
Doom co-creator defends his code against ZeniMax copying accusations - happy-go-lucky
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/02/doom-co-creator-defends-his-code-against-zenimax-copying-accusations/
======
wmil
> "As for the denial of wiping, the Court’s independent expert found 92
> percent of Carmack’s hard drive was wiped—all data was permanently
> destroyed, right after Carmack got notice of the lawsuit, and that his
> affidavit denying the wiping was false. Those are the hard facts."

Lines like this are why the expert reports from the lawsuit should be public.
Carmack would naturally have very unusual computer use patterns.

It's easy to picture him creating an editing tool that accidentally used up
almost all available swap space. Or filling up almost all of his drive space
with generated textures and immediately deleting them.

That would look like use of obfuscation tools to a mediore expert.

~~~
Impossible
I strongly agree. Although Carmack's usage patterns might seem unusual for an
average office computer user or even an average developer, the scenarios that
you mentioned are common in AAA games, even if you aren't a programmer.

A new feature or bug in a AAA asset pipeline can cause a wipe and rebuild of
hundreds of GB of generated data. Compressed textures for multiple platforms,
compiled optimized level geometry, platform encoded audio and baked light maps
are standard culprits.

~~~
jerrycruncher
He also searched on how to format a drive[1] (presumably securely) after
receiving notice of litigation. I know that the folks here really, really love
Carmack, and want to give him every benefit of the doubt; but, for most
people, that's pretty damning evidence.

[1] [http://www.pcgamer.com/zenimax-statement-reveals-john-
carmac...](http://www.pcgamer.com/zenimax-statement-reveals-john-carmack-
googled-how-to-wipe-a-hard-drive/)

~~~
loup-vaillant
Who _wouldn 't_ perform a search on secure wipe when they learn they're being
sued for computer related stuff?

Pretty much nobody in my opinion. From that premise, probability theory says
this is a _tiny_ piece of evidence.

Then again, most people are very bad at probability theory.

~~~
nkurz
I'm not sure if I'm interpreting you correctly.

Do you mean "Most people aren't paranoid enough to be afraid to search for
'secure wipe' after being sued for an unrelated matter"?

Or do you mean "Upon being sued, most peoples immediate reaction would be to
search the web about how to destroy evidence"?

My guess would that most people who believe they are innocent would have no
interest in destroying evidence, and that most people who considered
themselves guilty would have already taken care of hiding the evidence before
being sued.

 _probability theory says this is a tiny piece of evidence._

In which direction? Slightly more likely to be guilty, because why else would
the person be searching? Or slightly more likely to be innocent, because any
guilty person would know not to search?

~~~
loup-vaillant
> _Or do you mean "Upon being sued, most peoples immediate reaction would be
> to search the web about how to destroy evidence"?_

That one, but not exactly. It's not just about destroying _evidence_ , but
about destroying unrelated stuff such as the porn collection or downloaded
movies. Or that "non-commercial" shareware you installed but did not bother to
pay just yet. I bet everyone here have a couple such skeletons in their hard
drives.

> _In which direction?_

Frankly, I don't know. I haven't consider how a guilty person would have
covered their tracks _before hand_. I just figured most people would just
panic and search for various way of covering their asses, regardless of their
guilt.

\---

My point was more, while most people would see guilty-looking behaviour as
strong evidence of guilt, it is not necessarily so. And in this particular
case, I don't think it is.

------
simplicio
I didn't realize expert testimony could be non-public. That seems to undermine
the entire idea of a public trials, IMHO. Is there some justification for it
that I'm not seeing?

~~~
rayiner
According to the article, it was the expert report that wasn't public, not the
expert testimony. An expert report is not evidence, it is not reviewed by the
jury. What is presented to the jury is the expert's testimony, which is
subject to cross-examination by the other party. That testimony is almost
always public.

The expert report is prepared before trial, and explains to the other side
what the expert's opinion will be and the basis for that opinion. It is used
to help prepare cross-examination when the expert ultimately testifies at
trial.

------
excitom
"Substantial similarity" can result in a copyright violation? How is it
possible there is more than one cookbook describing how to make a peanut-
butter-and-jelly sandwich without "substantial similarity"?

~~~
bboreham
"Copyright law does not protect recipes that are mere listings of
ingredients."

"Copyright protection may, however, extend to substantial literary
expression—a description, explanation, or illustration, for example—that
accompanies a recipe"

[https://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html](https://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html)

------
yarou
Excuse my French, but what the fuck does "non-literal copying" mean?

~~~
oddevan
Given other comments in this thread, it means (1) viewing the original work
(in this case, the source code), (2) making superfluous changes to avoid
literal copying (changing variable names, find-replace company name, etc), and
(3) passing this off as original.

It sounds like it's not "You made a knockoff, that's 'non-literal copying,'",
it's "You made a literal copy, changed a couple of things, and called it
yours."

~~~
bitwize
No.

Structure, sequence, and organization of a computer program -- not just code
-- is subject to copyright per _Whelan v. Jaslow_. Note that the _Whelan_
standard became relevant again after _Oracle v. Google_.

~~~
avmich
I'm certainly not a lawyer, but I would definitely like to know what's the
difference between "structure, sequence and organization of a computer
program" and the algorithm behind that program? As I understand, algorithm is
in the realm of ideas, which are not copyrightable.

It would be sad if courts accepted a technically ambiguous approach
effectively deciding arbitrarily which case is what.

