky 4y ago

From their post, it appears that Simula don't intend to comply with the subpoena. IANAL. Does receipt of these documents carry an obligation to provide the documents and deposition requested? Does this open them to later legal action if they refuse? It seems like a strange thing for a corporation to be able to demand that other companies hand over stuff like this, no matter the circumstance.

pyb 4y ago
Nowhere does it say that they don't intend to comply.
georgewsinger 4y ago
Just to clarify: we're seeking legal counsel and intend to comply with the law. Many other larger companies have fought these subpoenas (Snap, etc) and, as far as we can tell, still had to hand over items.
- endominus 4y ago
  Apologies, I apparently read too much into your statement about difficulty of hiring a legal defense and your "hope [that] they leave us alone." Good luck and I hope this doesn't take the wind out of your sails too much.
- TakeBlaster16 4y ago
  If that's true, it sounds like companies have been weaponizing the legal system to get access to proprietary information from their competitors. Surely that has got to be illegal somehow?
  - mekkkkkk 4y ago
    The court decides whether a subpoena should be upheld or not. If the judge has signed off on this one, then it's all legit. Failing to comply would be contempt of court.
    - Algent 4y ago
      I'll never understand how US court system basically allow you to randomly force anyone unrelated to a case into it and suffer the legal cost. It make it so easy to weaponize any case to your advantage.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - bombcar 4y ago
        Like many things in the world, it all only works because the vast majority of people aren't assholes. As it gets more and more weaponized the slow arm of the law will move to prevent it.
      - mekkkkkk 4y ago
        What if a ruling requires information held by someone else? Should the case just be dismissed because of lack of evidence? Having a functional justice system is probably worth some snags. The legal cost aspect is unfortunate. However, as others have mentioned, the court probably doesn't require the assembly of new documents, but rather submission of existing ones. So while there is a cost, it's not devastating. The interesting question is whether or not this specific subpoena has real merit, or if the court was played by Meta.
- moron4hire 4y ago
  I know it's not helpful at this point, but you really should have had a relationship with a lawyer already. But now is the next best time. This is just the first time you're running into issues. As you grow, you're almost guaranteed to hit more. You'd also be smart to have a lawyer available to review all of your intellectual property, terms of service, privacy policies, etc. I'm just a solo punter myself, but having my legal counsel already setup, knowing that I can call them at any time, rather than having to scramble to find someone in the moment a problem happens, gives me a lot of peace of mind. Given how you're positioned as an Open Source company, maybe the Electronic Frontier Foundation can help you find someone good.
  - kanetw 4y ago
    We already have standing legal counsel. George made it sound like we're just now seeking a lawyer, but we already reviewed our policies etc in the past.
- aliqot 4y ago
  Time to get well-versed in malicious compliance.
  - BiteCode_dev 4y ago
    A game in which a small startup can only choose among different bad endings
  - colejohnson66 4y ago
    Malicious compliance is a good way to get thrown in contempt. Courts aren't stupid.
extropy 4y ago
The subpoena is issued by a judge for a pending case, you can either fight it by submitting an opposing motion or be held in contempt of court which in this case is pretty much a loss.
ajross 4y ago
A subpoena is a court order (and the service requirement constitutes legal proof that it was delivered). Refusal to comply is contempt, which can be punished as a crime. No, you don't get to ignore a subpoena. In this particular case it looks like they're just being asked to testify about their product in an unrelated case. They aren't being sued. Call your lawyer first and do what they say. Most likely you can arrange a deposition more convenient to your schedule and location.
- georgewsinger 4y ago
  Just want to clarify: we're not ignoring this subpoena and intend to comply with the law. We're in contact with a lawyer and are discussing our options with them.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Who pays for all the costs associated with this? Can you abuse the legal system to drive a company into bankruptcy by repeatedly subpoenaing them?
  - dugmartin 4y ago
    There are anti-SLAPP laws but those are for more for protecting freedom of speech: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_publ... but you can be labeled a "vexatious litigant" which causes you to be radioactive for representation (nobody wants to disbarred): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation (IANAL but I enjoy watching them on TV)
    - bombcar 4y ago
      From what I understand vexatious litigant is a really, really high bar to cross, and any remotely competent lawyer should be able to prevent you from crossing it.
  - ajross 4y ago
    People are really (really) misinterpreting this. The OP isn't being sued, they aren't being attacked as a competitor to Meta. (In fact the obvious guess here was that they're being asked to testify in this antitrust case to the fact that their product is successful!) A subpoena is just a demand for testimony. The court wants to "know what you know" so it can make a better decision. Testimony before courts of law is part of your civic duty as an inhabitant of a nation under the rule of law. Yes, it has costs. You have to bear them for the same reason you need to pay your taxes, because a civilization without courts isn't one we want to live in.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

