[intherdfield]

> You could say the same thing about anything people do in secret.

I don't think that makes sense. There is no attempt to generalize this to things people do in secret. There is no claim that if something could risk your reputation then it follows that it should be made public.

Carmack's assertion is only that this particular work (for which the witness does voluntarily and is paid for) should be made public so that these witnesses use the same level of rigor they would for their other published work. And letting the public review it would have benefits too. (I am not agreeing or disagreeing with this.)

Ultimately, if we take Carmack's statements as true, it sounds to me like Facebook/Occulus' defense did not do an adequate job of instilling doubt in the report. He wrote that the defense did a technical tear down. I think if I was a juror, I would need to see this report completely destroyed. I'd need to see the same methodology applied to works where we know there was no copying and have it find false positives.

[794CD01]

The assertion is based on the idea that this thing you did is a reflection on who you are, so people who interact with you have a right to know about it so they can judge you by it.

I agree that in this specific instance, it was the job of Oculus' legal team to discredit the report in front of the court. Publishing it after the fact for review by the public doesn't make sense, and calling for it is petty.

[intherdfield]

> Publishing it after the fact for review by > the public doesn't make sense, and calling for it is > petty.

Carmack isn't calling for it to be published. He only said he thinks the system should work that way.

[794CD01]

|R|E|A|D|I|N|G|