Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

First Elder Scrolls Online and now this?!?!?!?!?! Screw Zenimax

1356789

Comments

  • XzenXzen Los Alamos, NMPosts: 2,607Member Common
    Originally posted by BMBender

     


    Originally posted by kitarad
     
     

     

     

    Keyword here is succeeds  during his term of employment. Question is how much of Occulus can Zenimax prove was developed while he was working for them.


     


    Since he admitted to using a portion of code owned by Zenimax this can only end one way unless he makes a deal.

    Now if he did use code owned by Zenimax it's not just patent trolling and he is a thief.

  • TorvalTorval Oregon CountryPosts: 7,222Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by kitarad

    Once it is patented you have a different burden of proof. Once it is patented you have to give up your rights to the invention. It is not cut and dry and Zenimax has to prove that Carmack was hired to develop the exact thing not just an idea..

     

    It's all about money I bet they will settle this.

    According to this CNET article: http://www.cnet.com/news/oculus-and-facebook-hit-with-legal-challenge-over-rights-to-rift-technology/ he did work on VR while under contract with ZM. It also says he left the company because they didn't want him working on VR anymore so he went on to pursue that. He did sign an NDA which is not in their favor. The article has a lot of very good info in it.

    I don't think this is going to work well for ZM's public perception. Very few techies or gamers like patent or IP squeezing. ZM doesn't have a patent claim, or they're not asserting one which makes the case less clear.

    Personally, I hate that tech companies can silence innovation with NDAs and no-work clauses. I certainly don't think higher of ZM for trying the cash grab.

  • TorvalTorval Oregon CountryPosts: 7,222Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Xzen
    Originally posted by BMBender
    Originally posted by kitarad
     

    Keyword here is succeeds  during his term of employment. Question is how much of Occulus can Zenimax prove was developed while he was working for them.

    Since he admitted to using a portion of code owned by Zenimax this can only end one way unless he makes a deal.

    Now if he did use code owned by Zenimax it's not just patent trolling and he is a thief.

    He did no admit to using code owned by ZM. In fact he explicitly denies that. Read the articles posted.

  • CoatedCoated Woodside, CAPosts: 340Member Uncommon

    If this is the case, then IBM should get full compensations for Apple and everything they have made thus far.

    What a stupid claim. Shallow, self righteous and absolutely absurd. As the main article stated, there is a 2 billion transaction happening and Zenimax is shamefully trying to get their hands on some of that cash.

  • GhavriggGhavrigg Halifax, NSPosts: 778Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Epicent
    This is ridiculous. Seriously. Rift does good and now they try to cash in? Guess they have to make money some kind of way. http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/05/01/oculus-rift-technology-was-stolen-company-claims

    On this site, this post seems so weird. "Rift does good" - seems like Trion's Rift. Oh, they're cashing in on Trion's Rift? Oh wait, you meant the virtual reality machine in development.

    Anyway, moving on. Who's to know who is correct? There's no way. ZOS might be right. But in the end, it won't matter. No one cares.

    The people in this thread are going to be swayed by how negative towards ZOS it is due to the OP.  Who has no idea about anything, to be honest. No one does but the people involved.

    !!

  • XzenXzen Los Alamos, NMPosts: 2,607Member Common
    Originally posted by Torvaldr
    Originally posted by Xzen
    Originally posted by BMBender
    Originally posted by kitarad
     

    Keyword here is succeeds  during his term of employment. Question is how much of Occulus can Zenimax prove was developed while he was working for them.

    Since he admitted to using a portion of code owned by Zenimax this can only end one way unless he makes a deal.

    Now if he did use code owned by Zenimax it's not just patent trolling and he is a thief.

    He did no admit to using code owned by ZM. In fact he explicitly denies that. Read the articles posted.

    Will do. thanks.

  • prowessprowess st louis, MOPosts: 164Member
    Originally posted by fyerwall
    Originally posted by Azzras
    Everyone is having fun bashing them, but they DID say that they have signed paperwork stating the dude would NOT give the tech to a 3rd party (Facebook).  That is what this lawsuit is about, and they will most likely win this one.

    Signed paperwork, a payoff offer (before the facebook buyout) and Carmack playing the semantics card (acknowledging he worked for Zenimax, worked in their sponsored VR research and stating "They don't own VR" - basically stating 'yes, Zenimax gave me all the tools I needed to develop and understand VR under the impression that it would make them some sort of financial/technological return on their investment, but instead I took everything I learned and went to another company...')

    I dunno, to me it seems there is a lot of validity to Zenimax's suit here.

