4 ms·

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 le

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 :)

sudosysgen 4y ago
Wether it's reasonable or not is orthogonal to the law. It's not because something is legal that it should be a thing. I think that whether or not this is legal, the idea Meta can access internal documentation from a smaller competitor is unreasonable.
- Ajedi32 4y ago
  Sure, but do we even know what the law currently says on this matter? I've seen a lot of speculation in the comments here, but very few facts. Even the original blog post seems to have been written before consulting an attorney. For example, does the law have any mechanism for compensating SimulaVR for their work on this case? What mechanisms exist for appeal? Does Meta have free reign to examine the subpoenaed documents, or are there restrictions on how that information can be used and who can see it? It just seems to me you ought to know what the law says first before arguing it needs to be changed. Chesterton's Fence and all that...