Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Man Claims 84% of Facebook, Gets Order Blocking Assets

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the trolls-are-everywhere dept.

Businesses 326

Cyrus writes "According to a Bloomberg scoop, a New York man claiming to own a majority of Facebook has gotten a signed court order to block Facebook from transferring assets."

cancel ×

326 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Not Facebook! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32887508)

Oh No!

Re:Not Facebook! (5, Funny)

suso (153703) | more than 4 years ago | (#32887614)

Please win. Please win. Please win.

Re:Not Facebook! (1)

negRo_slim (636783) | more than 4 years ago | (#32887656)

Please win. Please win. Please win.

While I can't be bothered to consult The Google on this, methinks he just felt it was an opportune time to make a move on all those UNITED STATES DOLLARS he's been smelling. Granted it may not be the most profitable company as of yet, that's not to say they don't have what he considers a good plan in place now. But w/e just a web site for Christ's sake.

Re:Not Facebook! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32888376)

If facebook goes away how will people ever see pictures of me and all the miniature, terrorist snot-drippers my wife squeezed out? This is just a disaster.

Re:Not Facebook! (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#32887684)

How are they going to win? This is a pretty clear cut case of the statute of limitations barring such a lawsuit.

Re:Not Facebook! (1, Interesting)

suso (153703) | more than 4 years ago | (#32887748)

I was kidding. But one can only hope something shuts down that huge pile of crap.

Re:Not Facebook! (4, Funny)

lxs (131946) | more than 4 years ago | (#32887906)

Don't be bitter just because you don't have enough friends to play Farmville.

Re:Not Facebook! (5, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32887908)

yes, there is no bigger pile of crap then a social media site that has made it easy for me to get in touch with family and friends, stay up to date in their lives.

Re:Not Facebook! (1, Insightful)

dc29A (636871) | more than 4 years ago | (#32888098)

I have family on different continents and never saw the need of using Facebook to connect with them or stay in touch. Email/phone/IM is way better. As for friends/family around me, I usually get together with them quite a few times each year, again, phone/email/IM is there too. I don't see the need for Facebook to connect with people I care about. For people I don't care about, even when they added me on Facebook I simply put them in a limited user profile group and they didn't see jack. I guess I am too anti-social to understand why people use Facebook, I did use it a bit though, but realized that the stuff I wanted to communicate with them, I already did with IMs, emails or simple phone calls, or better in person. The way I see it, if I really care about a person, I will make sure to stay in touch and no need to re-connect.

A personal IM, email or phone call IMO is way better to communicate with friends/family than posting some crap on Facebook your friends can see, it's more personal, private and puts emphasis on that person to tell this person: you are important to me. Facebook removes this facet of personal communication.

Re:Not Facebook! (5, Insightful)

jadm (720143) | more than 4 years ago | (#32888322)

No offense, but 10 years ago, everything you wrote was being said about instant messaging, and before that, about email. [Citation needed], but I wouldn't be surprised if the same applied to telephones. So while I actually agree that Facebook is pretty grating and annoying, the arguments above are just the new "Get off my lawn".

Re:Not Facebook! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32888330)

Maybe you shouldn't use Facebook then, and let the millions of other people who actually do enjoy using it, use it.

Re:Not Facebook! (4, Interesting)

Domini (103836) | more than 4 years ago | (#32888362)

I disagree. But then I have to add, I deleted my Facebook profile. My problem is my family and friends are ALL in other countries, and most are in timezones where I cannot call them easily. When we want to send personal messages, e-mail sure is what we use. But Facebook is perfect for posting updates and photos of our 1 year old daughter for family (and some friends) back home to see.

Also I do appreciate (even the impersonal) updates... makes me feel like I'm still home.

I've blanked-blocked almost all applications a long long time ago anyway, so I've never seen these "Farmville" updates people speak of.

My wife will keep her profile and do these updates, but I personally don't like Facebook's policies.

Re:Not Facebook! (1)

Grimbleton (1034446) | more than 4 years ago | (#32888418)

Hey glad something works for you, guess you're not everyone!

Re:Not Facebook! (3, Insightful)

Tom (822) | more than 4 years ago | (#32888144)

stay up to date in their lives.

Your brother has found a pig in Generic Farmville Clone. Do you want to help him feed it? Click here.

