backtop


Print 42 comment(s) - last by Omega215D.. on Jun 27 at 10:40 AM


Winklevoss twins  (Source: momdot.com)
After dropping the Supreme Court appeal yesterday, the Winklevosses took the case to federal court in Boston today

Remember when we all thought the Facebook feud between Mark Zuckerberg and the Winklevoss twins was over? Well that was only yesterday, and we thought wrong. After dropping the Supreme Court appeal yesterday, the Winklevosses took the case to federal court in Boston today.

Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss went to Harvard University with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. When creating social networking site HarvardConnection (which was later renamed "ConnectU"), the Winklevosses had asked Zuckerberg to join their team after losing their programmer. He agreed and allegedly entered into an oral contract with the twins and their partner Divya Narendra. But over the following two months, Zuckerberg created his own social networking website called thefacebook.com while corresponding with the Winklvosses and Narendra about HarvardConnection.

Zuckerberg's site launched on February 4, 2004. The Winklevosses found out about it two days later and filed a lawsuit later that year.

The Winklevosses won a $65 million settlement in 2008, but filed another lawsuit in 2010 claiming that a friend had lied about the value of Facebook. In April 2011, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Alex Kozinski ruled that the Winklevosses must accept their previous settlement. 

The Winklevosses were then seeking Supreme Court review, but dropped it in a filing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco yesterday. 

But apparently that wasn't the end of this drawn-out litigation. Today, the Winklevosses decided to ask a federal court in Boston whether Facebook "intentionally or inadvertently suppressed evidence" in regards to instant messages that were allegedly sent from Zuckerberg.

The instant messages the Winklevosses are referring to are those allegedly found in Zuckerberg's computer when Facebook's legal team conducted a search. One message outlined what he planned to do about HarvardConnection.

"I'm going to [expletive] them," wrote Zuckerberg. "They made a mistake haha. They asked me to make it for them. So I'm like delaying it so it won't be ready until after the Facebook thing comes out."

The Winklevosses noted that they wouldn't have settled for the original settlement had they known about the instant messages.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

The more I hear about Zuckerberg...
By MrBlastman on 6/24/2011 10:12:09 AM , Rating: 2
The more of a caulk he turns out to be. Karma is real, man. What goes around really does come around.




RE: The more I hear about Zuckerberg...
By GulWestfale on 6/24/2011 10:17:48 AM , Rating: 2
hmm... it looks like the twindouches are actually not the douches here. who would have thought?


RE: The more I hear about Zuckerberg...
By aharris02 on 6/24/2011 10:20:24 AM , Rating: 5
I wouldn't go so far as to say they're not douches...


By MrBlastman on 6/24/2011 10:44:59 AM , Rating: 5
Oh I'm sure they're douches in their own respect--Zuckerberg just out-douched them. He must be feeling really fresh right now...


RE: The more I hear about Zuckerberg...
By joedon3 on 6/24/11, Rating: -1
RE: The more I hear about Zuckerberg...
By drlumen on 6/24/2011 10:47:08 AM , Rating: 3
Remind me to never do business with you.


RE: The more I hear about Zuckerberg...
By tng on 6/24/2011 10:56:24 AM , Rating: 4
Buyer Beware, CYA, ETC....

These terms have been around for years, yet am I to believe that you might think that all businesses treat people like warm, fluffy kittens?


RE: The more I hear about Zuckerberg...
By Mitch101 on 6/24/2011 11:16:54 AM , Rating: 5
Reminder to drlumen dont do business with joedon3


RE: The more I hear about Zuckerberg...
By Omega215D on 6/24/2011 7:31:26 PM , Rating: 3
Put it in your Newton.

Don't do business with joedon3

*newton modifies* Donut Business with Joe's Don at 3.


By cjohnson2136 on 6/24/2011 10:47:29 AM , Rating: 2
Well there is a security thing about not letting one person do an entire project. Maybe they should have got a second programmer so there was a sort of checks and balance between the two.


RE: The more I hear about Zuckerberg...
By tng on 6/24/2011 10:52:27 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly. I noticed that you got rated down for that remark from somebody that probably has never seen the seedy underside to business competition. Zuckerberg is no angel, but smart from a business standpoint.

