
When Sued Don't Tweet - bussetta
http://jacquesmattheij.com/when-sued-dont-tweet
======
cgshaw
(another attorney here)

Tweets aren't under oath or anything, but it opens up Carmack to lots of
questions and possibly affects his credibility.

Often times cases come down to "he said / she said" types of claims and how a
jury views them.

If ZeniMax mentions the tweets in court, it will likely be to try and make
Carmack look like he acted out of hand, and that he rushed to make claims that
arne't true (i.e. the IP / code distinction the poster makes).

Here's the thing about software suits. Most judges / juries are in a TERRIBLE
position when it comes to evaluating the nuance involved in a suit like this.
Think about the average person and how much they understand about what you do.

Lawyers will try to boil it down to themes and narratives that portray you as
"bad." "Winning" in terms of how you evaluate claims or the press or your
followers evaluate claims does not matter. It's all about how the lawyers
convince a judge or jury you are wrong.

~~~
erso
I'm curious to know if, were the tweets to be used, they would also have to
prove it was he that made them. Sure, they're from his account, but would that
hold up in court? See: the many celebrities who have people tweet on their
behalf with their (the celebrities') account.

~~~
larrys
Ianal, but in a deposition he would be asked whether they were his tweets or
not.

If he denied they were, he would be asked further questions and possibly
caught in a lie. Such as "is this the only time that your account has been
used by someone other than yourself?" or "So you are saying that this is the
only tweet that you didn't make but the others before and after you did". And
so on. My guess is that he would be advised to tell the truth to prevent
getting further trapped as far as his credibility. There may also be other
people that he discussed the tweets with that could be brought into the
picture as well under oath in court I'm guessing. Bottom line: Denial is
easier said than done.

~~~
danielweber
To add on, some attorneys spend _their whole lives_ tearing apart people who
lie. Unless you are professional psychopath, you are completely outclassed
here.

~~~
larrys
Agree. Would also add that if you lie infrequently you are probably not
prepared to know all the potential pitfalls of lying and how the other person
can tear you a new one if you want to call it that.

Additionally I've noticed a loose correlation between people who lie and who
their parents are or how they were raised. Nothing scientific of course, but
people whose parents don't hold their feet to the flame are generally more
likely to think that they can get away with something because "the other guy
is stupid". People whose parents are either very intelligent or hold them on
everything they say are generally more practiced at thinking of the various
possibilities that can come about to refute something they would say.

------
buro9
A possible exception: When you have no means to afford a lawyer and the case
is obviously frivolous.

Whilst I would nearly always go for shutting up, we've probably all witnessed
the David being sued by a Goliath and their only viable action is to make it
know and get support.

That isn't what's happening here though... but no rule is black and white.

~~~
nailer
Also: if you're a game developer, and Zenimax offers you a job, and you know
this is how they treat people people who've moved on, you might consider
taking a different role.

------
peterwwillis
What to do when people make you angry online:

1\. GET OFF SOCIAL MEDIA. Everything you say and do will make you a target.
The only things you can say that might help you would be contrition, so if
you're not willing to do that, get the hell off social media. This is also
good because it removes you from having to _read things_ about yourself that
people are saying. People's talk will not harm you; your _reaction_ to
people's talk will harm you.

2\. GET AN OFFLINE JOURNAL. If you have strong feelings, write them out. Write
until you can't feel anymore. But don't put it online; keep it offline. The
purpose is to have an exercise that gets your thoughts out, and to be able to
read through your thoughts and clarify them later. Write letters to the people
you're angry with, then review them and edit them many times, and never send
them.

3\. TALK TO FRIENDS. It's incredibly easy to let internalizing your feelings
change how you think, change your memories, and turn you into a shell of your
former self. You can even develop anxiety disorders or PTSD if this gets out
of hand. Talk to people who understand and love you and let them keep you in
check. You need positive outside influences to keep yourself sane. Talk to a
good psychiatrist if you can.

4\. KEEP THE BIG PICTURE IN MIND. It's easy to confuse yourself and wrestle
over details. Start by considering the intent of your actions, and work from
there to understand the whole chain of events, impartial and without emotion.
It takes a while to get there. Be totally honest with yourself, but don't
convince yourself of things that you didn't do.

