4 ms·

Eyeroll. Meta did nothing wrong here. This isn't them going after their competition; they're the defendant in this lawsuit. As the article says: > In fairness

Eyeroll. Meta did nothing wrong here. This isn't them going after their competition; they're the defendant in this lawsuit. As the article says: > In fairness to Meta: the FTC is the one who initiated this fight, leaving them with the burden of demonstrating it isn't behaving "anti-competitively". So naturally, one of the primary (only?) things Meta can do to demonstrate this is to subpoena...well...its competition...to demand documents which might help them in court To the extent that you have a problem with the subpoena, blame the judge who authorized it, or perhaps the legal system that makes such subpoenas possible. Meta is not the aggressor here.

HillRat 4y ago
Facebook is very much the aggressor -- in response to the FTC suit, their immediate response was to try and use the courts to strong-arm hundreds of competitors into giving up massive troves of highly sensitive commercial secrets without any kind of formal protection, such as limiting document review to FB's outside counsel. It's ridiculous, it's abusive, it's overbroad, and it's transparently an effort to burden Facebook's competitors while snowing the FTC with massive amounts of paper.
- Ajedi32 4y ago
  What would you have had them do instead? Again: > naturally, one of the primary (only?) things Meta can do to demonstrate this is to subpoena...well...its competition...to demand documents which might help them in court
  - midislack 4y ago
    They don't have a right to see secret documents other people have. We'll see.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- tiahura 4y ago
  That's not how litigation works. If SimulaVR wants protection, it has to ask for it. SimulaVR has the right to ask 1) Meta and 2) the court to limit the scope of the subpoena and to set conditions on the review and distribution of the production. If Meta agrees to the conditions, great, the agreement can either be informal, or incorporated into an order for the judge to sign. If Meta is opposed, SimulaVR gets to make their case to the judge and let him decide scope and protective order details.
- tannhauser23 4y ago
  Welcome to the American legal system. Facebook did nothing wrong here. When I was an attorney and involved with these kinds of subpoenas, we always worked with the third-parties to make document production less burdensome for them. SimulaVR should be working with Meta's attorneys on this instead of throwing a hissy fit online.
  - ginko 4y ago
    >SimulaVR should be working with Meta's attorneys on this instead of throwing a hissy fit online. Well then Meta's attorneys should contact SimulaVR directly instead of sending them a legal letter.
  - kanetw 4y ago
    We aren't throwing a hissy fit lol. We're just stating the facts and are working with our lawyers to resolve this.
    - jijji 4y ago
      why not just respond to their subpoena with one line answers....
      - kanetw 4y ago
        Responding to any legal request without legal counsel is a good way to fuck yourself up. There's no "just do x" unless you enjoy playing with fire.
    - tannhauser23 4y ago
      You made a site complaining about the subpoena and came to Hacker News to complain about it some more. Look, I get that you guys are a small shop but you should not be surprised to be asked to provide evidence in an antitrust litigation over the VR market. I'm guessing you haven't seen a subpoena before - they are all like this, and your attorneys will be able to negotiate something much less burdensome. So get off Hacker News and let your lawyers handle it.
cortesoft 4y ago
> Meta did nothing wrong here Doesn't this depend on whether Meta is actually guilty of what the FTC is accusing them of? If they are, then clearly the wrong thing they did was behave anti-competitively. If they are guilty of that, then it is fair to blame them for being dragged into their defense. While everyone has the right to defend themselves, it is fair to be upset at having to be called in the defense of someone who broke the law.
- Ajedi32 4y ago
  Obviously if the court rules they acted anti-competitively then yeah that would count as "doing something wrong", but I don't think it makes sense to call their legal defense itself evil. As you said, Meta has a right to defend itself in court, just like anyone.
- giobox 4y ago
  I'm not defending Meta, but what constitutes anti-competitive behaviour is often hard to define and requires a court process to ultimately decide - it's not a binary state one can easily recognize having entered or exited. If it was, many kinds of legal issue wouldn't need nearly as much court time. Until a Court process says otherwise, Meta have done nothing wrong here.
  - danaris 4y ago
    Personally, I don't think there's any possible doubt that Meta/Facebook has behaved anti-competitively in a variety of ways over the years; the fact that they haven't been taken to task for this is largely because of the Chicago doctrine's absurd principle that such things only matter if they increase prices for consumers.
midislack 4y ago
Stealing secret plans from companies under the guise of being the POOR VICTIM!