I have seen businesses large and small where dirty tricks like this (and worse) were used. All is fair in love, war and business.


RE: The more I hear about Zuckerberg...
By MrBlastman on 6/24/2011 11:01:29 AM , Rating: 5
While it might be fair, you have to sleep with it on your shoulders every day. Your actions, be it in personal life or in business speak highly about your character. Some people say "Who cares what they think?" and end up living a life high in money and wealth--material wealth. Just look at Donald Lapre (the tiny little ads guy)... he lived large, screwing thousands of people but finally, they've got a warrant out for him. Took a while.

I'm not saying that everyone will end up in the clink--very few will. Most of the time, the only crime committed was a moral or ethical one, which, generally, is not a violation of statutes or the rule of law, thus, they are never prosecuted or imprisoned because there is no reason to do so.

However, your life is exactly what you want to make of it--materially wealthy and personally shallow or simply content doing the "right" ethical thing and having a rich life with those around you in a social/communal way. I will say this much though... life can get mighy lonely the more people you alienate yourself from by screwing them over, stabbing them in the back or just simply being a "prick" to.

I myself would rather be able to go to bed every night without a burden of guilt on my shoulders, knowing everything I earned or did lead to other people being harmed in financial, physical or emotional ways. There is a such thing as running an "honest" but competitive business.


By MrBlastman on 6/24/2011 11:02:40 AM , Rating: 2
err... "did not lead"


By 0ldman on 6/24/2011 12:21:09 PM , Rating: 3
Agreed.
Business is business, but I remember everyone that has taken advantage of me in business. I generally do more than I charge for, just little things, but I want it done right and I want to do my customers right.

Once someone screws me, it is strictly business, no freebies, no extras, no advice without $$. Some folks are just SOL because I won't work on their equipment anymore and there is no one else within 100 miles that is qualified to do it.

The excuse of "its just business" is just an excuse.


By joeyjojojrshabadoo on 6/24/2011 1:00:06 PM , Rating: 2
Try telling that to Eddard (Ned) Stark...cause I don't think the Lannisters got the memo.


RE: The more I hear about Zuckerberg...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/24/11, Rating: -1
RE: The more I hear about Zuckerberg...
By MrBlastman on 6/24/2011 1:04:14 PM , Rating: 4
Actually, Oral contracts are just as binding as written contracts. It all boils down to the principle of "Offer and Acceptance." Study up on your business law. If you make an Offer contingent on some form of consideration (such as money) upon acceptance, then both parties have entered into a legally binding contract.

http://www.legalresearchlaw.com/blog/legally-bindi...

There are some rare cases where a contract has to be in writing to be binding such as the sale of property (which requires a physical deed) to fulfill the obligation but these are few and far between.

Oral contracts are very real and very much a part of civil law.


RE: The more I hear about Zuckerberg...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/24/11, Rating: -1
RE: The more I hear about Zuckerberg...
By MrBlastman on 6/24/2011 1:21:00 PM , Rating: 4
You are confusing Criminal law with Civil law. They are two completely separate areas and the burden of proof in each is also completely different.

While yes, it is popular to say "innocent until proven guilty," it primarily applies to Criminal law as the burden of proof seeks to show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

In Civil law, however, the burden of proof simply requires the plaintiff to convince the judge/jury that they are entitled to the relief they are seeking. They do not have to prove guilt at all.

Read about all this--I don't make it up. They are completely different areas of the legal system and rightly so, they serve completely different purposes. One seeks to incarcerate, penalize and rehabilitate an individual and the other simply seeks compensation for damages in a civil forum.

Oral contracts ARE valid. Do not try to dispute this until you can prove to me and everyone on here that the particular arrangement that the twins and Zuckerberg entered into could in no way be a valid contract unless it was entered into in a written fashion.

I really think you'll have a hard time doing so. Their agreement was basically an employment agreement--in this case, under a contractual 1099 basis. Zuckerberg was contracted under good faith to perform the work (programming) for the twins on their IP with the understanding that Zuckerberg would not use it for his own financial gain other than the money the twins paid him for his work. He violated this clearly by deceiving them of work being performed and then used their IP to formulate and create his own medium and platform that he could generate revenues from.


