4 ms·

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.

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
unnouinceput 4y ago
Isn't that what they already did with this statement? Quoting last paragraph subtitle "We're don't view ourselves in competition with Meta" is exactly that. Therefore the FTC can take that and prove FB is a monopoly, or whatever FTC end-game is.
- incomingpain 4y ago
  That's what prompted my idea. Though as the other comments said, playing with fire.
- onepointsixC 4y ago
  That sounds like a bold faced lie to me. To quote the article: >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. So our real competition is laptops & PCs, not other gaming headsets. Everything Meta has been releasing publicly about their VR Headset plans make it blatantly clear that it is not only targeting gaming.
  - ece 4y ago
    How about a look at Meta's app sales to prove that? I think this list of who the subpoena was served to is pretty hilarious, and it's even more hilarious that Apple's not on this list: Alphabet Inc. ByteDance Inc. HTC America, Inc. Huawei Technologies USA, Inc. Nintendo of America Inc. Panasonic Corporation of North America Samsung Electronics America, Inc. Simula VR, LLC I think the malicious intent is all on Meta's side. They have a head start with Occulus, no one else is even close in the US.
    - onepointsixC 4y ago
      In what way is the subpoena hilarious? All of those companies to my knowledge are players in the VR space with hardware. Google has Daydream, and working on more Bytedance has the Pico's HTC has the Vive Huawei has one as well, don't remember it right now Nintendo has something similar to daydream but for the Switch Panasonic has the MeganeX Samsung has the Gear Simula have their headset They all sell some form of headset hardware.
bedast 4y ago
Judges HATE malicious compliance. Best case is Simula can file an injunction along the lines of not being a competitor or not having any relevance and wishing to keep their trade secrets...secret. Otherwise, comply with only existing documentation. For example, if they requested fine-grained details on metrics that don't exist, then the correct response to that is "doesn't exist".

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

unnouinceput 4y ago

Isn't that what they already did with this statement? Quoting last paragraph subtitle "We're don't view ourselves in competition with Meta" is exactly that. Therefore the FTC can take that and prove FB is a monopoly, or whatever FTC end-game is.

incomingpain 4y ago
That's what prompted my idea. Though as the other comments said, playing with fire.
onepointsixC 4y ago
That sounds like a bold faced lie to me. To quote the article: >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. So our real competition is laptops & PCs, not other gaming headsets. Everything Meta has been releasing publicly about their VR Headset plans make it blatantly clear that it is not only targeting gaming.
- ece 4y ago
  How about a look at Meta's app sales to prove that? I think this list of who the subpoena was served to is pretty hilarious, and it's even more hilarious that Apple's not on this list: Alphabet Inc. ByteDance Inc. HTC America, Inc. Huawei Technologies USA, Inc. Nintendo of America Inc. Panasonic Corporation of North America Samsung Electronics America, Inc. Simula VR, LLC I think the malicious intent is all on Meta's side. They have a head start with Occulus, no one else is even close in the US.
  - onepointsixC 4y ago
    In what way is the subpoena hilarious? All of those companies to my knowledge are players in the VR space with hardware. Google has Daydream, and working on more Bytedance has the Pico's HTC has the Vive Huawei has one as well, don't remember it right now Nintendo has something similar to daydream but for the Switch Panasonic has the MeganeX Samsung has the Gear Simula have their headset They all sell some form of headset hardware.

bedast 4y ago

Judges HATE malicious compliance. Best case is Simula can file an injunction along the lines of not being a competitor or not having any relevance and wishing to keep their trade secrets...secret. Otherwise, comply with only existing documentation. For example, if they requested fine-grained details on metrics that don't exist, then the correct response to that is "doesn't exist".