4 ms·

I would. I don't understand why you're so surprised that a company sued after they were turned down for a settlement from a company they gave a bunch of key te

I would. I don't understand why you're so surprised that a company sued after they were turned down for a settlement from a company they gave a bunch of key technology to under an agreement. I don't find that behavior to be unreasonable at all.

Demiurge 12y ago
Let's be frank, there are at at least 3 degrees of separation between what Oculus 'got' and ZeniMax. It was completely based on John Carmacs enthusiasm for VR, and the time that he invested in getting Doom3 to work with it, among his other experiments, that there is any relationship between Oculus and ZeniMax. He also pushed for Doom3 to be open sourced, and many other things. ZeniMax can not control him, but unfortunately they do control a company that Carmac also had enthusiasm for, and all the IP John Carmac created when ZeniMax wasn't even around. Their behavior is not unreasonable, but it is only possible because a prolific developer was not concerned about nuances of copyright law while collaborating with multiple companies. That kind of behavior does cost goodwill, and although you might not mind working for ZeniMax, SCO, Oracle, I think the original point stands, and a few people might mind.
- DerpDerpDerp 12y ago
  > Their behavior is not unreasonable, but it is only possible because a prolific developer was not concerned about nuances of copyright law while collaborating with multiple companies. I expect that Facebook is going to tell Oculus to suck it up, pay a settlement, and everyone will go home and move on with their lives. Carmac worked on Oculus at id's office, during work hours, using id resources. Oculus promoted their product using id games. At every step, id (and hence ZeniMax) provided technical assistance. Oculus didn't want to pay for it by reaching a deal as they moved forward to commercializing, so now they're going to reach one as part of a settlement resolving a lawsuit. Really, this doesn't strike me as a particularly bad case, and reading their lawsuit filing, not inappropriate for them to file a lawsuit after failing to have a settlement reached with Oculus to pay for the technology. (As an aside, there is other IP than just copyright involved.)
  - Demiurge 12y ago
    >Carmac worked on Oculus at id's office, during work hours, using id resources. Oculus promoted their product using id games. At every step, id (and hence ZeniMax) provided technical assistance. He also worked from home, on weekends, and from hotel, when he wants to be uninterrupted. Who knows if he billed (his own, historically) company for that? The point is, he really didn't have to, and ZeniMax is playing a 'gotcha' game. >Really, this doesn't strike me as a particularly bad case, and reading their lawsuit filing, not inappropriate for them to file a lawsuit after failing to have a settlement reached with Oculus to pay for the technology. I agree, they probably have a decent case, but it's not any less sad to see.
    - DerpDerpDerp 12y ago
      See my other reply for page cites and details, but it seems that ZeniMax was actively pursuing VR technology and that Carmac was part of that project prior to his work on Oculus. If I work for money developing a certain kind of technology, it's reasonable for my employer to think I won't give my work project over to another company and that they have some claim to that technology.
      - Demiurge 12y ago
