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.
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.
I can see both sides to the argument. Someone who was subsequently cleared of charges but whose name is still mud probably has a different value on the court of public opinion.
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.
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?
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.
It's someone who has been involved in the business of technology for a long time, so I'd give his opinion substantially more weight than the average HN comment. It's also bog-standard legal advice, so I'd say it doesn't need a lot of footnoting.
Years in technology means exactly nothing relating to IP/Copyright/Contract lawsuits, and I find that claim extraordinary: It is the sort of thing that builds false confidence and pseudo expertise.
It's also a bit ironic given that in this case it's someone telling John Carmack -- guy who was a founder and partner at a number of businesses to great success and for many years -- what he should do. John clearly made his own analysis and decisions, and he is hardly a green entrant to the industry. And maybe Carmack is making the wrong calls, because again years in technology mean exactly nothing.
Is it bog standard advice to shut up until a trial? Hardly. Many facing such a suit will make statements such as vigorously denies, etc. There is absolutely nothing abnormal or unexpected about that.
Years in the business of technology definitely mean something in relation to both IP and lawsuits. The former being a key ingredient to tech businesses, and the latter being a a risk you must consider any time you sign a contract.
The fellow clearly says that, having been through a couple of lawsuits, that it's tempting to react to the initial wave of emotion. So he's not questioning Carmack's knowledge, he's using Carmack's situation as a handy illustration of his point.
Also, his advice isn't to shut up until trial. It is to wait out the initial wave of emotion, to talk to your lawyer, and think things through until you are truly ready to speak on the permanent record. Which is indeed bog-standard advice.
If you're sure it's a slam-dunk case that you can prove it's a spurious allegation, then go have your fun. But it's very easy to get emotionally invested in your position and fail to realize that not everyone will see things the same way.
Let me use an example: have you ever had a less-than-friendly breakup? Whose fault was it? Do you think both of you would answer that question the same way? At the time of the breakup, how much conviction did you have that you were in the right? How sure are you that a third party, that's not in either of your heads, would share your view with the same conviction?
> If someone makes a spurious allegation against you then I think you should defend yourself as much as possible
1. Defending yourself makes you look guilty.
2. Defending yourself can provide legal ammunition to the opposition.
3. If it's not a legal matter, defending yourself can provide the opposition with words to manipulate to make you look even worse.
4. If they're already making spurious allegations against you, your replies will just prompt them to make more spurious allegations, much of which you may not be able to disprove. Their process of continually coming up with "new information", even if it's fake, will seem genuine to outsiders (due to cognitive bias). Responding just gives them new avenues to attack.
5. If you do defend yourself, it has to be in the form of an attack on the opposition, to discredit them. They can continue to come up with new claims all day which will just make people believe them more. You have to make it so people don't buy anything they say.
6. Besides the tactics of one-on-one mud-slinging, multiple parties provides greater weight to claims or concerns. Even if you have proof that someone is wrong, if they have 5 people all claiming the same thing, the crowd will believe them over you.
7. If this involves some kind of tight-knit in-group or community, you have to completely discredit your opposition for anyone to give a crap what you say.
The biggest problem with defending yourself is that you think the truth will win out, or the truth will come out in the end. It doesn't. The most convincing tactics win out. Lies are a lot easier weapons to use than the truth, and a lot more effective. And all of this also becomes a lot more difficult depending on the circumstances of the claims. Nobody will care if you're right if it looks like you might be wrong.
I agree with the spirit of this but there's also "Do I want to be right or do I want to win?" It's great to rally the public to your cause but if it reduces your odds of winning the case, it's probably not worth it.
The point is that if they make a spurious allegation in a lawsuit, your lawyer should defend you as much as possible. That's the whole point of a lawyer.
By making public statements, you're talking straight to the prosecutor/opposing attorney. As the warning says: Anything you say may be used against you in court.