Re:Not Facebook! (1)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 4 years ago | (#32888206)

I don't have many friends who play farmville. And those that do know not to send me that crap :)

Re:Not Facebook! (1)

sheehaje (240093) | more than 4 years ago | (#32888350)

I keep trying to click the link but it doesn't appear to be working.

Re:Not Facebook! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32888392)

Click Ignore next to the announcement and instead of your friend, choose "Generic Farmville Clone" to ignore. Learned that one early on when I was ready to ignore the friend given the flood of "Generic Farmville Clone" crap I was seeing...

Re:Not Facebook! (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 4 years ago | (#32888190)

a social media site that has made it easy for me to get in touch with family and friends,

You're just being lazy. Admit it.

Re:Not Facebook! (5, Insightful)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 4 years ago | (#32888328)

I can only speak for myself, of course, but I guess a lot of people who want this to happen (I am one of them) does so because of Zuckerberg rather than Facebook. Humans are naturally drawn towards justice and fairness, and see Zuckerberg as a person who denigrates his customers, abuses their privacy and takes advantage of their personal data - and always, ALWAYS pushes the boundaries of what Facebook is allowe3d to do and only retreats after a big community backlash. And so, people feel Zuckerberg does not deserve the fortune he has.

Facebook could, otherwise, be a useful and safe tool, in the hands of an ethical leadership.

Re:Not Facebook! (-1, Redundant)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 4 years ago | (#32888486)

That's it folks. Thread is over. Thanks blind biker. Someone shut the lights out on the way out to the next thread.

Re:Not Facebook! (2, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32887920)

I like that pile of crap. It allowed me to relocate and connect with old high school and college classmates. I also learned about the reunion through facebook

Re:Not Facebook! (5, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 4 years ago | (#32888124)

Yeah, I learned about my last reunion on Facebook too. Ever since then, they've made it a policy never to announce reunions on Facebook.

Re:Not Facebook! (2, Interesting)

LizardKing (5245) | more than 4 years ago | (#32888324)

t allowed me to relocate and connect with old high school and college classmates. I also learned about the reunion through facebook

Come on, this is Slashdot - you only found out about the reunion because you were stalking your old high school and college "classmates" (tellingly, you didn't call them friends).

(Only joking - although my wife was stalked by an ex-boyfriend via a social networking website. He even found her address through another site that sells access to things like the electoral register, and then turned up one night on her doorstep).

Re:Not Facebook! (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 4 years ago | (#32887982)

Though you may not like it, I rather like having a readily assessable self-maintaining address book (phone and e-mail anyway) of my friends and family, including nieces, nephews, and cousins when they age and move out from home.

Having a readily assessable place to store photo albums and send links to family is nice too. My Grandmother had to spend 6 months in Europe and I was able to send links to albums with captions of my trip to Alaska. Both she and I enjoyed this.

I don't know how one can use e-mail and slashdot, but think facebook is a scourge to the internet.

Re:Not Facebook! (1)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | more than 4 years ago | (#32888086)

I don't know how one can use e-mail and slashdot, but think facebook is a scourge to the internet.

Cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy come to mind.

Re:Not Facebook! (2, Interesting)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 4 years ago | (#32888258)

I don't know how one can use e-mail and slashdot, but think facebook is a scourge to the internet.

I sometimes see email addresses, but I don't see a commercial 'email logo' stuck all over crap everywhere in life. There's a 'See us in Facebook' sticker on the glass door of 'Fashion Bug' which is essentially a strip-mall women's clothing store. The marketing of Facebook has gotten out of hand and is repulsing.

If I started seeing the Slashdot Log stuck all over Radio Shack, I'd probably feel the same way about Slashdot. If all the casual iPod games I download and play for a little while pushed 'Post about your success on Slashdot' I'd feel the same.

Fuck you, Zuck.

Re:Not Facebook! (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 4 years ago | (#32888298)

please substitute "Slashdot logo" for 'Slashdot Log' in above.

Re:Not Facebook! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32888448)

please substitute "Slashdot logo" for 'Slashdot Log' in above.

Oh no you don't, Slashdot Log works so much better. Just imagine the fun of smearing a green and white glowing "log" all over Radio Shack...