~~~
pimlottc
> 1\. GET OFF SOCIAL MEDIA. Everything you say and do will make you a target.
> The only things you can say that might help you would be contrition

IANAL, but this seems like bad advice. If there's litigation involved, any
sort of apology could be taken as an admission of guilt.

------
Luc
One thing I've often wondered: how does one even find the best lawyer, with
the most appropriate experience etc.?

It seems you'd almost need another lawyer, who knows the best people in each
specialty, to advise you.

~~~
pjc50
There always remains the possibility that you may not be able to find a
suitable one _at all_ :
[http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgment...](http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/r-v-
crawley-others.pdf)

This recent high-profile case has been thrown out because nobody that legal
aid is willing to pay (for the defendants) for is capable of handling it. Even
the first step, "read 10,000 pages of documents", is not affordable since the
legal aid cuts.

That document describes the desperate search for someone suitable and willing
("silk" == barrister or QC, required at this level of court)

~~~
pbhjpbhj
[http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgment...](http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/r-v-
crawley-others.pdf) is an interesting case indeed. It's like a DoS on justice,
make sure that your case requires the reading of a large document and you can
get off because the lawyers, silks, etc., will refuse the work.

This is a flaw in the legal system. I'd be surprised that the monarch doesn't
have power to order someone, a QC say, to take the trial on.

 _Also, aside, "bro bono" (para 19), first time I seen that one - taking on a
job for free under obligation to family/friends._

\--

Edit: typo at para.85 adds more weight to my previous thoughts on needing more
contextual spell checking. "scare resources" is almost always going to be a
typo.

~~~
pjc50
Monarch does not have those powers; in any case this is effectively a pay
dispute.

The complexity issue is important and needs addressing properly. Jury trials
for fraud have already been abandoned for this reason. However, I've no idea
how you'd reform it; you need to have people who (a) know the law and (b) have
read all the relevant documents, which is always going to take time and
therefore cost money.

------
ilamont
An interesting counterpoint to this is Julie Ann Horvath, who leveraged
Twitter to expose a toxic culture at Github (1) and eventually forced the CEO
and his wife to leave the company (2), and has kept Github and certain
employees on the defensive (3).

She may have to deal with legal repercussions because of her actions on
Twitter, but I can't help but think that _nothing_ would have changed had she
kept silent or quietly hired an employment lawyer after being forced out.

1\. [http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/19/5526574/github-sexism-
scan...](http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/19/5526574/github-sexism-scandal-
julie-ann-horvath)

2\. [http://recode.net/2014/04/21/julie-ann-horvath-on-github-
inv...](http://recode.net/2014/04/21/julie-ann-horvath-on-github-
investigation-how-do-you-sleep-at-night/)

3\. [http://www.dailydot.com/business/julie-ann-horvath-names-
git...](http://www.dailydot.com/business/julie-ann-horvath-names-github-
harassment/)

~~~
teacup50
It's an interesting counter-point, but I'm not sure it's an example to be
lauded; most of her complaints were found to have no basis in fact, and she's
likely poisoned any future legal suit she might wish to bring.

Additionally, she's incurred significant personal liability in the process.

> _She may have to deal with legal repercussions because of her actions on
> Twitter, but I can 't help but think that nothing would have changed had she
> kept silent or quietly hired an employment lawyer after being forced out._

I can't help but think the court of public opinion has been used to bludgeon
an opponent, not achieve justice.

The public absolutely lacks the facts necessary to judge the merits of the
accusations, and the objectivity necessary won't be forthcoming through
inciting angry internet mobs. This wasn't something as simple as Sterling's
overt racism -- and even then, the public's ability to observe and act on his
overt racism wasn't possible until it saw the cold light of day through
_objective_ and _verifiable_ evidence.