RE: The more I hear about Zuckerberg...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/24/2011 1:47:50 PM , Rating: 1
I'm sorry but their position seems very suspect to me. They already settled! Maybe what you are saying is true, and it all would have come out had they held their heads up high and perused the case in court. But they chose to settle for a cash sum, which means, they have agreed to drop the charges.

Now they want to go back and say "Well, had we known all the evidence we wouldn't have settled". That just doesn't cut it, in my opinion. You GO to trial for all the evidence to be presented, it's very possible that had they chose not to settle, that evidence would have been presented and they could have possibly won the case.

They settled, they were ORDERED to accept the settlement by a judge. This matter should be done and over with at that point.


RE: The more I hear about Zuckerberg...
By MrBlastman on 6/24/2011 2:00:37 PM , Rating: 2
We'll have to see what the judge rules. In light of the new evidence, it does clearly place Zuckerberg in a more incriminating light as they are his own words, not heresay. I believe there are a few precedents where a ruling has been revisited due to new evidence being brought to the table but I believe these precedents deal with criminal trials and not civil matters.

It all boils down to the courts though, whether they will enforce the old ruling or not. The way I look at it, purely from a third person perspective is--let them. Zuckerberg should hang by his own words in this situation. Lets let Karma run its course.

Read up on the Business Law, btw. It is very interesting and enlightening.


RE: The more I hear about Zuckerberg...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/24/2011 3:10:57 PM , Rating: 1
Karma and the Law have very little in common. Our system isn't based on people "getting" what we arbitrarily decide they deserve. I don't think I would like to live in that world.

You seem highly biased and, typically for DT, anti Facebook. That's fine I guess. But to say we should throw out a previous settlement in light of new "evidence" is very suspect. Right or wrong, when you agree to a settlement you are agreeing to drop your case out of a court for a sum of money. You speak of Karma, yet seem fine with two men going back and their word, breaking an agreement, and trying to squeeze even more money from someone.

quote:
Zuckerberg should hang by his own words in this situation.


He's not being put on trial for what he said. We've all said incriminating things, that's not illegal. The issue isn't whether or not Zuckerburg "stole" the Facebook idea. That issue died the minute they agreed to a settlement. Do you not understand that?

quote:
It all boils down to the courts though, whether they will enforce the old ruling or not.


That would seem to over-rule the judges decision to bind them to the agreed upon settlement, wouldn't it?


By MrBlastman on 6/24/2011 3:48:40 PM , Rating: 2
Sure they have little in common. What I want and what the law says are two completely different things. It is how it should be--and thussly so I can have my opinion and distance itself from what the Judge says--as I precluded my previous response it. ;)

I didn't say we "should" throw out the settlement, that's putting words in my mouth. I'm saying I'd like it if they did purely from an internal viewpoint (myself) but certainly respect the rule of law and what they may decide. We're like fans watching a game rooting for one side or the other, that is all.

quote:
You seem highly biased


I must admit you've called me out here. I am biased here as I feel Facebook is a waste of time, data and technological resources. There are many other means of communicating with "friends" (Facebook friends aren't really friends, especially when they approach the hundreds), first and foremost through the good old fashioned "voice" method (phonecall or in person).

As for them breaking their word/agreement--how is what they are doing any different than Zuckerberg shafting them in the first place. Karma. See? It is at work here. :) They had given up due to lack of material evidence and now they have some. Are you telling me that if you gave up and accepted a court ruling but later were presented with damning evidence that could definitively help your case that you wouldn't try plainly out of principle?

Litigious society steps beyond moral society as we so frequently see--and bear witness to the pure deterioration of humanity once we dwell within it. The object in question here is not a moral token but a physical one--money, and as you'll find the more years in life you witness, it is a powerful force.

Many would have a hard time not trying to go back with this new fact to try and leverage it more in their favor. Those who don't are extremely strong characters. They're pissed off, they want revenge, justice and blood and well, no fault to their human condition, want to do everything in their power to exact retribution upon Mark (and financial gain upon themselves).

I myself, I believe in sticking to what you say you're going to do--but this situation, it is quite emotional for them.

