>We're don't view ourselves in competition with Meta<p>>...Meta sells reasonably good gaming headsets to customers who want to be entertained in VR; we're selling general-purpose productivity devices which are aimed at replacing PCs and laptops.<p>Hate to break it to you, but if you don't think that Mark Zuckerberg is actively trying to create VR devices that are general-purpose productivity devices aimed at replacing PCs and laptops, you haven't been watching some of their recent videos about the new headsets and prototype headsets they're working on. He very much is aiming for that market with future devices (not the Quest 2).<p>Here's a couple:<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMpWH6vDZ8E" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMpWH6vDZ8E</a><p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zHDkdkqd1I" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zHDkdkqd1I</a><p>Also he's described their Project Cambria headset as intended for productivity, as in the following article:<p>"What’s different about Project Cambria?<p>The most important description we’ve received about Project Cambria comes from The Information; according to the publication, Meta employees have alternately described the headset as a “laptop for the face” or a “Chromebook for the face.” It’s a device Zuckerberg hopes people will use to get work done rather than being aimed primarily at gamers as with previous headsets."<p><a href="https://thenextweb.com/news/meta-project-cambria-what-we-know" rel="nofollow">https://thenextweb.com/news/meta-project-cambria-what-we-kno...</a>
Maybe I've just been on a too-long coding stretch, but speaking for myself, it's just really unsavory to read so much "red/blue"-style sloganism around the big tech companies. Obviously I'm biased because I worked for one, and so I saw up close the process that produces the decisions that seem to routinely generate comment threads with people comparing Google/FB/MSFT/etc. to e.g. "Satan".<p>It's just not that simple folks: and a hallmark of why this forum is great is that we tackle "not that simple" with a relentless curiosity rather than 1-bit generalizations.<p>I routinely whack these megacorps for their shady dealings. But this "Marg bar Āmrikā" shit is an unflattering look for such a thoughtful community and it ignores that huge parts of this community are a direct personal object of very nasty remarks made "in general" on a fairly daily basis.<p>People are quite pleased to enjoy the corporate funding of all the open-source projects that wouldn't exist without the megacorps: try saying something bad about Kubernetes if you don't believe me.<p>It's not a 1-bit thing, and Hacker News is Hacker News because when people (and I've been that guy) throw rocks, we demand better.
Well that is unfortunate. I would not want to be in Simula's position, I'm sure they've got enough on their plate without having to deal with stuff like this that they barely have an impact on in the first place.<p>I understand that Meta needs to prove they're not a monopoly, and apparently the way to do that is through other companies laying their cards on the table, but my goodness would I feel uncomfortable giving core business plans, outlooks, and associated data to a huge (and arguably unethical) company like Meta.<p>It's unreal that this is just a thing that can be done, but I'd expect those documents to never reach the eyes of anyone who guides business decisions at Meta. Or so I hope. Or maybe this kind of information isn't as sensitive as I think, I don't run a business and have no plans to currently, so I'm not savvy in that department.
This is not Meta demanding to see some privilege information that exists in Simula's drawers, but rather commandeering the entire competing organization to do market research for Meta. It is clever and evil, and nothing anybody says after this will make me think that Meta is not anti-competitive nor that they have an once of ethics. As a consumer, I doubt I will ever again consider their VR products; I rather give my money to Satan, or even Google.
If this is actually how US's justice system works it is even more bonkers than I thought. Could someone versed in this legal system explain, please? Is is any accused that can demand documents/data/free research from vaguely related third parties, or only large companies? Enquiring minds want to know!
Meta is allowed to defend themselves against lawsuits. SimulaVR is a startup in the space. They have a shot in VR, or at least believe they do. SimulaVR a great example for Meta to use to defend themselves against a stupid lawsuit.<p>The FTC shouldn't be bringing this case. VR is still up for grabs. Defining the relevant market as the "dedicated fitness virtual reality app market" is questionable, and the idea it "proves the value of virtual reality" is nonsense.<p><a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/07/ftc-seeks-block-virtual-reality-giant-metas-acquisition-popular-app-creator-within" rel="nofollow">https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/07/...</a><p>The idea that meta have some dominant position that can't be overcome is like suggesting Excite or Altavista had a dominant position in search that couldn't be overcome in the 90's, or MySpace in social in the early 00's. It's too early to call this market "won".