LeonenTheDK 4y ago

Well that is unfortunate. I would not want to be in Simula's position, I'm sure they've got enough on their plate without having to deal with stuff like this that they barely have an impact on in the first place. I understand that Meta needs to prove they're not a monopoly, and apparently the way to do that is through other companies laying their cards on the table, but my goodness would I feel uncomfortable giving core business plans, outlooks, and associated data to a huge (and arguably unethical) company like Meta. It's unreal that this is just a thing that can be done, but I'd expect those documents to never reach the eyes of anyone who guides business decisions at Meta. Or so I hope. Or maybe this kind of information isn't as sensitive as I think, I don't run a business and have no plans to currently, so I'm not savvy in that department.

throbintrash 4y ago
- marcinzm 4y ago
  Why does it matter how other companies are to their point?
  - throbintrash 4y ago
    I'm just saying there are no ethical companies of that size so it's a disengineous point to bring up. the deeper realization is that is not fair (nor conducing to good social outcome) to try and hold an entity such as Meta (formerly facebook) to individual person standards such as being ethical. this is more important in other discussions around rights of corporations (and other comparalby powerful institutions) in contrast with the righs of human individuals (see also: censorship by 'private persons' but this person is google or something) but let's just bury my ancestor reply before going any deeper. gosh.
    - meesterdude 4y ago
      > so it's a disengineous point to bring up. In the public eye, Meta is particularly unethical. It's a large part of their current downfall. So I don't agree with you that it is a disingenuous point.

blantonl 4y ago

Times are getting tough generating revenue from customers.

Raed667 4y ago

Can someone explain why is meta entitled to see a 3rd party's business plans, financials and statistics?

kodah 4y ago
It's explained in the post. The FTC accused them of being anti-competitive. The only way to show you're not anti-competitive is to demand documents of your opponents that demonstrate you still have competition.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ekianjo 4y ago
  Then why not share to the FTC themselves and not META so that you can still keep it confidential from your competition?
  - neltnerb 4y ago
    In general it's a good idea to let the defendant decide how to argue their case and have access to evidence, for better and worse.
  - piggybox 4y ago
    Because FTC isn't the defendant. How would anyone share counter evidence to the plaintiff?
    - ekianjo 4y ago
      then how about a neutral third party?
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago

madamelic 4y ago

Sounds like ~~Meta~~ Facebook is planning on moving into SimulaVR's turf and wants to know all the details for free and is abusing a legal process to get it. Doesn't seem like a coincidence they are the only tiny headset subpeonaed while others are big (public) corporations.

pid_0 4y ago

traverseda 4y ago

Well I am not a lawyer, and if I was a lawyer I wouldn't be a lawyer in that country, but my understanding is that SimularVR is under no obligation to create any new documents or gather any new information. So for example the answer to "Fine-grained usage statistics of our software" can legitimately be "we don't have any". If I was SimulaVR I would gather all documents that currently exist, and be very careful about creating any new documents regarding any of this before consulting with a lawyer. I imagine that creating new documents in answer to this might create further obligations, but I really don't know. Of course I'm not a lawyer and don't really know what I'm talking about, and this is not legal advice.

dsign 4y ago

This is not Meta demanding to see some privilege information that exists in Simula's drawers, but rather commandeering the entire competing organization to do market research for Meta. It is clever and evil, and nothing anybody says after this will make me think that Meta is not anti-competitive nor that they have an once of ethics. As a consumer, I doubt I will ever again consider their VR products; I rather give my money to Satan, or even Google.

