7 ms·

> 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

by sheetjs 12y 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 12y ago
Or to ensure that Carmack assumes full liability.
- sillysaurus3 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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
        sillysaurus3 12y ago
        Could we please keep the argument impersonal? Saying something like "you should acquaint yourself with the idea" forces me to either respond "I was in fact already familiar with the idea" or keep silent and let you make presuppositions about what I don't know. The former makes for boring reading; the latter is unfair. And to the other commenter who has accused me of lacking perspective and being disrespectful: it must be nice having enough money where you're not forced to choose between accepting a contract that strips you of your right to work on what you want in your own free time, or letting your cat die from cancer you can't pay to treat. If that's not some form of slavery, then apparently I do lack perspective. (If there's some confusion as to how this relates to the original topic, it's because the exact same form of law is being applied in both cases: it's considered normal and fair for companies to offer contracts that default to stripping programmers of their right to work on what they want in their free time, and it's up to programmers to be extremely careful not to accidentally sign something that does so. Apparently even Carmack isn't free from this, and that's what prompted my original comment.) As for the argument, I should choose to bow out rather than write a lengthy expansion of my thoughts, as this is the wrong subthread for it. Maybe I'll post a toplevel comment later if there's sufficient interest, but there are probably more important topics to discuss.
        anigbrowl 12y ago
        I can only go by what arguments you choose to present. I'm not a big supporter of 'freedom of contract' (as a strategic response to regulation), but it's such an obvious objection to your slavery argument that I was surprised you didn't address it. As for the more general, companies have interests, just like individuals, and seek to maximize them. Numerous people have pointed out that they are able to negotiate exceptions or get such clauses removed from their employment contracts. I'm sorry about your sick cat, but I also think that economic/contractual negotiations are a fact of life that it's better to prepare for than expect protection from.
  - x0x0 12y ago
    well, it depends I in general agree with you. However, if, while employed at company A, I worked for company B (particularly during working hours for A or partially in lieu of working for A), I can't say I'd be surprised if A had a problem with this arrangement. And while gaming and VR aren't exactly the same field, they're pretty damn close. add to that some butthurt that carmack left id, massively decreasing the value of zenimax' investment Before joining my current company, I got permission in writing to continue to work and contribute to an open source ml project that doesn't necessarily overlap with the company but is close.
  - jwatte 12y ago
    You are right. The biggest pocket book has the biggest chance. Who is that? Zenimax? Facebook? IP claim fights when executives leave is not new in tech.

by sheetjs 12y ago

nickff 12y ago

Or to ensure that Carmack assumes full liability.

sillysaurus3 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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
      - sillysaurus3 12y ago
        Could we please keep the argument impersonal? Saying something like "you should acquaint yourself with the idea" forces me to either respond "I was in fact already familiar with the idea" or keep silent and let you make presuppositions about what I don't know. The former makes for boring reading; the latter is unfair. And to the other commenter who has accused me of lacking perspective and being disrespectful: it must be nice having enough money where you're not forced to choose between accepting a contract that strips you of your right to work on what you want in your own free time, or letting your cat die from cancer you can't pay to treat. If that's not some form of slavery, then apparently I do lack perspective. (If there's some confusion as to how this relates to the original topic, it's because the exact same form of law is being applied in both cases: it's considered normal and fair for companies to offer contracts that default to stripping programmers of their right to work on what they want in their free time, and it's up to programmers to be extremely careful not to accidentally sign something that does so. Apparently even Carmack isn't free from this, and that's what prompted my original comment.) As for the argument, I should choose to bow out rather than write a lengthy expansion of my thoughts, as this is the wrong subthread for it. Maybe I'll post a toplevel comment later if there's sufficient interest, but there are probably more important topics to discuss.
        anigbrowl 12y ago
        I can only go by what arguments you choose to present. I'm not a big supporter of 'freedom of contract' (as a strategic response to regulation), but it's such an obvious objection to your slavery argument that I was surprised you didn't address it. As for the more general, companies have interests, just like individuals, and seek to maximize them. Numerous people have pointed out that they are able to negotiate exceptions or get such clauses removed from their employment contracts. I'm sorry about your sick cat, but I also think that economic/contractual negotiations are a fact of life that it's better to prepare for than expect protection from.
- x0x0 12y ago
  well, it depends I in general agree with you. However, if, while employed at company A, I worked for company B (particularly during working hours for A or partially in lieu of working for A), I can't say I'd be surprised if A had a problem with this arrangement. And while gaming and VR aren't exactly the same field, they're pretty damn close. add to that some butthurt that carmack left id, massively decreasing the value of zenimax' investment Before joining my current company, I got permission in writing to continue to work and contribute to an open source ml project that doesn't necessarily overlap with the company but is close.
- jwatte 12y ago
  You are right. The biggest pocket book has the biggest chance. Who is that? Zenimax? Facebook? IP claim fights when executives leave is not new in tech.