I don't begrudge them their annoyance (or click-through harvesting) but there is a straightforward legal process for objecting to and quashing a subpoena. Seems like it might apply here, at least in part: <a href="https://www.klgates.com/Litigation-Minute-Responding-to-Third-Party-Subpoenas-10-15-2020" rel="nofollow">https://www.klgates.com/Litigation-Minute-Responding-to-Thir...</a><p>Also RE some speculation in this thread, it seems very unlikely to me that Meta's legal team was looking to get some free market research, but it is interesting to consider.
These types of things are incredibly silly. During the Epic vs Apple charade, Apple subpoenaed Steam for financial records as well which the judge forced Steam to comply with. The fact that a situation completely unrelated to me can force me to hand over what I would consider business secrets is a bit absurd.
This blog post doesn't explain what they are actually going to do about this. It's just a (non-legal) complaint about the fact they got a subpoena, which is honestly a pretty normal and uncontroversial thing. It might be bad for Meta to request this info, but if so, the right thing to do is get a lawyer, submit a motion to quash, and then go after Meta for costs through legal process.<p>What is SimulaVR actually going to do to respond to this? <i>Do</i> they intend to respond? Who's representing them? I can't imagine a lawyer recommended writing this blog post.<p>The "we can't afford this" argument doesn't hold water. Lawyers are expensive but this is not a complicated thing SimulaVR is being asked to do, and they're likely to get their costs back from the court if they ask.
Well I am not a lawyer, and if I was a lawyer I wouldn't be a lawyer in that country, but my understanding is that SimularVR is under no obligation to create any new documents or gather any <i>new</i> information. So for example the answer to "Fine-grained usage statistics of our software" can legitimately be "we don't have any". If I was SimulaVR I would gather all documents that <i>currently exist</i>, and be very careful about creating any new documents regarding any of this before consulting with a lawyer. I imagine that creating new documents in answer to this might create further obligations, but I really don't know.<p>Of course I'm not a lawyer and don't really know what I'm talking about, and this is not legal advice.
Sounds like ~~Meta~~ Facebook is planning on moving into SimulaVR's turf and wants to know all the details for free and is abusing a legal process to get it.<p>Doesn't seem like a coincidence they are the only tiny headset subpeonaed while others are big (public) corporations.
I'm not a lawyer but: you can get all this stuff done in an hour. It's not an exercise in creating new material. You pull all the documents you already have on stuff like this, and anything you don't have you can say you don't have.<p>When you appear and are asked, give a short, high level but honest description of the industry - it's pretty simple really - "it's early stages, there are a number of players, Meta is the big dog as it currently stands."
Not exactly on top but in the SimulaVR video linked in the article there is a HN easter egg [1].<p>[1] <a href="https://youtu.be/x293SiEdv4M?t=55" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/x293SiEdv4M?t=55</a>
Off topic but their product seems awesome - VR computers specifically designed for coding, including displaying small text, running Linux, etc. Beats working from a coding laptop: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x293SiEdv4M&t=25s" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x293SiEdv4M&t=25s</a>
I’m surprised to see that Apple isn’t on the list of companies being subpoenaed. Maybe one advantage of not announcing your hotly rumored VR project until it’s done and available is that no one can subpoena you to ask about it.
This seems a bit wild and super anti-competitive, of course it's hard to say with only hearing from simulaVR's perspective.<p>The content of information they're required to handover also seems incredibly sensitive, wouldn't that basically give Meta more 'Market Research' simply by reviewing these documents ?<p>It does seem a little bit like the corporate version of a 'Slap suite' also given how financially restricted Simula seem.
Meta’s defense on not being anti-competitive is to use the legal system to force all potential competitors to turn over incredibly sensitive information about their business & operations…<p>how is this even <i>allowed</i> under the law? Can Facebook really just demand this?
I do wonder if this blog post might be used by Meta in a way the authors didn't intend. Stating that they are not at all worried about competition from Meta is exactly what Meta needs to present as evidence.<p>Aside from that I'm not convinced SimulaVR shouldn't be worried. Regardless of whether Meta is targeting the productivity space intentionally (it is, I think) SimulaVR can very easily be a casualty of their dominance. For example I was interested in buying into SimulaVR but I probably won't if the Quest Pro is even close to good enough because along with that I get access to all the Oculus games etc.
I hope SimulaVR does crowdfounding the legal costs instead of folding to facebook.
This is the first and yet only VR Product i am deeply interested in.
From their post, it appears that Simula don't intend to comply with the subpoena. IANAL. Does receipt of these documents carry an obligation to provide the documents and deposition requested? Does this open them to later legal action if they refuse? It seems like a strange thing for a corporation to be able to demand that other companies hand over stuff like this, no matter the circumstance.