Re:Not Facebook! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32888382)

It is like saying, you keep putting food in your mouth, why do have problem taking it up you ass.

Re:Not Facebook! (3, Funny)

Chapter80 (926879) | more than 4 years ago | (#32888202)

I was kidding. But one can only hope something shuts down that huge pile of crap.

A proposed settlement. [blogspot.com]

Re:Not Facebook! (1)

Krojack (575051) | more than 4 years ago | (#32888472)

I was kidding. But one can only hope something shuts down that huge pile of crap.

So I take it anything you don't like is a huge pile of crap? If you don't like it then don't go to the site. As simple as that.

There are many things about FB I don't like however I have got back in touch with many friends from high school and also enjoy keeping up with distant family seeing as I live several states away from them.

Re:Not Facebook! (1)

JxcelDolghmQ (1827432) | more than 4 years ago | (#32888490)

Wtf is your problem with facebook? I guess you're one of those dickwads that thinks that they're "too cool for social networking" aren't you? Go get bent.

Re:Not Facebook! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32887932)

How are they going to win? This is a pretty clear cut case of the statute of limitations barring such a lawsuit.

Statue of limitations. English--learn it!

Re:Not Facebook! (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 4 years ago | (#32888026)

Statue of limitations. English--learn it!

If you insist on correcting someone's spelling, you had better make sure you're right.

It was correctly spelt as statute.

the correct PC phrase is "differently abled" (1)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 4 years ago | (#32888288)

statue of limitations [wikipedia.org] ?

Re:Not Facebook! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32888032)

Wow, you totally rock.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute [wikipedia.org]

Re:Not Facebook! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32888076)

WTF are you smoking? "Statue of Limitations" Did you REALLY just write that?

See: Statute of Limitations [wikipedia.org]

More relevantly, the Statute of Limitations in New York for Contractual Disputes is 6 years (see: New York Statute of Limitations for Civil and Personal Injury Actions - An Overview [expertlaw.com] )

-AC

Re:Not Facebook! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32888090)

Kramer?

Re:Not Facebook! (1)

ShadowDragoonFTW (1527831) | more than 4 years ago | (#32888100)

No... Statute is right. Look it up. ... Oh, no, nevermind. Can't trust you to do that yourself. Let me do it FOR YOU. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/statute [reference.com] And, for the follow up. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/statute+of+limitations [reference.com]

Hold on. (1)

leuk_he (194174) | more than 4 years ago | (#32888140)

I first need to move my crop of tomatos to an other games network.

And did i mention i just got a orange cow?

Re:Not Facebook! (0, Redundant)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 4 years ago | (#32888220)

YES YES YES. Pleeeeease, let him win.

First (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32887520)

First

That Must Be One Entertaining Contract (5, Informative)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#32887524)

Found the complaint on Scribd [scribd.com] and man, judging by the complaints, that sounds like one entertaining contract:

Under Paragraph 3 of the contract, the Seller and Purchaser agreed that for each day after January 1, 2004, the Purchaser would acquire an additional 1% interest in the business, per day, until the website was completed ... Upon information and belief, the website, thefacebook.com, was completed and operational on February 4th, 2004.

Zuckerberg appears to be the Seller and Ceglia appears to be the Purchaser. I know this all happened before "thefacebook.com" had a massive user base but from what I can tell Ceglia dropped a grand to Zuckerberg under some agreement that if the website wasn't finished on a certain date then Ceglia would accrue a point of that business per late day? Is that a standard clause or was this some sort of loan shark that the Z-man found on campus after he stole the ConnectU code?

And then, Ceglia waited past the six year mark for the statute of limitations to run out on a breach of contract in New York? He watched Facebook's rise to popularity past MySpace?

Seriously, what kind of contracts do fledgling websites write? And where do they find people to borrow money from that apparently live under a rock in the Appalachians of New York state? Sure is entertaining one way or the other.

Re:That Must Be One Entertaining Contract (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32887602)

After seeing what an A***** Mr. Z is, I so hope this guy wins!

It can only get better!

Re:That Must Be One Entertaining Contract (1)

yincrash (854885) | more than 4 years ago | (#32887634)

It was probably something signed between two students.

