8 ms·

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 d

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)?
jdgoesmarching 4y ago
Yeah, and we’re reacting to how crazy it is that Meta’s competitors are required to divulge internal documents to Meta so Meta can make a case that they aren’t anticompetitive. > It's not that Meta that wants the documents for corporate espionage Yes I’m sure we all trust Meta will behave ethically when given private information.
- michaelt 4y ago
  I believe the stance of the justice system is that Facebook's lawyers will behave ethically with the information because it's a professional obligation for lawyers. You and I might see that as a laughable claim - unfortunately the justice system is run entirely by lawyers.
  - musingsole 4y ago
    > You and I might see that as a laughable claim Being disbarred is a very real threat to any lawyer putting a roof over their heads. Which is most lawyers.
- treis 4y ago
  They're not required to divulge documents. They're required to respond to the subpoena. An acceptable response is that you don't want to divulge because they're confidential or the request is too burdensome.
  - stingraycharles 4y ago
    Really? That’s not what OP from the linked article makes it sound like. I wonder if they got decent legal advice on the matter.
dtech 4y ago
In the US legal system a non-government entity can force any 3rd party to spend time and money for their benefit? That seems pretty weird.
- vkou 4y ago
  Yes, that's what a subpoena is. And it can be done in pretty much any legal system. If you're on trial for murder, and your alibi is 'I was at work', you're going to need your boss to come in to testify on your behalf. If he doesn't feel like it, the court will compel him to show up and testify, on his time, and on his expense, under penalty of prejury. This is a good thing.
  - jessaustin 4y ago
    If I was at work when the murder occurred, two or three discussions between police and my boss and coworkers would prevent a murder trial in the first place. Prosecutors don't like defendants with solid alibis. Probably FTC has already done equivalent investigation, which calls the subpoena described in TFA further into question.
    - vkou 4y ago
      My understanding is that these kinds of enforcement actions have a much lower success rate than criminal cases, because large firms with legal departments are rarely squarely in the wrong. They are usually treading a grey line, and evidence like this can push the case one way or another.
      - jessaustin 4y ago
        A lawsuit between corporate firms is not really an "enforcement action".
- tick_tock_tick 4y ago
  What legal system doesn't have this feature? Seriously where are you from that this isn't how it works?
petemir 4y ago
But by doing this, they are inadvertently showing that a company like SimulaVR cannot compete in this space, as the small team in charge of actually doing some work now has to devote its time to take care of this.
unknownaccount 4y ago
What happens if SimulaVR tells these lawyers to pound sand? I cannot imagine if I ran a small buisness and I was the victim of this how I would afford it.
- colejohnson66 4y ago
  You're found in contempt of court. If you disagree with the subpoena, you're allowed to file that with the court, and the judge will review it.
  - unknownaccount 4y ago
    I suppose this is why it’s a bad idea to run any company from the USA. Being victimized by their corrupt legal system at your own expense… This sort of thing doesn’t happen when you run your company from behind Tor and use crypto for payment.
    - TheRealPomax 4y ago
      Most legal systems do this: if you're accused of doing X, and your claim that you weren't doing X hinges on evidence that can only be produced by other parties, you explain that to the court, and then the court can decide to compel those other parties to produce that evidence in the interest of a fair trial. In this case, Meta is being accused of anti-competitive behaviour. Their claim is that there is plenty of competition and that if they are to be put on trial, then they should be able to present evidence that there is competition. The court agreed with that statement. Meta themselves cannot produce that evidence, because they are not privy to business goings-on at other companies, all they can see is other companies that are--in their opinion--competing in the same space. As such, Meta can only go "we consider the following companies our competition, their documents should make it ample clear that we are in competition" with enough of an additional explanation to justify each company listed. And then the court goes "very well, this is motivated enough to justify us compelling these companies to produce the evidence that you claim exists as part of discovery". The only quirk here is the claim that a small company can't reasonably do what is being requested of them by the courts. And again: not by Meta, but by the courts. Meta doesn't get these documents, only Meta's legal team gets those documents, Meta employees don't get to see what's in the many boxes of discovery material that their legal team is going to receive. Not Bob from accounting, not Kelly from finance, and not Mark from the CEO team. Only the lawyers do.

