[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.

[personZ]

I've gotten my karma pummeling elsewhere in this thread for taking this to task, but this is one of those cases where raw speculation is voted up on HN purely because the speaker panders to this audience, and the audience returns the favor. Put that blog post under a less known (on HN at least) name and it would would rightly have disappeared as raw uninformed speculation.