kordlessagain 4y ago
This. I will never give money to Meta for anything.
JeezusJuiceTPR 4y ago
I don’t really know the rules of evidence, but I don’t think this is coming directly from Meta, nor that they’re allowed to review these documents themselves. The subpoena has to come from the court, and so I imagine it’s the court reviewing the documents, not Meta. I sure hope that’s how it works. I’d love for a lawyer to chime in, though.
- jjulius 4y ago
  IANAL, but I would imagine that at the very least, Meta's lawyers would need to be able to see the documentation so that they can adequately prepare their argument/defense.
- cldellow 4y ago
  ? It is literally coming from Meta. That's what the subpoena and court filings that are screenshotted on that page show. Meta sought the subpoena, the court granted it, and now Simula has to testify at a deposition where the questions will be asked by Meta. And... it sort of has to work this way? It's not the job of the court to do Meta or FTC's advocacy for them.
  - greensoap 4y ago
    Federal Courts don't usually grant a subpoena. Notably, the notice of third-party subpoeonas from this case wasn't even filed in the case. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64436614/federal-trade-commission-v-meta-platforms-inc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64436614/federal-trade-... Rather a lawyer that is admitted to the case uses his power as a representative to serve a subpoena. These are usually NOT reviewed by the judge or court first. The person receiving a subpoena can ask the court to quash the subpoena (basically void or modify the subpoena) if they believe the subpoena is inappropriate, unduly burdensome, or whatever else.

Entinel 4y ago

These types of things are incredibly silly. During the Epic vs Apple charade, Apple subpoenaed Steam for financial records as well which the judge forced Steam to comply with. The fact that a situation completely unrelated to me can force me to hand over what I would consider business secrets is a bit absurd.

ohgodplsno 4y ago
Exposing those "business secrets" still has value, even to the general public. However, Apple should also have been forced to reveal their financial records.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  What "business secrets" did Valve hide?

cableshaft 4y ago

>We're don't view ourselves in competition with Meta >...Meta sells reasonably good gaming headsets to customers who want to be entertained in VR; we're selling general-purpose productivity devices which are aimed at replacing PCs and laptops. Hate to break it to you, but if you don't think that Mark Zuckerberg is actively trying to create VR devices that are general-purpose productivity devices aimed at replacing PCs and laptops, you haven't been watching some of their recent videos about the new headsets and prototype headsets they're working on. He very much is aiming for that market with future devices (not the Quest 2). Here's a couple: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMpWH6vDZ8E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMpWH6vDZ8E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zHDkdkqd1I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zHDkdkqd1I Also he's described their Project Cambria headset as intended for productivity, as in the following article: "What’s different about Project Cambria? The most important description we’ve received about Project Cambria comes from The Information; according to the publication, Meta employees have alternately described the headset as a “laptop for the face” or a “Chromebook for the face.” It’s a device Zuckerberg hopes people will use to get work done rather than being aimed primarily at gamers as with previous headsets." https://thenextweb.com/news/meta-project-cambria-what-we-know https://thenextweb.com/news/meta-project-cambria-what-we-kno...

Raed667 4y ago
Mark wants to be able to sell apps and ads on his end-to-end controlled platform, that is it. He missed the boat on browsers and smartphones, so he is aiming for total monopoly of what he believes is the next-big-thing™.
- JKCalhoun 4y ago
  I'm still skeptical that it is The Next Big Thing. I wonder if Zuckerberg suspects it might not be as well but, hey, Hail Mary!
  - sam1r 4y ago
    Then again, however, a 100b size company — like meta —inevitably has to go for moonshots when their primary source of revenue is steadily declining. Seems like he has no choice. Even if it doesn’t work or we’re all skeptical — he better play along and go for it.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

incomingpain 4y ago

If I were simulaVR, I would make this very painful to meta. You would put together business plans that literally say no other vendor can compete against meta. Basically confirm the anti-competition. That even that subpeona is anticompetive and an attempt to further crush them. Malicious compliance the entire way.

haneefmubarak 4y ago
I think the subpoena is mostly for existing records and novel records of existing plans. IANAL, but I think if you were to create novel documents that were most certainly less than honest for the purpose of swaying the case, there could be legal consequences for you. Courts aren't stupid - if it becomes apparent that you are attempting to maliciously comply, they can still get you based on your apparent intent.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Yeah, don't go creating bullshit in response, but anyone who is remotely connected to anything Meta, Google, Apple are involved in should have in their documents details on why they won't be competing with the big names.
- incomingpain 4y ago
  Obviously playing with very hot fire. Simula has to have a business plan. Has to list their competitors like HTC and Meta who are anticompetitively working together on a virtual world. viveverse is literally called metaverse; technically i don't know if it's literally the same virtual world. You can then look at Lenovo, Microsoft, Valve and Google whose VR stuff died. Your assumption is they cant compete against them. Then you explain your business plan of finding a wierd open source niche. Entirely because competing against meta is impossible. I'm not saying fabricating evidence or like try to get your accounts banned off facebook to make it look like they are trying to crush you. You simply make the reasonable argument and business case a unresourced startup can't compete against a 350billion $ org with an army of devs. Meta's fault for bothering you. Then again you're literally holding a paper vial of anthrax on this one if you do it. #YOLO
4y ago

adwi 4y ago

I know this story won’t make headline news but boy, Meta sure seem to be going out of their way to shred every last bit of goodwill they have with, well, everyone?