    Exactly.  Seems pretty cut and dry.

    image
    I chose the Xfinity speed test because it does not reveal my ISP.

  • BMBenderBMBender Nowhere, NCPosts: 568Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by Torvaldr
    Originally posted by Xzen Originally posted by BMBender Originally posted by kitarad   Keyword here is succeeds  during his term of employment. Question is how much of Occulus can Zenimax prove was developed while he was working for them.
    Since he admitted to using a portion of code owned by Zenimax this can only end one way unless he makes a deal.
    Now if he did use code owned by Zenimax it's not just patent trolling and he is a thief.
    He did no admit to using code owned by ZM. In fact he explicitly denies that. Read the articles posted.

    http://www.polygon.com/2014/5/1/5671670/carmack-oculus-zenimax
    bottom of page

    John Carmack ? @ID_AA_Carmack
    Follow
    No work I have ever done has been patented. Zenimax owns the code that I wrote, but they don't own VR.


    1:22 PM - 1 May 2014

    If a single line of code in the current OR incorporates the above, he's on the hook legally and contractually.

    image
  • AzzrasAzzras Loganville, GAPosts: 389Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Torvaldr
    Originally posted by kitarad

    Once it is patented you have a different burden of proof. Once it is patented you have to give up your rights to the invention. It is not cut and dry and Zenimax has to prove that Carmack was hired to develop the exact thing not just an idea..

     

    It's all about money I bet they will settle this.

    According to this CNET article: http://www.cnet.com/news/oculus-and-facebook-hit-with-legal-challenge-over-rights-to-rift-technology/ he did work on VR while under contract with ZM. It also says he left the company because they didn't want him working on VR anymore so he went on to pursue that. He did sign an NDA which is not in their favor. The article has a lot of very good info in it.

    I don't think this is going to work well for ZM's public perception. Very few techies or gamers like patent or IP squeezing. ZM doesn't have a patent claim, or they're not asserting one which makes the case less clear.

    Personally, I hate that tech companies can silence innovation with NDAs and no-work clauses. I certainly don't think higher of ZM for trying the cash grab.

    From my understanding, his contract stated that he would not let a 3rd party have access to the property.  What that means is he was fine using it until the FB deal.  That broke his contract.

    I could be wrong on that, but the bottom line is it really really really looks like he took work from ZM and gave it to FB.

    image
  • kitaradkitarad RomePosts: 1,745Member Uncommon

    "Oculus uses zero lines of code that I wrote while under contract to Zenimax,"

     

    Read carefully. Zenimax owns the code he wrote while at Zenimax  but OR uses zero lines of code that I wrote while under contract to Zen.

     

    From my understanding damn I hate all this social media stuff to sift through because everything gets garbled. He wrote the code for OR after he left so while he agrees Zenimax owns the code he wrote while he was with them since OR does not have any line of code he wrote while with them then they cannot claim it.

     

    Probably the law in US is  different and I am barking up the wrong tree image

    image

  • TorvalTorval Oregon CountryPosts: 7,222Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Azzras
    Originally posted by Xzen
    It's called patent trolling. Even if Zenimax is right legally I don't believe in IP so I agree with jury nullification.

    You don't believe in intellectual property?

    Maybe I should go create a website called MMORPG?

    Maybe I should make a game called World of Warcraft?

    Those are IPs after all.

    What a ridiculous assertion. Should whoever owns Rift and the VR tech behind exclusively be allowed to create VR gear? The patent and IP system is so screwed that it has crippled innovation.

    Where do you draw the ridiculous line? He isn't trying to create a VR system that says Zenimax on it is he so you're mmorpg analogy is shallow and short-sighted. By your purile argument people shouldn't be allowed to create websites or games period. He's not stealing an implementation. He's not copying another implementation. He's making his own and the previous company thinks they should have IP rights to the concepts, more specifically that they own rights to his ideas formed while working for them.

    How would you like to be sued at your next job, in the same industry, because you're using ideas and tricks you learned at your last place of employment? That is what is going on here and why IP rules in tech are poison at the moment.

  • fyerwallfyerwall Posts: 3,155Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by kitarad
    Originally posted by BMBender

     


    Originally posted by kitarad
     
     

     

     

    Keyword here is succeeds  during his term of employment. Question is how much of Occulus can Zenimax prove was developed while he was working for them.


     


    Since he admitted to using a portion of code owned by Zenimax this can only end one way unless he makes a deal.