The safest and likely most productive way for GitHub to be held to account,
_if_ GitHub as an organization _needed_ to be held to account, was by
providing a clear, objective statement of the allegations, _vetted by her
lawyer_ , and if possible, a tenacious lawsuit and refusal to settle for
anything less than a public statement.

~~~
ceejayoz
> most of her complaints were found to have no basis in fact

Enough of them had a basis in fact to get a founder fired.

~~~
cookiecaper
While I'm not sufficiently informed on the daily operations at GitHub, "basis
in fact" has nothing to do with whether a C-level remains employed or not.
Companies these days are hypersensitive about their reputations and you'll be
considered a liability for a single misconstrued statement despite years of
stellar (and most importantly, completely politically sanitary) work.

You may even get owned for politically incorrect behavior that occurs in
private and completely external to your professional affiliation. Off the top
of my head I can cite a handful of such ousters that have occurred in the last
month, including but not limited to Brendan Eich and Donald Sterling.

We're in a really bad spot right now. The principles that undergird free
society are not well regarded anymore. Make a single statement that stirs the
ire of the reigning corporate thought police and you're done for, no matter
how innocuous it may or may not be. People don't care about the facts, it's
all about perception, and if you're perceived as a thought criminal in any of
the many varied channels now considered taboo, you're "toxic" to the company.
It's as simple as that.

Considering this status, perhaps aggression and even subtlety are justified if
you're seeking to defend yourself against the types of accusations that would
get a toxic label applied to your name.

~~~
wpietri
Eich's public behavior was absolutely material to his work. You can't work to
break apart gay families and undermine gay people's constitutional rights and
then expect gay people to be be perfectly comfortable working for you. And
Mozilla's board reasonably felt that material to him being the CEO of a
company. Well, that or his demonstrated inability to handle a corporate crisis
with a big press element.

~~~
cookiecaper
* Marriage is not a constitutional right for anyone

* The rules that say the government is not allowed to define marriage further than "two humans say they want to live together and want us to give them stuff for it" are very new, and Eich was fighting to not have this become the rule.

* Gay people should be perfectly comfortable working for people who supported Prop 8 or they're going to have a hard time, as there's a > 50% chance that a random stranger will have done so.

* Eich's ideas on what relationships the government should reward does not materially affect his performance as CEO. He'd already promised to keep Mozilla's inclusive policies.

* If you really want to say gay people would find it impossible to work for Eich, I find it hard to believe that any such persons at Mozilla are less replaceable than Brendan Eich. If they do resign in protest, Eich would've had no trouble replacing them. However, Mozilla's official statement indicated the vast majority of the company supported him, with "less than ten" current employees threatening resignation if Eich maintained his post.

* The board didn't fire or pressure Eich to leave. He resigned voluntarily as damage control. Mozilla's official statement is clear about this.

Casting anyone who supported Prop 8 as a villain is a wholly untenable
philosophical stance. It condemns the majority of Californians and Americans.
You can't live life with that large of a chip on your shoulder, it's
completely disruptive. If you are doing so, I recommend you seek a shoulder-
chip repair professional before further damage to self and others is
perpetrated by political intolerance.

~~~
wpietri
* The reason Prop 8 was was a constitutional amendment is that equality before the law is a right enshrined in the California constitution.

* Immaterial.

* There is a difference between "voted for" and "funded". Further, Eich refused to say whether his opinion had changed. And obviously, you don't get to say what gay people are comfortable about.

* Incorrect. Promising to be bigoted only in his off hours is not a promise that will convince everybody.

* Your view apparently is that as long as you're not powerful, injustice is fine. That's not a view many share. Especially at Mozilla.

* Fair enough.

At one point vast majorities of people opposed interracial marriage. And,
earlier, were in favor of slavery for black people, an institution maintained
through brutality and torture. I'm not saying those people are villains, but I
am saying they were wrong, and bigoted in a way that was deeply problematic.
And I'm saying the same thing about people who supported Prop 8. Thankfully,
as the statistics show, people are more quickly waking up to their anti-gay
bigotry, so it's a dead issue here in California, and it soon will be in the
rest of the nation.