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)?

jdgoesmarching 4y ago

Yeah, and we’re reacting to how crazy it is that Meta’s competitors are required to divulge internal documents to Meta so Meta can make a case that they aren’t anticompetitive. > It's not that Meta that wants the documents for corporate espionage Yes I’m sure we all trust Meta will behave ethically when given private information.

michaelt 4y ago
I believe the stance of the justice system is that Facebook's lawyers will behave ethically with the information because it's a professional obligation for lawyers. You and I might see that as a laughable claim - unfortunately the justice system is run entirely by lawyers.
- musingsole 4y ago
  > You and I might see that as a laughable claim Being disbarred is a very real threat to any lawyer putting a roof over their heads. Which is most lawyers.
treis 4y ago
They're not required to divulge documents. They're required to respond to the subpoena. An acceptable response is that you don't want to divulge because they're confidential or the request is too burdensome.
- stingraycharles 4y ago
  Really? That’s not what OP from the linked article makes it sound like. I wonder if they got decent legal advice on the matter.

dtech 4y ago

In the US legal system a non-government entity can force any 3rd party to spend time and money for their benefit? That seems pretty weird.

vkou 4y ago
Yes, that's what a subpoena is. And it can be done in pretty much any legal system. If you're on trial for murder, and your alibi is 'I was at work', you're going to need your boss to come in to testify on your behalf. If he doesn't feel like it, the court will compel him to show up and testify, on his time, and on his expense, under penalty of prejury. This is a good thing.
- jessaustin 4y ago
  If I was at work when the murder occurred, two or three discussions between police and my boss and coworkers would prevent a murder trial in the first place. Prosecutors don't like defendants with solid alibis. Probably FTC has already done equivalent investigation, which calls the subpoena described in TFA further into question.
  - vkou 4y ago
    My understanding is that these kinds of enforcement actions have a much lower success rate than criminal cases, because large firms with legal departments are rarely squarely in the wrong. They are usually treading a grey line, and evidence like this can push the case one way or another.
    - jessaustin 4y ago
      A lawsuit between corporate firms is not really an "enforcement action".
tick_tock_tick 4y ago
What legal system doesn't have this feature? Seriously where are you from that this isn't how it works?

petemir 4y ago

But by doing this, they are inadvertently showing that a company like SimulaVR cannot compete in this space, as the small team in charge of actually doing some work now has to devote its time to take care of this.

unknownaccount 4y ago

What happens if SimulaVR tells these lawyers to pound sand? I cannot imagine if I ran a small buisness and I was the victim of this how I would afford it.

colejohnson66 4y ago
You're found in contempt of court. If you disagree with the subpoena, you're allowed to file that with the court, and the judge will review it.
- unknownaccount 4y ago
  I suppose this is why it’s a bad idea to run any company from the USA. Being victimized by their corrupt legal system at your own expense… This sort of thing doesn’t happen when you run your company from behind Tor and use crypto for payment.
  - TheRealPomax 4y ago
    Most legal systems do this: if you're accused of doing X, and your claim that you weren't doing X hinges on evidence that can only be produced by other parties, you explain that to the court, and then the court can decide to compel those other parties to produce that evidence in the interest of a fair trial. In this case, Meta is being accused of anti-competitive behaviour. Their claim is that there is plenty of competition and that if they are to be put on trial, then they should be able to present evidence that there is competition. The court agreed with that statement. Meta themselves cannot produce that evidence, because they are not privy to business goings-on at other companies, all they can see is other companies that are--in their opinion--competing in the same space. As such, Meta can only go "we consider the following companies our competition, their documents should make it ample clear that we are in competition" with enough of an additional explanation to justify each company listed. And then the court goes "very well, this is motivated enough to justify us compelling these companies to produce the evidence that you claim exists as part of discovery". The only quirk here is the claim that a small company can't reasonably do what is being requested of them by the courts. And again: not by Meta, but by the courts. Meta doesn't get these documents, only Meta's legal team gets those documents, Meta employees don't get to see what's in the many boxes of discovery material that their legal team is going to receive. Not Bob from accounting, not Kelly from finance, and not Mark from the CEO team. Only the lawyers do.