(another attorney here)<p>Tweets aren't under oath or anything, but it opens up Carmack to lots of questions and possibly affects his credibility.<p>Often times cases come down to "he said / she said" types of claims and how a jury views them.<p>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).<p>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.<p>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.
A possible exception: When you have no means to afford a lawyer and the case is obviously frivolous.<p>Whilst I would nearly always go for shutting up, we've probably all witnessed the David being sued by a Goliath and their only viable action is to make it know and get support.<p>That isn't what's happening here though... but no rule is black and white.
What to do when people make you angry online:<p>1. GET OFF SOCIAL MEDIA. Everything you say and do will make you a target. The only things you can say that might help you would be contrition, so if you're not willing to do that, get the hell off social media. This is also good because it removes you from having to <i>read things</i> about yourself that people are saying. People's talk will not harm you; your <i>reaction</i> to people's talk will harm you.<p>2. GET AN OFFLINE JOURNAL. If you have strong feelings, write them out. Write until you can't feel anymore. But don't put it online; keep it offline. The purpose is to have an exercise that gets your thoughts out, and to be able to read through your thoughts and clarify them later. Write letters to the people you're angry with, then review them and edit them many times, and never send them.<p>3. TALK TO FRIENDS. It's incredibly easy to let internalizing your feelings change how you think, change your memories, and turn you into a shell of your former self. You can even develop anxiety disorders or PTSD if this gets out of hand. Talk to people who understand and love you and let them keep you in check. You need positive outside influences to keep yourself sane. Talk to a good psychiatrist if you can.<p>4. KEEP THE BIG PICTURE IN MIND. It's easy to confuse yourself and wrestle over details. Start by considering the intent of your actions, and work from there to understand the whole chain of events, impartial and without emotion. It takes a while to get there. Be totally honest with yourself, but don't convince yourself of things that you didn't do.
One thing I've often wondered: how does one even find the best lawyer, with the most appropriate experience etc.?<p>It seems you'd almost need another lawyer, who knows the best people in each specialty, to advise you.
An interesting counterpoint to this is Julie Ann Horvath, who leveraged Twitter to expose a toxic culture at Github (1) and eventually forced the CEO and his wife to leave the company (2), and has kept Github and certain employees on the defensive (3).<p>She may have to deal with legal repercussions because of her actions on Twitter, but I can't help but think that <i>nothing</i> would have changed had she kept silent or quietly hired an employment lawyer after being forced out.<p>1. <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/19/5526574/github-sexism-scandal-julie-ann-horvath" rel="nofollow">http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/19/5526574/github-sexism-scan...</a><p>2. <a href="http://recode.net/2014/04/21/julie-ann-horvath-on-github-investigation-how-do-you-sleep-at-night/" rel="nofollow">http://recode.net/2014/04/21/julie-ann-horvath-on-github-inv...</a><p>3. <a href="http://www.dailydot.com/business/julie-ann-horvath-names-github-harassment/" rel="nofollow">http://www.dailydot.com/business/julie-ann-horvath-names-git...</a>
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.
While that may help you in the courtroom, the court of public opinion doesn't wait for a verdict. It confuses silence with guilt. Acquittals are less likely to make front pages than acquittals.
This article has some flaws. For instance, Carmack isn't getting sued, Oculus/Facebook is.<p>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.
Without commenting on why Zenimax would launch such a lawsuit now and be public about it, I can't help but see Carmack's response as a potential intimidation move, e.g "You may win in court, but you will lose in the court of public opinion, and this will hurt your business more than losing this suit. Now think again about wether you really want to sue".
I'm confused - was the case of John Carmack cited because his tweets have now been raised in court and have hurt his case? I haven't been following this situation so I've zero context.
I found a true gem hiding amidst great advice: <i>the only lawyer that’s yours is the one you pay</i><p>Corporate lawyers exist to protect the corporation.
I understand what the common wisdom is ("shut-up") when it comes to this type of thing, and I understand the stated reason why ("it will get used against you!"), but I don't understand the "how" part.<p>Carmack made a very clear, short public message about it. Rather than being any kind of admission, it was the opposite. A complete denial. How could Zenimax use that to strengthen their case? He's likely to repeat the same denial to the court anyway.<p>I'm not pretending I know better than the common wisdom, just trying to understand it better. If you were Zenimax, how would you use this tweet against him?
This is a HARD thing to cope with.
I've been through it once, and I lost much sleep over many nights just because of it. Especially the first time, you have NO idea on how to deal with it. I can say that the best advice is to do nothing UNTIL you talk to your lawyer, and I can confirm that YOUR lawyer means the one YOU pay.
Try to stay calm. Things like this take months, sometimes even years, to unfold.
Good luck.
I am very confused that Carmack finds himself in such a position.<p>Carmack quite famously made "Fuck You Money" over a decade ago. He was driving garages full of super expensive cars. <i>He</i> should have been the one with the levers.<p>Instead he became, effectively, an employee again. Why? Why would he do that?