~~~
cookiecaper
> The reason Prop 8 was was a constitutional amendment is that equality before
> the law is a right enshrined in the California constitution.

OK, again, it's not that "the right to marry" is constitutional. It's just
that some judges have decided "marriage" means giving benefits to any two
humans who claim they want it. This isn't what marriage is supposed to be, but
that's beside the point at the moment. Bans on same-sex marriage were
considered unconstitutional because marital benefits were granted to persons
who engaged in opposite-sex permanent coupling, and the judiciary decided that
since the existence of sex was acknowledged, it was unfair. Enforcing this
massive blind spot is obviously absurd, but again, currently beside the point.
The point is there is not a constitutional right to marital benefits.

>* There is a difference between "voted for" and "funded". Further, Eich
refused to say whether his opinion had changed. And obviously, you don't get
to say what gay people are comfortable about.

Eich's contribution was minor, so not much of a difference in this case.
Perhaps, as a wealthy individual, he routinely donates to political causes
that accord with his beliefs and considers this good citizenship. You can't
say that this issue was critical to Eich simply because a small contribution
exists.

There was no reason to demand Eich recant his position. This is still a hot
mainstream political topic. As Mozilla stated, almost the entire company was
content to follow Eich; only a negligible number of employees threatened to
leave. Eich resigned to prevent damage to Firefox and its users.

>Incorrect. Promising to be bigoted only in his off hours is not a promise
that will convince everybody.

It doesn't materially affect his performance as CEO no matter what he chooses
to believe on a social issue about as far removed from computer software as
you can get.

>Your view apparently is that as long as you're not powerful, injustice is
fine. That's not a view many share. Especially at Mozilla.

No, my view is that Eich committed no injustice by expressing his opinion via
political contributions, and that we shouldn't displace extremely well-
qualified persons because a very small percentage of people chose to have
their feelings hurt by Eich's completely reasonable, defensible, and valid
actions. It has nothing to do with anyone's power, just their value and
contribution. Eich, as _the inventor of JavaScript_ , provides irreplaceable
value, and as he did nothing wrong, he shouldn't have been displaced.

>At one point vast majorities of people opposed interracial marriage. And,
earlier, were in favor of slavery for black people, an institution maintained
through brutality and torture.

However deplorable you consider these things, you need to understand the
context in which such people were developed and some basics about human moral
development. The black and white, scorched earth view is not beneficial to
anyone except those primarily concerned with stroking their victim complex.
After the South surrendered, widespread amnesty was offered, not widespread
condemnation of all "bigots". One needs to learn to live with the fact that
vast majorities of his contemporaries have different belief and value systems,
instead of trying to force them to adopt the same value system by shame and
bullying.

I don't want to get into it here, but I believe there are major differences
between opposition to same-sex marriage and racial issues. Pretty much the
only thing they share is that they were controversial political issues.

I agree that in the short-term, discussion on gay marriage will be chilled and
it will be grudgingly accepted in light of absurdly hypocritical bullying and
shame campaigns orchestrated by gay rights activists. But I don't think it
will last. I think the fact that gay marriage is even entertained demonstrates
that western society has been stretched to its breaking point, and I expect it
to break, at which point these realities that we prefer to ignore will
pronounce themselves starkly and demand recognition, as has happened over and
over again when a society gets enough wealth to drink and imbibe itself into
major social stupor.

~~~
wpietri
The bit about constitutionality is about equal protection under the law. The
sole legal purpose and effect of Prop 8 was to strip equal protection from gay
people as regards to marriage. That's not a debatable legal point, and the
court decisions are quite clear on it. You can try to justify that, but
pretending like that's not what went on mainly makes you look willfully
ignorant.

I don't have a black-and-white, scorched-earth view of this. I have a lot of
compassion for the people who find themselves on the wrong side of a social
change. And if people want to be bigoted in the quiet of their own homes, far
be it from me to try to change them. But people using the power of the state
to be bigoted don't get that pass until they renounce their attempts at active
harm. And they also don't automatically get to be the boss of people that
they're bigoted against.

Regarding the "society is about to collapse from the liberals" bit: that has
been a popular line at least since Lincoln freed the slaves. Wake me when it
happens. And also fuck you for suggesting that letting my friends raise their
families in peace is somehow akin to drunken self-indulgence.