legohead 4y ago

Not exactly on top but in the SimulaVR video linked in the article there is a HN easter egg [1]. [1] https://youtu.be/x293SiEdv4M?t=55 https://youtu.be/x293SiEdv4M?t=55

bee_rider 4y ago

One annoying thing about Facebook is that they already have zero goodwill among anybody who pays attention to this kind of stuff, so it isn't like these kind of shenanigans will really hurt their reputation.

afrcnc 4y ago

I will never understand the US legal system. How is this even allowed? This is IP pilfering through a sham lawsuit and the courts.

fencepost 4y ago

Not a lawyer or involved in the legal system, but is this a situation where you can respond with your rates for providing this expert witness service? If so, this may be a situation where you can charge them $500/hr plus costs (eg atty) for the service of extracting, redacting and summarizing some of the information they've requested. Edit: your attorney may have a better idea of what rates for this might be, but I'd suggest looking into what it costs to have a known and respected third party physician do chart review and testify in court in malpractice cases, then consider what they'd charge if they were also expected to anonymize and show information from their own practice and patient charts.

bilekas 4y ago

This seems a bit wild and super anti-competitive, of course it's hard to say with only hearing from simulaVR's perspective. The content of information they're required to handover also seems incredibly sensitive, wouldn't that basically give Meta more 'Market Research' simply by reviewing these documents ? It does seem a little bit like the corporate version of a 'Slap suite' also given how financially restricted Simula seem.

Roark66 4y ago

If this is actually how US's justice system works it is even more bonkers than I thought. Could someone versed in this legal system explain, please? Is is any accused that can demand documents/data/free research from vaguely related third parties, or only large companies? Enquiring minds want to know!

colejohnson66 4y ago
If one is accused of antitrust practices (as Meta is by the FTC), your defense is to show that there's actually competition. It's not that Meta that wants the documents for corporate espionage (or whatever), but that they want to prove that SimulaVR is competing just fine in the market that contains Meta. This is explained in the article, which many here clearly didn't read past the headline. This is roughly the same as subpoenaing someone as a witness; you don't really have a choice. In fact, Meta themselves won't be looking at the documents; their lawyers, the FCC, and the rest of the court will. This is standard procedure, and no different from if SMALL_CORP sued BIG_CORP; BIG_CORP would still have to comply with subpoenas from SMALL_CORP.
- Huh1337 4y ago
  So someone is sued for anticompetitive practices and that gives them alibi for looking directly into others' books, and they're just supposed to trust Meta will forget all the information afterwards?
  - haneefmubarak 4y ago
    IANAL, but AIUI in theory all major competitors get subpoenaed and then everything they say becomes part of the public record - so everyone sees everyone's cards laid out.
    - Huh1337 4y ago
      How exactly does that change anything? Meta is a 100000x larger company, they can do much more with that info than the others. And what about foreign competitors? What about not yet founded/stealth competitors? What about competitors only maybe planning to release a product (e.g. Apple)?

notrealyme123 4y ago

I hope SimulaVR does crowdfounding the legal costs instead of folding to facebook. This is the first and yet only VR Product i am deeply interested in.

kanetw 4y ago
We're going to absorb the legal expenditures as part of our overall expenses, but you can crowdfund us by preordering a headset :)

m3kw9 4y ago

What if you just give them a very loose summary and see. Do the minimum first

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

AlwaysRock 4y ago

Frankly there is nothing worse than seeing a legal notice. At best it means thousands of dollars in lawyer fees and added stress/lost time. At worst its the end of a company.

benreesman 4y ago

Maybe I've just been on a too-long coding stretch, but speaking for myself, it's just really unsavory to read so much "red/blue"-style sloganism around the big tech companies. Obviously I'm biased because I worked for one, and so I saw up close the process that produces the decisions that seem to routinely generate comment threads with people comparing Google/FB/MSFT/etc. to e.g. "Satan". It's just not that simple folks: and a hallmark of why this forum is great is that we tackle "not that simple" with a relentless curiosity rather than 1-bit generalizations. I routinely whack these megacorps for their shady dealings. But this "Marg bar Āmrikā" shit is an unflattering look for such a thoughtful community and it ignores that huge parts of this community are a direct personal object of very nasty remarks made "in general" on a fairly daily basis. People are quite pleased to enjoy the corporate funding of all the open-source projects that wouldn't exist without the megacorps: try saying something bad about Kubernetes if you don't believe me. It's not a 1-bit thing, and Hacker News is Hacker News because when people (and I've been that guy) throw rocks, we demand better.