    What I do not get is why did Zenimax allow them to use the code then and not do anything about this before or register a patent before this was sold. It is very fishy I tell you we are not seeing the picture bet these people are all out to shanghai Zuckerberg.

    What it sounds like is that Zenimax was trying to be the 'Good Neighbor' to the new guy on the block (Occulus) by seeming helpful and generous with the thought that if something became of the Rift that they would be able to say "Well remember that time we let you borrow the lawn mower?" and get in on some form of partnership or eventual buy-out of Occulus.

    Sadly all that happened is Occulus moved out of state, kept the lawn mower and Zenimax's wife (Carmack) went with them.

    Now Zenimax is suing to get the cost of the mower back!

     

    There are 3 types of people in the world.
    1.) Those who make things happen
    2.) Those who watch things happen
    3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"


    image

  • TorvalTorval Oregon CountryPosts: 7,222Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by BMBender

     


    Originally posted by Torvaldr

    Originally posted by Xzen

    Originally posted by BMBender

    Originally posted by kitarad   Keyword here is succeeds  during his term of employment. Question is how much of Occulus can Zenimax prove was developed while he was working for them.
    Since he admitted to using a portion of code owned by Zenimax this can only end one way unless he makes a deal.
    Now if he did use code owned by Zenimax it's not just patent trolling and he is a thief.
    He did no admit to using code owned by ZM. In fact he explicitly denies that. Read the articles posted.
    http://www.polygon.com/2014/5/1/5671670/carmack-oculus-zenimax
    bottom of page

     

    John Carmack ? @ID_AA_Carmack
    Follow
    No work I have ever done has been patented. Zenimax owns the code that I wrote, but they don't own VR.


    1:22 PM - 1 May 2014

    If a single line of code in the current OR incorporates the above, he's on the hook legally and contractually.

    Read his tweet I posted in the linked news article. He clarifies.

  • yaminsuxyaminsux KajangPosts: 812Member Uncommon
    No shame in doing what ZM is doing atm. 2 bill is a lot of money, and I think they should persue it.

    Just drop the holier than thou act, of something similar happens to you. You would do the same. After all money talks.
  • prowessprowess st louis, MOPosts: 164Member
    Originally posted by Azzras
    Originally posted by Torvaldr
    Originally posted by kitarad

    Once it is patented you have a different burden of proof. Once it is patented you have to give up your rights to the invention. It is not cut and dry and Zenimax has to prove that Carmack was hired to develop the exact thing not just an idea..

     

    It's all about money I bet they will settle this.

    According to this CNET article: http://www.cnet.com/news/oculus-and-facebook-hit-with-legal-challenge-over-rights-to-rift-technology/ he did work on VR while under contract with ZM. It also says he left the company because they didn't want him working on VR anymore so he went on to pursue that. He did sign an NDA which is not in their favor. The article has a lot of very good info in it.

    I don't think this is going to work well for ZM's public perception. Very few techies or gamers like patent or IP squeezing. ZM doesn't have a patent claim, or they're not asserting one which makes the case less clear.

    Personally, I hate that tech companies can silence innovation with NDAs and no-work clauses. I certainly don't think higher of ZM for trying the cash grab.

    From my understanding, his contract stated that he would not let a 3rd party have access to the property.  What that means is he was fine using it until the FB deal.  That broke his contract.

    I could be wrong on that, but the bottom line is it really really really looks like he took work from ZM and gave it to FB.

    Zenimax is the 1st party, Carmack is the 2nd party, and Oculus/Facebook are the 3rd party.

    image
    I chose the Xfinity speed test because it does not reveal my ISP.

  • BMBenderBMBender Nowhere, NCPosts: 568Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by kitarad
    "Oculus uses zero lines of code that I wrote while under contract to Zenimax," Read carefully. Zenimax owns the code he wrote while at Zenimax  but OR uses zero lines of code that I wrote while under contract to Zen.
    ahh missed that one, makes it murkier but doesn't quite invalidate Zen's potential claim. All they have to prove is that work he did while under contract for them eliminated dead ends and furthered the maturation of tech currently used by OR. I assume via NDA, non-compete and the typical contractual clauses. R&D precedents are pretty clear as part of his originally contract was R&D. He would have been better served to give them right of 1st refusal before making the Facebook deal, he would have been in the clear then.

    image
  • kitaradkitarad RomePosts: 1,745Member Uncommon
    I think he left because they would not let him work on what he wanted. If you read all the stuff posted on the various sources it seems they never considered his work worth it. Now of course Zen is singing a different tune.

    image

  • AzzrasAzzras Loganville, GAPosts: 389Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Torvaldr
    Originally posted by Azzras
    Originally posted by Xzen
    It's called patent trolling. Even if Zenimax is right legally I don't believe in IP so I agree with jury nullification.