~~~
cookiecaper
It is a debatable point. Some judges agree with the interpretation that you're
pretending is universal, and some don't. This is why this is a controversial
political issue. If gay marriage were self-evidently legal, all of these court
cases would not have happened. To many, the crux of the issue that the
government chose to provide rewards and recognition for those willing to
engage in a certain behavior, and now there are people trying to say that they
should be included because they're doing something superficially similar.
Whatever you believe about homosexuality or gay marriage, permanent
cohabitation with same-sex individuals is not the same as permanent
cohabitation with opposite-sex individuals. Maybe you think it doesn't make a
difference, but a lot of people do, and only want to use state powers to
encourage the latter behavior.

The issue here is that you see this as a matter of bigotry. As long as your
view of the opposition is that narrow, a constructive dialogue is impossible.
I understand it may be difficult to overcome that impulse with activists
constantly trying to shame people into exactly that submissive position that
doesn't allow them to consider the arguments of any opposition figure without
automatically self-incriminating, but I hope that people can learn not to fall
for that shaming.

True, there are always people anticipating major social collapse. It just so
happens that occasionally, those people are right. The fact that some of them
have been wrong in the past doesn't mean the suggestion is automatically
invalid.

Your belligerent, empty retort only further illustrates the validity of my
arguments. The attitude of "Fuck you, and the half of society that agrees with
you" doesn't really make for social cohesion or stability.

~~~
wpietri
It's not legally debatable in California, because those are the judgments that
led up to Prop 8. It's settled law. And it was before Prop 8 aimed to change
the constitution to strip equal protection from gay people. Which is why those
paying for Prop 8 are literally guilty of trying to break up existing
families.

You might believe permanent cohabitation between gay people is different, just
like most people who were opposed to interracial marriage. But, in both cases,
it's not materially different with respect to civil marriage. Not with regards
to equal protection, because no anti-gay bigot has been able to demonstrate in
court a rational basis for making that distinction. And not in my experience,
where what I see is just like what I see when I visit my straight friends.
Happy couples and struggling couples; childless couples and couples with
happy, laughing children. Children who deserve society's protection, just like
any others.

Regarding the last bit, you can't claim half of society on that. An ever-
declining portion of society is anxious, concerned, confused, or misled on gay
marriage. I have lots of compassion for them. There are also some people who
believe it's against what their god(s) want, but correctly recognized that
using the power of the state to impose their religious views on others is
wrong. Them, I appreciate.

There are _also_ some bigots -- a much smaller number than the other groups --
who say hateful and false things, as you have. They, and you, can go fuck
yourselves. We survived the much greater social upheavals of reducing anti-
black bias; we'll certainly make it through accommodating the smaller number
of homosexuals. You and your friends can go on to be the Jesse Helmses and the
Don Sterlings of your day, muttering into your bran flakes about how it's all
going to fall part any day now while your grandchildren politely ignore you
and get on with their lives. Enjoy it.

------
motters
If someone makes a spurious allegation against you then I think you should
defend yourself as much as possible, including via tweets or any other
communication channels. Refuse to go quietly into the night.

~~~
zavulon
Did you read the article? The point is you're making it worse by tweeting and
making other public statements. You may win in court of public opinion, but
you're making it easier for your opponent to beat you in actual court.

~~~
personZ
The blog post is pure speculation by what appears to be a layman. It has no
more weight than any random comment on HN.

It's worth stating that because people are treating it as if a famed IP lawyer
has made a pronouncement of fact, when in actuality it's just someone giving,
like, an opinion, man.

