None of this changes the merits of the case at hand, and it's sad that people are focusing on zenimax rather than the claims in the situation. Lackey did sign agreements with ZeniMax, and as far as I can tell Oculus didn't refute that point. Are those agreements moot, in your eyes? What if it were the other way around, with a large company like Facebook or Google taking the IP of a smaller company?

Several people have now questioned whether I think contracts should be freely broken or ignored, so just to be clear: no. An agreement is an agreement. I honor all my agreements, which is why I'm careful to read every single line of whatever I sign and think about every sentence. Trying to decipher the double meaning in most standard agreements is fraught with danger though, because if you misunderstand a single sentence then you're on the hook for the rest of your life. That's why I think we, as a community of developers, should be holding employers more accountable for their disingenuous behavior of trying to assert ownership of someone's personal projects simply for being on a payroll or just for participating in a company event. Quick example: recently a friend of mine wanted to give me a tour of their office and meet some of the folks working there, but in the lobby of their building they demanded I sign an NDA just to come in and say hello. I declined, because even though there's probably no risk to me in signing that NDA, there's no possible way it could benefit me, either. Why would a company expect a multi-year agreement just to walk in the door for a little while?

As far as Zenimax vs Palmer, well, the only reason Zenimax has a case is because Palmer signed that NDA. I wouldn't be surprised if Palmer only signed it because he got careless and figured it was just a Non-Disclosure Agreement (i.e. "don't talk about this stuff with anyone you're not supposed to") rather than a transfer of ownership, as it turned out to be. The central theme throughout all of this is that the employer is trying to extract as much value as possible at the expense of the people they build their business on.

So the question isn't whether Zenimax have a case; obviously they do. Personally, I find Zenimax's actions amusing. This lawsuit is such an obvious tactical blunder that it's hard not to find it a little funny. It's not everyday that you see someone tank their company's future prospects by pissing off their core audience and community while torpedoing any future chance they might've had to hire top talent. Now everybody knows it's a terrible idea to go work for Zenimax. Surely it's obvious how this throwaway comment from an Id employee might impinge upon their future prospects of hiring top talent. And the only reason the throwaway comment was posted was due to the greedy lawsuit.

It's rather karmic to see this entity, who is trying to step in and take credit for a movement that they contributed virtually nothing to, get such swift reprisals.

Indeed, it's of course within Zenimax's rights to sue in this case and try to recover perceived damages. They're free to exercise their right to sue. And top talent is free to exercise their good sense to work elsewhere. One wonders if Zenimax doesn't see it coming, or doesn't care. Maybe they're just so out of touch with gamedev culture that they honestly don't see how this might impact their future prospects to convince top people to relocate their families to work for them. It's a bit comedic.