georgewsinger 4y ago
I agree, and just want to reiterate what was written in the article: we genuinely feel no animosity towards Meta and its gaming headsets. We don't even feel animosity that they have leveraged their economies of scale to provide them very cheaply to consumers (something we aren't able to do yet[1]). We just disagree with their product vision, and are pursuing our own. We also think subpoenaing us for this case seems unreasonable. [1] https://simulavr.com/blog/why-is-the-simula-one-so-expensive/ https://simulavr.com/blog/why-is-the-simula-one-so-expensive...
- benreesman 4y ago
  I suspect that with all such things, that a hacker's opinion on the relevant law is probably `/r/ConfidentlyIncorrect`. I have no opinion on the substantial legal matters at question. It's been my observation that the ranking folks at Meta in the VR world are as ethical as fiduciary obligation permits, but YMMV. I thank you for your reply and hope that you agree that a substantial legal matter which will inevitably be resolved by people competent to do so shouldn't become a political football in a small but influential forum of people who on average know as little about IP law as I do :)

expensive_news 4y ago

I’m surprised to see that Apple isn’t on the list of companies being subpoenaed. Maybe one advantage of not announcing your hotly rumored VR project until it’s done and available is that no one can subpoena you to ask about it.

bombcar 4y ago
The iPhone already has "AR" so yeah, I'm surprised they weren't on the list. If Meta could argue that Apple is a competitor, they'd've already won.

nailer 4y ago

Off topic but their product seems awesome - VR computers specifically designed for coding, including displaying small text, running Linux, etc. Beats working from a coding laptop: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x293SiEdv4M&t=25s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x293SiEdv4M&t=25s

kanetw 4y ago
It's a bit tooting my own horn but when I first put on the prototype it was really satisfying. Incredibly crisp.
whateveracct 4y ago
It really is - and on the topic of "competition".. Meta is not a competitor to Simula and honestly never will be because they will never give you Freedom to run Linux and hack to your heart's content. But Simula is a competitor to Meta in that their existence gives people like me a serious (non-toy) VR headset they'd actually buy. So the reason Meta has competition from Simula is because they're terrible from a consumer-privacy and -respect perspective.
- MikusR 4y ago
  Quest runs Android and Android run on Linux.
  - selfhoster11 4y ago
    So? Android is Linux only in the most technical sense, but not in the sense most people care about. - you’re not free to switch distros like you can with conventional Linux hardware - you cannot run a conventional Linux userland except for sad parodies of it that work out of a “chroot” - X11 and Wayland support is limited Android is diet Linux, not the real thing.
  - whateveracct 4y ago
    That's only technically correct. I'd say given the words I said around "Linux," your response is pedantic at best. Android is in no way what I want. And is it Open and Free? Can I do whatever I want with it? Can I install NixOS Mobile? Jailbreaking doesn't count since we are talking about official product offerings. If I can't run my own software from source + make my device completely decoupled from Meta, it isn't a competitor of Simula to me.

unknownaccount 4y ago

This is exactly the type of thing that made me lose All faith in the US Justice System and consider defecting.

ivraatiems 4y ago
What, why? This is normal legal process. I hate Meta plenty, check my comment history, but this isn't an unusual or corrupt thing.
- unknownaccount 4y ago
  Being forced to divulge your trade secrets to a competitor company’s legal team + cover the cost of travel to court in a far away state + denial of income- under circumstances in which you’ve done nothing wrong -might be “normal legal process” but it’s highly unethical in my opinion. Just one of many ways in which a small business in USA can get wreaked by the legal system over the most frivolous of things.