~~~
jacquesm
Let's see a famed IP lawyer that would disagree with the premise of the
article.

Attack the contents, if you can.

There are several lawyers that I know of right here in this thread and I don't
see anybody contradicting the advice.

~~~
personZ
Unnecessarily defensive. Was there something, anything, in my comment that is
incorrect? Are you actually a contract/IP lawyer? Note that I'm not saying
that you are _wrong_ , because honestly I don't know. Because I'm not a
lawyer, and I don't know all of the specifics of this case. But am I wrong in
what I said about the authority of the post?

This is why people preface things with IANAL.

People often petition to the public (Tesla quite recently) in such cases --
regardless of pending lawsuits -- because the damage in perception can be
larger than any possible legal damage. And stating simple facts of truth (such
as "I copied 0 lines of code") seems doubtful to aggravate anything if they
are truthful. So there are separate issues of IP: Great, but they are neither
worsened or relieved by a statement about code, are they?

~~~
jacquesm
Don't shoot yourself in the foot is good advice, even when it doesn't come
from your surgeon.

~~~
personZ
That analogy hardly fits such a complex situation. This advice is more akin to
"if someone is breaking into your house, call the police and hide in a
closet". Situations may be a little more complex than that.

------
michaelq
While that may help you in the courtroom, the court of public opinion doesn't
wait for a verdict. It confuses silence with guilt. Acquittals are less likely
to make front pages than acquittals.

~~~
arrrg
Does the public care about this? I really don’t think so. This is a case about
some boring legalities. I really can’t see it having any impact on how Carmack
is viewed.

There are probably many other situation in which that is not the case, but
here I really can’t see anything bad happening as a consequence of Carmack not
responding publicly.

~~~
dnissley
What about gamers? They are their customers, and they can be a fickle bunch
under the right circumstances. A recent example could be the reaction to the
DRM in the latest sim city, and other games. A counterexample however could be
EA, which most gamers loathe but continues to sell plenty of games. (Edit:
Although now that I actually look it up EA is behind sim city. So who knows.)

~~~
arrrg
Gamers don’t care at all about people stealing IP. They don’t have a problem
with it.

------
TodPunk
This article has some flaws. For instance, Carmack isn't getting sued,
Oculus/Facebook is.

Also, I didn't get the impression that Carmack was "angry" when he tweeted
that. I always get the impression that he is pretty calm about all of the
things he's saying, and the two tweets being referenced are just statements
about his perception on the case. Since anger is the tone of the entire
"mistake" from the article's perspective, it seems the article author is the
one jumping to conclusions and writing things on the internet before they're
due.

~~~
jacquesm
Good points! Have an upvote...

The actual defendant for now is Oculus Rift (because I suspect that's where
the money is), but Carmack is very much in the line of fire (as the one who
allegedly did the deed) and is currently CTO of Oculus Rift, so even if he's
not the named party he definitely is in a defensive position here.

On top of that his current interest is in this particular case probably not
aligned with Oculus Rift.

That means that your words should be weighed on a gold scale, especially when
uttered through a public medium. I've fixed the post to take into account your
comments.

------
motdiem
Without commenting on why Zenimax would launch such a lawsuit now and be
public about it, I can't help but see Carmack's response as a potential
intimidation move, e.g "You may win in court, but you will lose in the court
of public opinion, and this will hurt your business more than losing this
suit. Now think again about wether you really want to sue".

~~~
jacquesm
That would be an exceedingly dumb strategy because if such a link could be
made then it would open up Carmack to yet another round of damages if the suit
would be lost.

Blackmail is not a sound legal strategy if you have a lot to lose. If you're
on your last dime and you don't own anything that can be seized you might try
this route.

~~~
darkarmani
> That would be an exceedingly dumb strategy because if such a link could be
> made then it would open up Carmack to yet another round of damages if the
> suit would be lost.

How exactly? Plenty of people sue a company, lose the case, and still do a lot
of damage to the company because of the distraction and public confidence. One
example, is startups getting sued that are looking for another round of
investment. They are definitely harmed even if they win the lawsuit. It cuts
both ways. Sometimes a victory can be made to cost more than settling -- for
either side. That's why people settle. If you can make the PR cost higher, the
price to settle comes down.

------
smcl
I'm confused - was the case of John Carmack cited because his tweets have now
been raised in court and have hurt his case? I haven't been following this
situation so I've zero context.

