I don't have the evidence so I can't make a judgement about whether Zenimax or Carmack is in the wrong here, but this does point out something strange in our court system and that is where a "jury of peers" which translates to normal people with little to no knowledge of the underlying subject matter.
As our society becomes more specialized it seems a bit absurd to have people make judgements mostly based on how well each side can make incredibly complex things comprehensible and convincing without any real understanding of the underlying principles in the field.
It seems likely that the best expert witness in this case is not the most correct or credentialed, but the most charismatic.
It would be interesting to see how some of these big software trials (Google v Oracle) would have come out if the jury were made up of people who were both impartial and familiar with the industry.
As our society becomes more specialized it seems a bit absurd to have people make judgements mostly based on how well each side can make incredibly complex things comprehensible and convincing without any real understanding of the underlying principles in the field.
It seems likely that the best expert witness in this case is not the most correct or credentialed, but the most charismatic.
It would be interesting to see how some of these big software trials (Google v Oracle) would have come out if the jury were made up of people who were both impartial and familiar with the industry.