    You don't believe in intellectual property?

    Maybe I should go create a website called MMORPG?

    Maybe I should make a game called World of Warcraft?

    Those are IPs after all.

    What a ridiculous assertion. Should whoever owns Rift and the VR tech behind exclusively be allowed to create VR gear? The patent and IP system is so screwed that it has crippled innovation.

    Where do you draw the ridiculous line? He isn't trying to create a VR system that says Zenimax on it is he so you're mmorpg analogy is shallow and short-sighted. By your purile argument people shouldn't be allowed to create websites or games period. He's not stealing an implementation. He's not copying another implementation. He's making his own and the previous company thinks they should have IP rights to the concepts, more specifically that they own rights to his ideas formed while working for them.

    How would you like to be sued at your next job, in the same industry, because you're using ideas and tricks you learned at your last place of employment? That is what is going on here and why IP rules in tech are poison at the moment.

    For my job, I signed an NDA that explicitly states I shall not use anything provided by my employers...even if I'm the one that created them.  They own the rights.

    With that said, the person I quoted said he doesn't believe in IPs.

    Say IP is a broad statement.  I SHOULD be sued if I used WoW's name, etc.

    Anyway, if this guy didn't like the terms he shouldn't have signed the contract. 

    Edit:

    And ZM DOES own the rights to anything he created while under their employ.

    image
  • BMBenderBMBender Nowhere, NCPosts: 568Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by kitarad
    I think he left because they would not let him work on what he wanted. If you read all the stuff posted on the various sources it seems they never considered his work worth it. Now of course Zen is singing a different tune.
    It still boils down to if resources/equipment/ideas he utilized while under contract for ZEN helped in the development in any way of OR. If yes then Zen has a case.

    image
  • TealaTeala SomewherePosts: 7,430Member Uncommon
    This is why I cannot stand Apple or any of their products.   They litigate the hell out of competition and that is the only way they can stay viable.    I'll never buy anything made by Apple.   Zenimax is playing the same dirty kind of game.    This is going to hurt their image if they pursue this.    They wouldn't have done squat if the sale to Facebook hadn't taken place.  Now that it is has...they are looking to make a money grab - the same thing they did for their game TESO with its stupid paywalls.   Just a greedy frakking tech company is what Zenimax is.

    image
  • kitaradkitarad RomePosts: 1,745Member Uncommon
    Has the Zuckerberg deal been finalized ? Can this rift (sorry for the pun) between Zen and Carmack cause a problem to the deal ?

    image

  • BMBenderBMBender Nowhere, NCPosts: 568Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by kitarad
    Has the Zuckerberg deal been finalized ? Can this rift (sorry for the pun) between Zen and Carmack cause a problem to the deal ?
    that's the million $ question

    image
  • RelGnRelGn halalaPosts: 494Member

    This is what happens when a game of a company fails.

    They get nasty and they are on their way to doom

    image
  • BMBenderBMBender Nowhere, NCPosts: 568Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by Teala
    This is why I cannot stand Apple or any of their products.   They litigate the hell out of competition and that is the only way they can stay viable.    I'll never buy anything made by Apple.   Zenimax is playing the same dirty kind of game.    This is going to hurt their image if they pursue this.    They wouldn't have done squat if the sale to Facebook hadn't taken place.  Now that it is has...they are looking to make a money grab - the same thing they did for their game TESO with its stupid paywalls.   Just a greedy frakking tech company is what Zenimax is.
    I'm not a fan of Zen and yes the PR fallout will hurt them some/little/a lot. But if he indeed furthered his research/development of the current OR tech at any point in time using Zen resources; they have a legal and moral claim to some portion of it. Like I said he would have been better served to legally sever any competing/contractual obligation prior to the Facebook deal. Outside looking in it does appear he is in violation of at least some of the standard contractual non-compete clauses typical in R&D contracts.

    image
  • psiicpsiic Tampa, FLPosts: 946Member Uncommon

    Wow have to side with Zenimax on this one.

     

    The guy admits the code he used belongs to Zenimax in WRITING. 

     

    The Occulus turns around and says they did nothing wrong using the stolen code.

     

    I mean granted the whole industry is 99% stolen code and concept, but when the designer himself puts in writing the code in question belongs to Zenimax, then a court of law is going to agree.

     

    But hey keep hating on Zenimax for defending their legal rights.

Sign In or Register to comment.