~~~
Alphasite_
It's only been a day to two since thise was public, I'm doubtful that they're
being mentioned in court.

~~~
smcl
Ah so it's just general cautionary advice. I'd be interested to see if this
comes up in court.

------
mathattack
I found a true gem hiding amidst great advice: _the only lawyer that’s yours
is the one you pay_

Corporate lawyers exist to protect the corporation.

------
jfoster
I understand what the common wisdom is ("shut-up") when it comes to this type
of thing, and I understand the stated reason why ("it will get used against
you!"), but I don't understand the "how" part.

Carmack made a very clear, short public message about it. Rather than being
any kind of admission, it was the opposite. A complete denial. How could
Zenimax use that to strengthen their case? He's likely to repeat the same
denial to the court anyway.

I'm not pretending I know better than the common wisdom, just trying to
understand it better. If you were Zenimax, how would you use this tweet
against him?

~~~
jacquesm
It wasn't a complete denial ('code' and 'patents' are not the only work
products protected by IP laws and by employment contract terms).

That alone makes me believe this was not vetted by his lawyer unless they
specifically wanted to misdirect the opposition. I don't think that's likely,
and such misdirection would most likely fail anyway assuming the opposite side
is halfway competent.

Making falsifiable claims in public simply does not help.

As for how Zenimax could use this against Carmack, let's not make their lives
easier than we have to.

------
throwaway9988
I'm curious to when/if there are exceptions to this standard advice. When
could it be a strategic move?

~~~
arethuza
I can't think of any - I know that having been sued (OK it was my start-up,
but I took it rather personally) and it was _incredibly_ stressful and at the
start I nearly replied to the other side with communications trying to naively
"sort things out" that could have made things even worse.

My stress levels decreased hugely when all communication was put into the
hands of our lawyers - and it was eventually resolved with both sides walking
away and paying their own expenses, which wasn't great as we had done
_nothing_ wrong but was probably the least worst option.

Honestly - if someone raises a legal action against you - talk to a lawyer who
specializes in the relevant area and do what they tell you, which is likely to
include no public statement without their approval.

~~~
stingraycharles
Exactly. The desire for communication with the public is mostly based on
emotion, not on a rational decision. Lawyers give you rational advice.

Having been involved in a lawsuit last year, even after I won, I still don't
dare to publicly talk about it for fear or repercussions. I simply ask myself:
what do I have to gain, and what do I have to lose?

Usually the risks and impact of the things I have to lose outweigh the things
I have to gain, and it's a good way of making myself shut up.

------
milliams
Perhaps his lawyer okayed his tweets.

~~~
sbarre
Then he should get a new lawyer

------
simonebrunozzi
This is a HARD thing to cope with. I've been through it once, and I lost much
sleep over many nights just because of it. Especially the first time, you have
NO idea on how to deal with it. I can say that the best advice is to do
nothing UNTIL you talk to your lawyer, and I can confirm that YOUR lawyer
means the one YOU pay. Try to stay calm. Things like this take months,
sometimes even years, to unfold. Good luck.

------
personZ
I am very confused that Carmack finds himself in such a position.

Carmack quite famously made "Fuck You Money" over a decade ago. He was driving
garages full of super expensive cars. _He_ should have been the one with the
levers.

Instead he became, effectively, an employee again. Why? Why would he do that?

~~~
jacquesm
funding Armadillo can't have been cheap.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armadillo_Aerospace](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armadillo_Aerospace)

~~~
bchjam
pretty much, he said Armadillo had drained all of his 'crazy money' at a
QuakeCon a couple years ago

------
devhinton
Why is this up-voted? This is basically don't be a dumb-ass 101