WaitWaitWha 4y ago

You need to get a lawyer. I am not a lawyer, but I annoy them daily. You can decide not to appear, but you can be held in contempt. Note that your subpoena comes from the court, not Meta. You need to get the lawyer to negotiate down what to provide. The first salvo is always everything, including the kitchen sink. You need a lawyer to know to whom to talk to. You need to get the lawyer to negotiate the expenses associated with this. Read Rule 45 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45) much of what you describe (distance, financial burden) are addressed there. Did I mention, you need a lawyer?

kanetw 4y ago
First thing we did was get a lawyer.
- MikusR 4y ago
  And they suggested that you write a blog post?
  - kanetw 4y ago
    We ran it past them and they ok'd it. We as a company are fundamentally very open. It is quite literally a core facet of our business, and that includes not just the technical parts. Of course there's stuff that's internal, but something that's literally a matter of public record isn't it.
- WaitWaitWha 4y ago
  Thank you. It did not come across in your blog post. May your lawyer be cheap, vicious, despicable, and never-losing.
awinter-py 4y ago
rule 45 allows attorneys of record in a case to issue subpoenas without leave of the court, I think subpoena may not 'come from the court' per this https://media.goldbergsegalla.com/uploads/sll-mpl_forthedefense_oct2013.pdf https://media.goldbergsegalla.com/uploads/sll-mpl_forthedefe... (but this doesn't change your point about risk of contempt + it being a good idea to respond)

danielmarkbruce 4y ago

I'm not a lawyer but: you can get all this stuff done in an hour. It's not an exercise in creating new material. You pull all the documents you already have on stuff like this, and anything you don't have you can say you don't have. When you appear and are asked, give a short, high level but honest description of the industry - it's pretty simple really - "it's early stages, there are a number of players, Meta is the big dog as it currently stands."

nickstinemates 4y ago
> you can get all this stuff done in an hour "I am not a developer, but adding multi tenancy to our product is as simple as adding a tenantid to every field in our database! Should only take a day or two"
- danielmarkbruce 4y ago
  Not quite the same.... There isn't a state licensing requirement to be a software developer. Any person off the street can start writing software tomorrow and call themselves a developer. There are a good number of jobs where someone needs to know a lot about the law, has taken courses or read a lot about it, makes decisions on legal matters on a day to day basis, but cannot call themselves a lawyer. A couple examples include anyone who works on mergers and acquisitions or distressed debt investing. It's similar to "im not a financial advisor" or "this isn't financial advice". It can be from someone who knows an awful lot about the topic.
  - nickstinemates 4y ago
    I think making assumptions about operating models, how easy something is or isn't to gather, etc. is inappropriate. In the same way a random 3rd party may make assumptions about you or your life based on these posts. They don't know you or anything about you. Unless you have some unique insight into the situation, your assessment of the simplicity of dealing with this subpoena is not useful. Obviously, SimulaVR feels differently or they wouldn't have written a blog post about it, wouldn't be in these comments, and we wouldn't be talking about it. And they'd know how onerous it is, given it affects them and they've said it is.

iamjk 4y ago

Someone fix the grammar on that last statement! "We're don't view ourselves in competition with Meta"

cwkoss 4y ago

SimulaVR should try to explain to the courts how the subpoena itself is having an anticompetitive effect.

m00x 4y ago

Can't wait for armchair lawyers making wild accusations on things they don't understand in these comments

chirau 4y ago

Who pays the legal fees in this case?

bombcar 4y ago
From what I'm gathering it's on SimulaVR to respond to the subpoena, but there's nothing preventing them from having their solicitor contact Meta's and arrange for payment to cover costs.

tmpfile 4y ago

Couldn't SimulaVR request all the same documents from Meta in response? Or is it a one-way process? I'm sure Meta's legal team would find reasons why they wouldn't have to be responsive or other ways narrow the scope. SimulaVR in turn could use the same arguments against Meta.

awinter-py 4y ago
simulavr isn't a party to the suit, their powers here are going to be more limited

micimize 4y ago

I don't begrudge them their annoyance (or click-through harvesting) but there is a straightforward legal process for objecting to and quashing a subpoena. Seems like it might apply here, at least in part: https://www.klgates.com/Litigation-Minute-Responding-to-Third-Party-Subpoenas-10-15-2020 https://www.klgates.com/Litigation-Minute-Responding-to-Thir... Also RE some speculation in this thread, it seems very unlikely to me that Meta's legal team was looking to get some free market research, but it is interesting to consider.

thesausageking 4y ago
If you never been through discovery, it can seem that way, but nothing is straightforward or cheap about responding to a subpoena in a high profile case with a $500B company. Samsung, Nintendo, and the other parties listed likely will spent $1-2m on these subpoenas. It likely involves thousands and thousands of messages and documents. A lot of back and forth with lawyers ("Each of these 12 employees exported everything with the word 'roadmap' in their email? what about Sandy's personal phone; I see a reference to an SMS elsewhere"), IP council to redact things, and then prep and support for the deposition. SimulaVR is a tiny startup. It very well could kill them.
- micimize 4y ago
  yeesh – one would hope that would fall under "undue burden or expense" but yeah I guess you never know how this kinda thing plays out until you've been through the ringer (like everything). Thinking again, I can't believe I included the descriptor "straightforward"

robg 4y ago

The problem here is the FTC trying to regulate a nascent industry by fiat. The startup is caught up in the silliness of trying to define competition in an area of trade that doesn’t really exist yet. Exactly when the FTC should go find something better to do, like health claims in supplements.