We'll see what the courts decide. I'm quite interested, indeed.


By gimmeagdlaugh on 6/24/2011 3:18:40 PM , Rating: 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract

too much fb so didn't pass lsat?

quote:
Oral contracts aren't legally binding.


65 mil and growing
By tarheelbf on 6/24/2011 10:52:36 AM , Rating: 1
Poor, poor rich boys. There $65mil is now worth just over $100mil.




RE: 65 mil and growing
By cjohnson2136 on 6/24/2011 11:37:03 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah but they could be richer is Suckerberg didn't take the idea from them. Yeah it was a smart business move from him but if you were them wouldn't you want everything you could possible get.


RE: 65 mil and growing
By ClownPuncher on 6/24/2011 3:06:15 PM , Rating: 2
I don't feel sorry for them.


RE: 65 mil and growing
By XZerg on 6/24/2011 11:44:56 AM , Rating: 2
Justice - Ever think about it from the twin's point of view. This f*$ker was hired to code for us on our idea but instead he purposefully delayed us and took our idea and made his? Say you were the twin and that instead of money Zuckerburg gained fame and you became laughing stock in regards with how Zuckerburg stabbed you, would you rest without making sure Zuckerburg gets what he deserved for his act? Justice, is it too much to ask, eh? Try making something on your own and watch someone get rich off your idea and work. Will you sleep peacefully day and night?

The only reason this thing became an issue of money is because facebook is now worth billions. Given how almost everything in today's world is measured in money, even justice, even the guys who are after justice are having to rely on money to do the justice.

That's just me saying, without knowing the actual intentions of this twin.


RE: 65 mil and growing
By Reclaimer77 on 6/24/2011 12:51:34 PM , Rating: 1
1. Facebook wasn't their "idea". Harvard Connection was. Which we can't prove would have been exactly like Facebook, and neither can the twins.

2. He wasn't "hired", it was a verbal agreement. There was no contract or express terms dictating Zuckerbergs responsibilities in this regard.

3. "Harvard Connection" doesn't seem to have world wide mass appeal like Facebook. We simply cannot say someone "got rich" off "their idea" when it's clear their idea wasn't going in the same direction as Zuckerburg's.


RE: 65 mil and growing
By cjohnson2136 on 6/24/2011 3:01:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
3. "Harvard Connection" doesn't seem to have world wide mass appeal like Facebook. We simply cannot say someone "got rich" off "their idea" when it's clear their idea wasn't going in the same direction as Zuckerburg's.


Except you don't know the direction they were heading. thefacebook started as harvard only and then slowly expanded. You don't know that the twins might have thought "hey let's rename and expand"

quote:
1. Facebook wasn't their "idea". Harvard Connection was. Which we can't prove would have been exactly like Facebook, and neither can the twins.


Zuckerburg was brought on to the idea to make the Harvard Connection. Why would he have made the Harvard Connection any different from thefacebook? He would of done the same thing but with the name being Harvard Connection.

quote:
He wasn't "hired", it was a verbal agreement. There was no contract or express terms dictating Zuckerbergs responsibilities in this regard.


Verbal agreement I will agree with you on that one. Is it a low blow and really unhanded of Zuckerberg to do Heck yes.

But I do think that these IM logs showing that Zuckerberg was deliberately screwing the twins over should be brought back to court.


RE: 65 mil and growing
By Reclaimer77 on 6/24/2011 3:19:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Except you don't know the direction they were heading. thefacebook started as harvard only and then slowly expanded. You don't know that the twins might have thought "hey let's rename and expand"


We don't know either. Because they dropped their case and SETTLED out of court. So it's a moot point.

quote:
Zuckerburg was brought on to the idea to make the Harvard Connection. Why would he have made the Harvard Connection any different from thefacebook? He would of done the same thing but with the name being Harvard Connection.


That's pure speculation. You can't say that, with any certainty, their ideas were just TheFacebook with a different name. We can surmise that Zuckerburg got an idea for a social site from them, but that's as far as we can go because, again, the case was dropped and settled out of court. We don't have the facts.

quote:
But I do think that these IM logs showing that Zuckerberg was deliberately screwing the twins over should be brought back to court.