HillRat 4y ago

Facebook is very much the aggressor -- in response to the FTC suit, their immediate response was to try and use the courts to strong-arm hundreds of competitors into giving up massive troves of highly sensitive commercial secrets without any kind of formal protection, such as limiting document review to FB's outside counsel. It's ridiculous, it's abusive, it's overbroad, and it's transparently an effort to burden Facebook's competitors while snowing the FTC with massive amounts of paper.

Ajedi32 4y ago
What would you have had them do instead? Again: > naturally, one of the primary (only?) things Meta can do to demonstrate this is to subpoena...well...its competition...to demand documents which might help them in court
- midislack 4y ago
  They don't have a right to see secret documents other people have. We'll see.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
tiahura 4y ago
That's not how litigation works. If SimulaVR wants protection, it has to ask for it. SimulaVR has the right to ask 1) Meta and 2) the court to limit the scope of the subpoena and to set conditions on the review and distribution of the production. If Meta agrees to the conditions, great, the agreement can either be informal, or incorporated into an order for the judge to sign. If Meta is opposed, SimulaVR gets to make their case to the judge and let him decide scope and protective order details.
tannhauser23 4y ago
Welcome to the American legal system. Facebook did nothing wrong here. When I was an attorney and involved with these kinds of subpoenas, we always worked with the third-parties to make document production less burdensome for them. SimulaVR should be working with Meta's attorneys on this instead of throwing a hissy fit online.
- ginko 4y ago
  >SimulaVR should be working with Meta's attorneys on this instead of throwing a hissy fit online. Well then Meta's attorneys should contact SimulaVR directly instead of sending them a legal letter.
- kanetw 4y ago
  We aren't throwing a hissy fit lol. We're just stating the facts and are working with our lawyers to resolve this.
  - jijji 4y ago
    why not just respond to their subpoena with one line answers....
    - kanetw 4y ago
      Responding to any legal request without legal counsel is a good way to fuck yourself up. There's no "just do x" unless you enjoy playing with fire.
  - tannhauser23 4y ago
    You made a site complaining about the subpoena and came to Hacker News to complain about it some more. Look, I get that you guys are a small shop but you should not be surprised to be asked to provide evidence in an antitrust litigation over the VR market. I'm guessing you haven't seen a subpoena before - they are all like this, and your attorneys will be able to negotiate something much less burdensome. So get off Hacker News and let your lawyers handle it.

cortesoft 4y ago

> Meta did nothing wrong here Doesn't this depend on whether Meta is actually guilty of what the FTC is accusing them of? If they are, then clearly the wrong thing they did was behave anti-competitively. If they are guilty of that, then it is fair to blame them for being dragged into their defense. While everyone has the right to defend themselves, it is fair to be upset at having to be called in the defense of someone who broke the law.

Ajedi32 4y ago
Obviously if the court rules they acted anti-competitively then yeah that would count as "doing something wrong", but I don't think it makes sense to call their legal defense itself evil. As you said, Meta has a right to defend itself in court, just like anyone.
giobox 4y ago
I'm not defending Meta, but what constitutes anti-competitive behaviour is often hard to define and requires a court process to ultimately decide - it's not a binary state one can easily recognize having entered or exited. If it was, many kinds of legal issue wouldn't need nearly as much court time. Until a Court process says otherwise, Meta have done nothing wrong here.
- danaris 4y ago
  Personally, I don't think there's any possible doubt that Meta/Facebook has behaved anti-competitively in a variety of ways over the years; the fact that they haven't been taken to task for this is largely because of the Chicago doctrine's absurd principle that such things only matter if they increase prices for consumers.

midislack 4y ago

Stealing secret plans from companies under the guise of being the POOR VICTIM!