        Well, this is the first I hear of ZeniMax actively pursuing VR. I'm curious to know what you're basing this on. From what John Carmac said, he has personally been interested in VR since 90s, not ZeniMax. The thing is, we can't talk legalese and English at the same time. By law, ZeniMax might own everything and its history, if they own 51% of it. But by causality, they might have played no part in its creation. This is why they might have a legal case, (unless they did, in fact, instigated VR R&D, as opposed to just buy share of [id]) but they don't have my goodwill.
    - keypusher 12y ago
      > He also worked from home, on weekends, and from hotel, when he wants to be uninterrupted. Who knows if he billed (his own, historically) company for that? The point is, he really didn't have to, and ZeniMax is playing a 'gotcha' game. Not true. See my previous question and discussion on this topic at the link below. If you sign a contract with a large company which has a clause that they own ip you create while working for them belongs to them (which is very common), you are out of luck. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7589822 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7589822
angersock 12y ago
"I would." Then you're a sellout, and an enemy of labor. Enjoy your pieces of silver. Had the tech come from a line employee, maybe--but it came from somebody with a long history of helping others in the community, of developing technology as a default idle process, and who basically invented the field. That you'd honor Zenimax's position here is very unfortunate, least of all because you'd be supporting the position that anything you do while employed belongs to your employer, especially after a precedent is set to the contrary. I'm not shocked that Zenimax is suing, because they're a bunch of money-grubbing assholes and probably sad they missed out on the cash from the Facebook acquisition. That said, I don't pretend for a minute that what they're doing is anything other than that: being money-grubbing assholes.
- DerpDerpDerp 12y ago
  According to the lawsuit filing (page 8 of the PDF linked above), Carmac was researching VR at id under ZeniMax. So yes, I think projects you undertake at work for money belong to your employer, and that this is a reasonable standard. > least of all because you'd be supporting the position that anything you do while employed belongs to your employer My position is that work you do for hire belongs to the person paying, not anything to do with side projects. > 25. In 2011, ZeniMax actively pursued that research, including experiments with various off-the-shelf headsets. However, none provided an experience sufficiently immersive and responsive to be commercially successful. A significant limitation was “latency” – the delay between a user’s movement and the corresponding change in the displayed image. > 26. By 2012, ZeniMax employees, including Carmack, had amassed valuable and confidential know-how and trade secret information about how to develop, combine, and optimize hardware, firmware, and software for an improved and competitively advantageous virtual reality experience (the “VR Technology”). > 27. ZeniMax planned to demonstrate its VR Technology at the E3 Convention in June 2012, using one of its leading brands, “DOOM 3: BFG Edition.” On or about March 7, 2012 – a month before ZeniMax obtained a prototype Rift or had any contact with Luckey – id Software’s Creative Director tested a virtual reality headset in ZeniMax’s offices using ZeniMax’s VR Technology, as shown in this photograph posted online by id Software at that time: [Photo Omitted in Quote] (Pages 9-10 of lawsuit PDF) As can be seen, ZeniMax was actively pursuing VR outside of Carmac's work with Oculus, and hence his work on the Oculus project would fall under rather reasonable IP assignments - see the inserted image of the contract clause from page 8 of the lawsuit.