I agree that's what they look like, or at least, that he was bragging to someone to that effect. But in my mind, it doesn't even matter. They settled for a cash sum, and to go back now and say this somehow changes the entire settlement is bogus in my opinion. Utterly bogus.


RE: 65 mil and growing
By rdawise on 6/24/2011 5:50:54 PM , Rating: 2
Reclaimer your argument would be right...if they actually AGREED to the settlement. The settlement was forced upon them after appeals.


RE: 65 mil and growing
By Reclaimer77 on 6/24/2011 6:35:26 PM , Rating: 2
I've never heard of a forced settlement. Nobody put a gun to their head and made them become multi-millionaires.


RE: 65 mil and growing
By Reclaimer77 on 6/24/2011 1:15:01 PM , Rating: 2
Also this;

quote:
The Winklevosses won a $65 million settlement in 2008, but filed another lawsuit in 2010 claiming that a friend had lied about the value of Facebook. In April 2011, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Alex Kozinski ruled that the Winklevosses must accept their previous settlement.


Justice WAS served. They settled for money and won. They then tried to welch on the agreement to go after even MORE money. And here even after a judge ordered them to accept the settlement, they are still going for more money on some trumped up accusations.


RE: 65 mil and growing
By Omega215D on 6/25/2011 2:58:20 AM , Rating: 2
This is because there are things coming to light that evidence was withheld and the like.


RE: 65 mil and growing
By Reclaimer77 on 6/25/2011 11:50:12 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
This is because there are things coming to light that evidence was withheld and the like.


They never went to trial. They SETTLED. So the concept that evidence was held is absurd when trials are where evidence gets presented.

This should be a lesson to people. If you honestly feel you are in the right, and want justice served, GO TO TRIAL. Money is hard to resist, but if you take the easy way out, you may come to regret it one day.


RE: 65 mil and growing
By MegaHustler on 6/26/2011 7:21:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So the concept that evidence was held is absurd when trials are where evidence gets presented.


You should look up the concept of discovery in civil cases. In civil cases the defendant does not have the right to remain silent, and cannot lie. It is entirely plausible the settlement can be voided if plaintiffs can prove the defendant lied or withheld evidence he was compelled to disclose.


RE: 65 mil and growing
By Omega215D on 6/27/2011 10:40:36 AM , Rating: 2
figures... someone named MegaHustler would chime in with that... =D


To me...
By chagrinnin on 6/24/2011 3:00:26 PM , Rating: 2
evidence like this:

quote:
One message outlined what he planned to do about HarvardConnection. "I'm going to fvck them," wrote Zuckerberg. "They made a mistake haha. They asked me to make it for them. So I'm like delaying it so it won't be ready until after the Facebook thing comes out."


justifies a larger settlement. $65 million is nowhere near enough compensation considering the money zuckface raked in. There's 935 million,(nine hundred and thirty-five million!), more dollars needed just to make up the first BILLION that zuckboy got. That's like if someone stole your idea and made a $1,000 dollars,...and the judge says "Yeah,...he stole your idea so,...to be fair you can have $65 dollars." Shiiiiiiiiiii|...I'd be pissed. What's he worth now? $14 billion?




RE: To me...
By Azsen on 6/25/2011 6:34:36 AM , Rating: 2
It's worth that much on paper *maybe* and Mark wouldn't have billions available in cash convertable assets or stocks to turn the paper wealth into real wealth for a long time. Also the valuations are overrated. A good way to measure value in a company is Earnings Per Share and the Return On Investment you would get back after holding shares for a number of years. When you hear numbers in the billions being floated around about Facebook they've only based the value of Facebook on $x million share purchases and possible earnings. For all you know the estimated 2 billion in revenue they earned last year could translate to a net income of -$0.3 billion.


Ha. Not too much sympathy from me.
By Amiga500 on 6/25/2011 11:44:59 AM , Rating: 3
- Business type gets technical guy to do their work.
- Technical guy does their work, but improves upon it and launches one of his own.

Well - if the Winklevoss's actually had some useful talent, the the problem would never have arose as they would have coded it up themselves - but they intended to make money off someone else's knowledge.




"Folks that want porn can buy an Android phone." -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki