6 ms·

A bit confusing, but as near as I can tell, the contention is: 1) Id software claims they own the work Carmack did while working for them unless an exception h

by Lazare 13y ago

A bit confusing, but as near as I can tell, the contention is: 1) Id software claims they own the work Carmack did while working for them unless an exception had been made in his contract. 2) An agreement was signed between Id and Oculus saying Id retained ownership of the work they owned. This story contains a copy of the agreement, and a quick skim indicates it says what Re/code claims it does. IF Id owned Carmack's work on VR, then it would seem they still do so, and Oculus does not (ie, point 2 is correct). The question that isn't answered here is, well, does Id own Carmack's work? The fact that Carmack's contract apparently had a specific exclusion for Armadillo Aerospace, but did not have one for Oculus is very suggestive (why negotiate any exceptions unless exceptions are indeed needed?), but not dispositive. Seems like the real dispute is going to end up being between Id and Carmack; Oculus is kind of a bystander. If I was advising Carmack, I'd strongly suggest he engage a lawyer. He's probably getting legal advice from Oculus's counsel right now, but there's a long, long, LONG history of people getting screwed over by their employer's lawyer (who works for the employer, not for the employee, and has no duty to offer legal advice in the employee's interest!). Tweeting that Oculus doesn't use any code written while Carmack was at Id is all well and good, but it's got nothing to do with the core issue. I'd hate to see Carmack accidentally admit to something that'll screw him over later.

JabavuAdams 13y ago
> Tweeting that Oculus doesn't use any code written while Carmack was at Id is all well and good, but it's got nothing to do with the core issue. I'd hate to see Carmack accidentally admit to something that'll screw him over later. I'm actually kind of shocked that he tweeted anything at all. Wouldn't his lawyer basically tell him not to say anything?
- sheetjs 13y ago
  > He's probably getting legal advice from Oculus's counsel right now, but there's a long, long, LONG history of people getting screwed over by their employer's lawyer (who works for the employer, not for the employee, and has no duty to offer legal advice in the employee's interest!). It's in the employer's best interest to distance Oculus from Carmack.
  - nickff 13y ago
    Or to ensure that Carmack assumes full liability.
    - sillysaurus3 13y ago
      Let's step back and think about what it is we're all nodding our heads to. If a pioneer like Carmack can be dragged under with a little bit of legal schenanigans, what chance does any of us have? The core issue is that Carmack wanted to leave Zenimax and do something else. It's about freedom. That freedom is being challenged, and it sounds like everyone here is agreeing that it's sensible for a fellow developer to be denied it.
      - sheetjs 13y ago
        Read the exact statements carefully. This entire thread is focused on the fact that Oculus's lawyers serve Oculus's best interests, which are not necessarily aligned with Carmack's best interests.
        sillysaurus3 13y ago
        Yeah, you're right. I was just surprised that there wasn't more pushback on this point: "The question that isn't answered here is, well, does Id own Carmack's work?" It's up to you how much to disagree with the concept of programmer slavery. Personally, I find it abhorrent that we've allowed the law to evolve into a state to permit it at all. But this is idealism and not pragmatism speaking, and this was a subthread about pragmatism. Sorry.
        anigbrowl 13y ago
        While I don't support Zenimax's position, I don't buy your argument about programmer slavery either. You could just as easily argue that this was an issue of 'freedom of contract,' wherein any adult person can waive rights in a contract if the person considers it to be in their economic interest. I'm not sure that this particular contract is even valid, but you should acquaint yourself with the idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_contract http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_contract
anigbrowl 13y ago
I find it hard to believe that a successful individual like John Carmack wouldn't already have a lawyer or indeed a whole team of them, and know that lawyers' obligations are to the clients that pay them. This isn't exactly his first rodeo.
stonemetal 13y ago
More to the point what work are they claiming Oculus has illegally? We know Carmack was involved with Doom 3 BFG which supported Oculus' hardware. Are they claiming Oculus has Doom 3 source when they shouldn't? Carmack's tweet that they don't have any of Id's source makes that seem unlikely.
Arjuna 13y ago
Solid analysis. What I want to know is... what exactly is enforceable, in this specific case? The reason that I ask is that, Carmack has stated that nothing he has worked on has been patented ("No work I have ever done has been patented." [1]), so, presumably, there is nothing to enforce in that area with regard to code or algorithms. Also, Carmack has publicly discussed many VR details in technical blog posts and demonstrations, but to my knowledge, we have not seen ZeniMax attempt to prevent these discussions from occurring (i.e., Cease and Desist). Presumably, those details were not viewed as critical to this discussion, but it is an interesting point to note. I suspect that concepts and processes could be covered under trade secret IP law, but in the case of software in specific, it would seem the safer bet to have patents in place if possible (but again, according to Carmack, he has not worked on patentable work.) The question here is, "If ZeniMax saw potential IP to enforce, then why didn't they attempt to protect it via patents?" I am officially raising the grellas [2] Bat Signal. I would love to read his thoughts on this topic in general. [1] https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/461918500307472384 https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/461918500307472384 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=grellas https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=grellas
- jacquesm 13y ago
  No code is a hole large enough to drive a truck through, copyright covers a lot more than just code (for instance, design documents). The code written could easily be a derivative work of something that Id held copyright to. That will be harder to prove than an outright copyright violation. But if any files made it from Id to Carmacks subsequent employers it is going to be very hairy. ZeniMax may have found that the IP was already patented by other parties or that they decided they did not wish to patent it. That does not mean they relinquish all their rights.
  - malandrew 13y ago
    Yeah, but even copyright on a design document doesn't constitute ownership of an idea. You can produce cliffs notes summarizing or explaining the content of a design document without violating copyright.

by Lazare 13y ago

JabavuAdams 13y ago

> Tweeting that Oculus doesn't use any code written while Carmack was at Id is all well and good, but it's got nothing to do with the core issue. I'd hate to see Carmack accidentally admit to something that'll screw him over later. I'm actually kind of shocked that he tweeted anything at all. Wouldn't his lawyer basically tell him not to say anything?

sheetjs 13y ago
> He's probably getting legal advice from Oculus's counsel right now, but there's a long, long, LONG history of people getting screwed over by their employer's lawyer (who works for the employer, not for the employee, and has no duty to offer legal advice in the employee's interest!). It's in the employer's best interest to distance Oculus from Carmack.
- nickff 13y ago
  Or to ensure that Carmack assumes full liability.
  - sillysaurus3 13y ago
    Let's step back and think about what it is we're all nodding our heads to. If a pioneer like Carmack can be dragged under with a little bit of legal schenanigans, what chance does any of us have? The core issue is that Carmack wanted to leave Zenimax and do something else. It's about freedom. That freedom is being challenged, and it sounds like everyone here is agreeing that it's sensible for a fellow developer to be denied it.
    - sheetjs 13y ago
      Read the exact statements carefully. This entire thread is focused on the fact that Oculus's lawyers serve Oculus's best interests, which are not necessarily aligned with Carmack's best interests.
      - sillysaurus3 13y ago
        Yeah, you're right. I was just surprised that there wasn't more pushback on this point: "The question that isn't answered here is, well, does Id own Carmack's work?" It's up to you how much to disagree with the concept of programmer slavery. Personally, I find it abhorrent that we've allowed the law to evolve into a state to permit it at all. But this is idealism and not pragmatism speaking, and this was a subthread about pragmatism. Sorry.
        anigbrowl 13y ago
        While I don't support Zenimax's position, I don't buy your argument about programmer slavery either. You could just as easily argue that this was an issue of 'freedom of contract,' wherein any adult person can waive rights in a contract if the person considers it to be in their economic interest. I'm not sure that this particular contract is even valid, but you should acquaint yourself with the idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_contract http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_contract

anigbrowl 13y ago

I find it hard to believe that a successful individual like John Carmack wouldn't already have a lawyer or indeed a whole team of them, and know that lawyers' obligations are to the clients that pay them. This isn't exactly his first rodeo.

stonemetal 13y ago

More to the point what work are they claiming Oculus has illegally? We know Carmack was involved with Doom 3 BFG which supported Oculus' hardware. Are they claiming Oculus has Doom 3 source when they shouldn't? Carmack's tweet that they don't have any of Id's source makes that seem unlikely.

Arjuna 13y ago

Solid analysis. What I want to know is... what exactly is enforceable, in this specific case? The reason that I ask is that, Carmack has stated that nothing he has worked on has been patented ("No work I have ever done has been patented." [1]), so, presumably, there is nothing to enforce in that area with regard to code or algorithms. Also, Carmack has publicly discussed many VR details in technical blog posts and demonstrations, but to my knowledge, we have not seen ZeniMax attempt to prevent these discussions from occurring (i.e., Cease and Desist). Presumably, those details were not viewed as critical to this discussion, but it is an interesting point to note. I suspect that concepts and processes could be covered under trade secret IP law, but in the case of software in specific, it would seem the safer bet to have patents in place if possible (but again, according to Carmack, he has not worked on patentable work.) The question here is, "If ZeniMax saw potential IP to enforce, then why didn't they attempt to protect it via patents?" I am officially raising the grellas [2] Bat Signal. I would love to read his thoughts on this topic in general. [1] https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/461918500307472384 https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/461918500307472384 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=grellas https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=grellas

jacquesm 13y ago
No code is a hole large enough to drive a truck through, copyright covers a lot more than just code (for instance, design documents). The code written could easily be a derivative work of something that Id held copyright to. That will be harder to prove than an outright copyright violation. But if any files made it from Id to Carmacks subsequent employers it is going to be very hairy. ZeniMax may have found that the IP was already patented by other parties or that they decided they did not wish to patent it. That does not mean they relinquish all their rights.
- malandrew 13y ago
  Yeah, but even copyright on a design document doesn't constitute ownership of an idea. You can produce cliffs notes summarizing or explaining the content of a design document without violating copyright.