0x457 4y ago
> Exactly when the FTC should go find something better to do, like health claims in supplements. That's FDA.

bbarn 4y ago

I get the arguments that Meta is forced to defend it's claim it's not being anticompetitive, but isn't part of a small business like SimulaVR's sole competitive advantage being secretive with it's plans because it doesn't have to publicly state everything it's doing? Wouldn't this take that away from them? Is it not a simple enough point to object to the subpoena on?

sushiburps 4y ago

The irony of an antitrust lawsuit hurting smaller competitors.

ilrwbwrkhv 4y ago

As Facebook slowly dies we will see more and more thrashing from the monster.

diceduckmonk 4y ago

Just stumbled upon this article about Meta getting a 3rd party Instagram client removed. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33108032 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33108032 Wondering if it’s just a coincidence that Meta is taking all these measures now.

stazz1 4y ago

The interesting takeaway is that even if you don't consider SimulaVR a competitor of Meta, Meta does O_O

danielmarkbruce 4y ago

Meta is allowed to defend themselves against lawsuits. SimulaVR is a startup in the space. They have a shot in VR, or at least believe they do. SimulaVR a great example for Meta to use to defend themselves against a stupid lawsuit. The FTC shouldn't be bringing this case. VR is still up for grabs. Defining the relevant market as the "dedicated fitness virtual reality app market" is questionable, and the idea it "proves the value of virtual reality" is nonsense. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/07/ftc-seeks-block-virtual-reality-giant-metas-acquisition-popular-app-creator-within https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/07/... The idea that meta have some dominant position that can't be overcome is like suggesting Excite or Altavista had a dominant position in search that couldn't be overcome in the 90's, or MySpace in social in the early 00's. It's too early to call this market "won".

ece 4y ago
> VR is still up for grabs Curious statement, considering the FTC is trying to preserve competition in the space. Excite and Altavista weren't trying to buy up the biggest websites around at the time.
- danielmarkbruce 4y ago
  Yes and they are overreaching in response to a perceived miss many years ago when FB bought Instagram. The VR market is so young and small that it doesn't need regulatory intervention. Let's allow it play out a little bit before we get regulators involved who think things like: this app is something which "proves the value of virtual reality to users". And yeah, they were, and they were being bought and sold, and Yahoo too. There was lots of m&a action in the space. Virtually everyone involved went under despite having a dominant position for a hot minute.
  - ece 4y ago
    From your link, the FTC says: > "Meta already owns a best-selling virtual reality fitness app, and it had the capabilities to compete even more closely with Within’s popular Supernatural app. But Meta chose to buy market position instead of earning it on the merits." I don't buy that VR is so young, we're a couple generations in now on multiple platforms. There are still new entrants in the space, which is good, and they would be negatively impacted if there were less established independent developers. Facebook had a head start, and they're trying their best to lock up the market before Apple/others enter it.

ineedasername 4y ago

Meta’s defense on not being anti-competitive is to use the legal system to force all potential competitors to turn over incredibly sensitive information about their business & operations… how is this even allowed under the law? Can Facebook really just demand this?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ivraatiems 4y ago
That's not really what's happening here. Meta can't just steal that info; it goes to Meta's lawyers, who will review it and decide what to do based on it. Meta itself won't get to see it, necessarily, unless the court lets them. You might say "well, you can't trust lawyers" - but most attorneys actually take the security of processes like these extremely seriously, because they'll lose their jobs (and law licenses) if they don't. But anyway, the right thing to do if SimulaVR doesn't want to reveal this info is to oppose the subpoena and try to get it quashed. Not write angry blog posts.
- ineedasername 4y ago
  Are there rules preventing Meta from seeing the info? It seems like they would be allowed, themselves, to look at anything considered evidence in the case, barring an order from the judge to the contrary.
  - ivraatiems 4y ago
    I believe what SimulaVR would do is petition the court to seal their responses and put conditions on who and how those responses can be viewed. Not an uncommon thing to do.
- chatterhead 4y ago

jphsnsir 4y ago

Ordered a founders edition many months ago. I hope to use it one day and add it to my nixos config. If not it'll help the open source community. One thing is certain, the VR/AR I want to use won't come from big tech.