Demiurge 12y ago

Let's be frank, there are at at least 3 degrees of separation between what Oculus 'got' and ZeniMax. It was completely based on John Carmacs enthusiasm for VR, and the time that he invested in getting Doom3 to work with it, among his other experiments, that there is any relationship between Oculus and ZeniMax. He also pushed for Doom3 to be open sourced, and many other things. ZeniMax can not control him, but unfortunately they do control a company that Carmac also had enthusiasm for, and all the IP John Carmac created when ZeniMax wasn't even around. Their behavior is not unreasonable, but it is only possible because a prolific developer was not concerned about nuances of copyright law while collaborating with multiple companies. That kind of behavior does cost goodwill, and although you might not mind working for ZeniMax, SCO, Oracle, I think the original point stands, and a few people might mind.

DerpDerpDerp 12y ago
> Their behavior is not unreasonable, but it is only possible because a prolific developer was not concerned about nuances of copyright law while collaborating with multiple companies. I expect that Facebook is going to tell Oculus to suck it up, pay a settlement, and everyone will go home and move on with their lives. Carmac worked on Oculus at id's office, during work hours, using id resources. Oculus promoted their product using id games. At every step, id (and hence ZeniMax) provided technical assistance. Oculus didn't want to pay for it by reaching a deal as they moved forward to commercializing, so now they're going to reach one as part of a settlement resolving a lawsuit. Really, this doesn't strike me as a particularly bad case, and reading their lawsuit filing, not inappropriate for them to file a lawsuit after failing to have a settlement reached with Oculus to pay for the technology. (As an aside, there is other IP than just copyright involved.)
- Demiurge 12y ago
  >Carmac worked on Oculus at id's office, during work hours, using id resources. Oculus promoted their product using id games. At every step, id (and hence ZeniMax) provided technical assistance. He also worked from home, on weekends, and from hotel, when he wants to be uninterrupted. Who knows if he billed (his own, historically) company for that? The point is, he really didn't have to, and ZeniMax is playing a 'gotcha' game. >Really, this doesn't strike me as a particularly bad case, and reading their lawsuit filing, not inappropriate for them to file a lawsuit after failing to have a settlement reached with Oculus to pay for the technology. I agree, they probably have a decent case, but it's not any less sad to see.
  - DerpDerpDerp 12y ago
    See my other reply for page cites and details, but it seems that ZeniMax was actively pursuing VR technology and that Carmac was part of that project prior to his work on Oculus. If I work for money developing a certain kind of technology, it's reasonable for my employer to think I won't give my work project over to another company and that they have some claim to that technology.
    - Demiurge 12y ago
      Well, this is the first I hear of ZeniMax actively pursuing VR. I'm curious to know what you're basing this on. From what John Carmac said, he has personally been interested in VR since 90s, not ZeniMax. The thing is, we can't talk legalese and English at the same time. By law, ZeniMax might own everything and its history, if they own 51% of it. But by causality, they might have played no part in its creation. This is why they might have a legal case, (unless they did, in fact, instigated VR R&D, as opposed to just buy share of [id]) but they don't have my goodwill.
  - keypusher 12y ago
    > He also worked from home, on weekends, and from hotel, when he wants to be uninterrupted. Who knows if he billed (his own, historically) company for that? The point is, he really didn't have to, and ZeniMax is playing a 'gotcha' game. Not true. See my previous question and discussion on this topic at the link below. If you sign a contract with a large company which has a clause that they own ip you create while working for them belongs to them (which is very common), you are out of luck. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7589822 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7589822

angersock 12y ago

"I would." Then you're a sellout, and an enemy of labor. Enjoy your pieces of silver. Had the tech come from a line employee, maybe--but it came from somebody with a long history of helping others in the community, of developing technology as a default idle process, and who basically invented the field. That you'd honor Zenimax's position here is very unfortunate, least of all because you'd be supporting the position that anything you do while employed belongs to your employer, especially after a precedent is set to the contrary. I'm not shocked that Zenimax is suing, because they're a bunch of money-grubbing assholes and probably sad they missed out on the cash from the Facebook acquisition. That said, I don't pretend for a minute that what they're doing is anything other than that: being money-grubbing assholes.

DerpDerpDerp 12y ago
According to the lawsuit filing (page 8 of the PDF linked above), Carmac was researching VR at id under ZeniMax. So yes, I think projects you undertake at work for money belong to your employer, and that this is a reasonable standard. > least of all because you'd be supporting the position that anything you do while employed belongs to your employer My position is that work you do for hire belongs to the person paying, not anything to do with side projects. > 25. In 2011, ZeniMax actively pursued that research, including experiments with various off-the-shelf headsets. However, none provided an experience sufficiently immersive and responsive to be commercially successful. A significant limitation was “latency” – the delay between a user’s movement and the corresponding change in the displayed image. > 26. By 2012, ZeniMax employees, including Carmack, had amassed valuable and confidential know-how and trade secret information about how to develop, combine, and optimize hardware, firmware, and software for an improved and competitively advantageous virtual reality experience (the “VR Technology”). > 27. ZeniMax planned to demonstrate its VR Technology at the E3 Convention in June 2012, using one of its leading brands, “DOOM 3: BFG Edition.” On or about March 7, 2012 – a month before ZeniMax obtained a prototype Rift or had any contact with Luckey – id Software’s Creative Director tested a virtual reality headset in ZeniMax’s offices using ZeniMax’s VR Technology, as shown in this photograph posted online by id Software at that time: [Photo Omitted in Quote] (Pages 9-10 of lawsuit PDF) As can be seen, ZeniMax was actively pursuing VR outside of Carmac's work with Oculus, and hence his work on the Oculus project would fall under rather reasonable IP assignments - see the inserted image of the contract clause from page 8 of the lawsuit.