I get the arguments that Meta is forced to defend it's claim it's not being anticompetitive, but isn't part of a small business like SimulaVR's sole competitive advantage being secretive with it's plans because it doesn't have to publicly state everything it's doing?<p>Wouldn't this take that away from them? Is it not a simple enough point to object to the subpoena on?
As someone who is <i>not</i> a lawyer, my question is what are the potential response avenues to a subpoena like this. That is, Meta has essentially demanded a ton of work from SimulaVR, for free. I very much agree with Simula's response of "We can't afford stuff like this".<p>So, realistically, what are Simula's options? I imagine a "fuck off" response won't go over well with the court. Can they give some cursory information? Is there some way they can challenge the subpoena as overly burdensome?<p>I hate how our legal system makes it so easy to demand work from someone else, when the burden on the demanding party is so extremely low. Why shouldn't Meta need to pay hundreds of dollars an hour for the information they are requesting? The lawyers are definitely charging that much.
Not a lawyer or involved in the legal system, but is this a situation where you can respond with your rates for providing this expert witness service? If so, this may be a situation where you can charge them $500/hr plus costs (eg atty) for the service of extracting, redacting and summarizing some of the information they've requested.<p>Edit: your attorney may have a better idea of what rates for this might be, but I'd suggest looking into what it costs to have a known and respected third party physician do chart review and testify in court in malpractice cases, then consider what they'd charge if they were also expected to anonymize and show information from their own practice <i>and patient charts</i>.
<i>You need to get a lawyer.</i><p>I am not a lawyer, but I annoy them daily.<p>You can decide not to appear, but you can be held in contempt. Note that your subpoena comes from the court, not Meta.<p>You need to get the lawyer to negotiate down what to provide. The first salvo is always everything, including the kitchen sink.<p>You need a lawyer to know to whom to talk to. You need to get the lawyer to negotiate the expenses associated with this.<p>Read Rule 45 (<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45" rel="nofollow">https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45</a>) much of what you describe (distance, financial burden) are addressed there.<p>Did I mention, you need a lawyer?
One annoying thing about Facebook is that they already have zero goodwill among anybody who pays attention to this kind of stuff, so it isn't like these kind of shenanigans will really hurt their reputation.
Frankly there is nothing worse than seeing a legal notice. At best it means thousands of dollars in lawyer fees and added stress/lost time. At worst its the end of a company.
I know this story won’t make headline news but boy, Meta sure seem to be going out of their way to shred every last bit of goodwill they have with, well, everyone?
If I were simulaVR, I would make this very painful to meta.<p>You would put together business plans that literally say no other vendor can compete against meta. Basically confirm the anti-competition. That even that subpeona is anticompetive and an attempt to further crush them.<p>Malicious compliance the entire way.
Never forget, the company is called Facebook. The Meta rebrand was a desperate ploy to sidestep negative attention surrounding ongoing litigation and to bolster hope in the dying company as they try to pivot toward VR.
The problem here is the FTC trying to regulate a nascent industry by fiat. The startup is caught up in the silliness of trying to define competition in an area of trade that doesn’t really exist yet. Exactly when the FTC should go find something better to do, like health claims in supplements.
Just stumbled upon this article about Meta getting a 3rd party Instagram client removed.<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33108032" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33108032</a><p>Wondering if it’s just a coincidence that Meta is taking all these measures now.
Couldn't SimulaVR request all the same documents from Meta in response? Or is it a one-way process?<p>I'm sure Meta's legal team would find reasons why they wouldn't have to be responsive or other ways narrow the scope. SimulaVR in turn could use the same arguments against Meta.
<a href="https://simulavr.com/blog/software-overview/" rel="nofollow">https://simulavr.com/blog/software-overview/</a> VR, Godot, Haskell, Wayland – these people are having too much fun, must be karma
Ordered a founders edition many months ago. I hope to use it one day and add it to my nixos config.
If not it'll help the open source community. One thing is certain, the VR/AR I want to use won't come from big tech.
SimulaVR should see this as a massive endorsement and indicate they are the one company that threatens the behemoth and are open for investors.<p>In fact they should consider changing their motto to "Injunctioned by Meta"
ianal but if I were drafting simula's motion to quash, I would mention that the categories of information fb wants are confidential or trade secrets under most employment agreements, including probably fb's<p>and that rule 45 requires the court to quash if the subpoena is for 'privileged or other protected matter'<p>and if you can prove undue burden you can sanction their firm (in theory at least)<p>(could also just refresh the northern district's efile until big G responds, then steal theirs)