[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.

[bhartzer]

Wouldn't most attorneys advise their client to keep quiet and not post on Twitter and talk to the media about the case?

[esquivalience]

It's not always that simple. There is never anything wrong with talking about a case in principle. As an attorney myself I am often asked to look over this sort of article, press release or other notification. I encourage my clients to be open if they have nothing to hide.

However even posting honest, accurate articles online can come back to haunt you. Unless written very precisely, words can be interpreted by different people differently and often in a way that wasn't intended by the author.

This process doesn't have to be a cynical twisting of words - naturally, a reader's interpretation will be informed by their pre-existing point of view. When that view is one of a litigant, it can open up new issues in a case and lead to new ways to analyse evidence.

If you are posting about a case, make sure you're doing it calmly and definitely get it edited by your lawyer!

[edited for accuracy, typos]

[afarrell]

There is a skill to writing a press release. Think of how often people take things out of context during an argument on the internet. Now imagine they have a financial motivation to do so.

[wpietri]

The basic advice of "Don't just do something; stand there!" is sound, but I'm curious if you (or other people) have practical suggestions on how to do that. In practice, it can be quite difficult to do nothing when it feels like that action is desperately necessary.

[apalmer]

When sued the appropriate action is to immediately higher a qualified lawyer with expertise in the specific area. Then follow his advice. Until you do that... do not do ANYTHING.

[wpietri]

Sure. That's explaining what to do, which was already established. I asked about how to do that. "Do not do ANYTHING" is easy advice to give, but very hard to implement.

[capex]

You probably meant 'hire', not 'higher'

[delinka]

In this age of technology that tries to predict and guess our intentions based on patterns and hand wavy algorithms, it's also safe to assume that autocorrect just outright got it wrong when it corrected an entire phrase. Much as grammatical faux pas irritate my mild obsessiveness, I've learned to just let them slide. Personally, I try not to let such edits slip past me, but they often do. It's usually IM and the person on the other end gets a good laugh, but the intent is typically evident.

[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.

[Hansi]

Couldn't the same be said about e-mail? Which does hold up in court.

[namenotrequired]

The same question can be asked, yes.