ivraatiems 4y ago

This blog post doesn't explain what they are actually going to do about this. It's just a (non-legal) complaint about the fact they got a subpoena, which is honestly a pretty normal and uncontroversial thing. It might be bad for Meta to request this info, but if so, the right thing to do is get a lawyer, submit a motion to quash, and then go after Meta for costs through legal process. What is SimulaVR actually going to do to respond to this? Do they intend to respond? Who's representing them? I can't imagine a lawyer recommended writing this blog post. The "we can't afford this" argument doesn't hold water. Lawyers are expensive but this is not a complicated thing SimulaVR is being asked to do, and they're likely to get their costs back from the court if they ask.

pid_0 4y ago

awinter-py 4y ago

ianal but if I were drafting simula's motion to quash, I would mention that the categories of information fb wants are confidential or trade secrets under most employment agreements, including probably fb's and that rule 45 requires the court to quash if the subpoena is for 'privileged or other protected matter' and if you can prove undue burden you can sanction their firm (in theory at least) (could also just refresh the northern district's efile until big G responds, then steal theirs)

thom_ 4y ago

_HMCB_ 4y ago

I’d tell FB where to go.

raydiatian 4y ago

That commercial is hilarious. Everybody is clearly mocking this dipshit for wearing a VR headset in public.

gardenhedge 4y ago

TIL how a subpoena can work. I had no idea.

raydiatian 4y ago

Never forget, the company is called Facebook. The Meta rebrand was a desperate ploy to sidestep negative attention surrounding ongoing litigation and to bolster hope in the dying company as they try to pivot toward VR.

shrewduser 4y ago

man, hacker news is just not what it used to be.

chatterhead 4y ago

Forge36 4y ago

Could this subpoena be used by SimulaVR as evidence of behaving anticompetitively by sucking away resources for legal proceedings?

zmmmmm 4y ago

I do wonder if this blog post might be used by Meta in a way the authors didn't intend. Stating that they are not at all worried about competition from Meta is exactly what Meta needs to present as evidence. Aside from that I'm not convinced SimulaVR shouldn't be worried. Regardless of whether Meta is targeting the productivity space intentionally (it is, I think) SimulaVR can very easily be a casualty of their dominance. For example I was interested in buying into SimulaVR but I probably won't if the Quest Pro is even close to good enough because along with that I get access to all the Oculus games etc.

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago

As someone who is not a lawyer, my question is what are the potential response avenues to a subpoena like this. That is, Meta has essentially demanded a ton of work from SimulaVR, for free. I very much agree with Simula's response of "We can't afford stuff like this". So, realistically, what are Simula's options? I imagine a "fuck off" response won't go over well with the court. Can they give some cursory information? Is there some way they can challenge the subpoena as overly burdensome? I hate how our legal system makes it so easy to demand work from someone else, when the burden on the demanding party is so extremely low. Why shouldn't Meta need to pay hundreds of dollars an hour for the information they are requesting? The lawyers are definitely charging that much.

tannhauser23 4y ago
This kind of subpoena is boilerplate. No one actually expects SimulaVR to provide all this information or to show up for a deposition. This is actually how it will go down: SimulaVR-Lawyer: Hey Meta-lawyer, I got your subpoena. We're a tiny company and this is overbroad. What do you guys actually want? Meta-lawyer: Totally understand. Can we get a declaration from your founder about what your company is trying to do, who their competitors are, and few info about your financials? If you have pitch decks for investors, we'd love to get that as well. SimulaVR-Lawyer: That seems doable but can the financials be filed under seal and attorney-eyes-only? Meta-lawyer: Yeah that makes sense. SimulaVR-Lawyer: Lemme talk to the founders and follow up with you. Let's talk later about what the declaration will look like. Meta-lawyer: Thank you - appreciate it, and looking forward to hearing back soon.

faangiq 4y ago

Oh look it’s another episode of “USG and bigco collaborate for cartoon-villain style antics.”

seydor 4y ago

SimulaVR should see this as a massive endorsement and indicate they are the one company that threatens the behemoth and are open for investors. In fact they should consider changing their motto to "Injunctioned by Meta"

unhammer 4y ago

https://simulavr.com/blog/software-overview/ https://simulavr.com/blog/software-overview/ VR, Godot, Haskell, Wayland – these people are having too much fun, must be karma