Re:That Must Be One Entertaining Contract (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 4 years ago | (#32887680)

So? If they're both 18 then they are both able to enter into contracts.

Sad to hear about the statute of limitations, but it would be quite entertaining if this guy could reproduce the original documents... and he in fact did own 84% of FaceBook.

Re:That Must Be One Entertaining Contract (-1, Troll)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 4 years ago | (#32888236)

Read the link in the parent post. The whole contract is there.

Facebook was originally work for hire. The code belongs to Ceglia, not Zuckerberg. The contract is pretty clear about that. I don't know why this guy didn't sue earlier, but it looks like no one had much faith in this project. It probably started as simply "make me a website that does this and that". Zuckerberg, being a filthy jew, and seeing that this might actually succeed, proceeded to switch register a different domain and steal the code.

I think that even if the statue of limitations applied in this case ( It does ) I think Ceglia can still sue that filthy Zuckerberg for Copyright infringement. Also, I think he might be able to prove that what Zuckerberg did was not just breach of contract, but actually fraud.

I really hope the papers are real, and there is nothing else signed that this guy didn't show that invalidates this contract. He might be up to something.

Re:That Must Be One Entertaining Contract (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32887702)

Always nice to see an obnoxious kike like Zuckerberg get his comeuppance....

Re:That Must Be One Entertaining Contract (1)

osgeek (239988) | more than 4 years ago | (#32887756)

I love how in TFA Zuckerberg is looking down, like he's guilty of something.

Very entertaining indeed.

Re:That Must Be One Entertaining Contract (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32888494)

Guilty? It's posed with a halo behind him like he's Jesus fucking Christ. Zuckerberg really is king asshole.

The Pellet thief (4, Interesting)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 4 years ago | (#32887774)

The story gets even jucier:

In 2009, New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo obtained a restraining order against Allegany Pellets, a western New York wood pellet company owned by Ceglia and his wife Iasia. Cuomo accused the company of defrauding consumers by taking $200,000 in orders but not delivering any products or issuing any refunds. That case is reportedly ongoing.

An odd detail is that 84% number is said to be as of 2004. Why 2004?

Re:That Must Be One Entertaining Contract (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32887808)

The statute of limitations is a red herring -- it only begins to run when a contract breach is discovered (or reasonable should have been), not when the contract is signed. You can have a contract signed 50 years ago, but if you breach it today, the statute of limitations start to run today.

The purported breach was arguably only discovered by the plaintiff due to recent press accounts of potential selling of Facebook or portions thereof. Until some act is taken that indicates an intent to breach, a party to a contract has the right to rely on the expectation that the other party will fulfill his obligations under the contract.

Re:That Must Be One Entertaining Contract (2, Interesting)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 4 years ago | (#32887946)

The statute of limitations is a red herring -- it only begins to run when a contract breach is discovered (or reasonable should have been), not when the contract is signed. You can have a contract signed 50 years ago, but if you breach it today, the statute of limitations start to run today.

The purported breach was arguably only discovered by the plaintiff due to recent press accounts of potential selling of Facebook or portions thereof. Until some act is taken that indicates an intent to breach, a party to a contract has the right to rely on the expectation that the other party will fulfill his obligations under the contract.

Yeah I guess he just didn't notice that he owned 50% of facebook when that's the second paragraph in the contract.

Re:That Must Be One Entertaining Contract (5, Informative)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 4 years ago | (#32888050)

NO, he could very well have known that he owned a big chunk of Facebook. His claim would be that he became aware of Zuckerberg's intention to not honor that ownership claim when he saw "recent press accounts of potential selling of Facebook or portions thereof". Whether or not any of this will hold up in court is another story. However, on the face of it, he has a claim.

Re:That Must Be One Entertaining Contract (5, Informative)

Skilf (522124) | more than 4 years ago | (#32887878)

here is Facebooks reply (from the same user on scribd: http://www.scribd.com/doc/34240120/Ceglia-v-Facebook-Motion-for-Dissolution [scribd.com] snippets:

Defendants Mark Elliot Zuckerberg and Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) respectfully submit this memorandum in support of their motion to dissolve the ex parte temporary restraining order (the “TRO”) issued by the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Allegany, in this matter. Plaintiff has utterly failed to meet the procedural and substantive requirements for such drastic relief, and the order issued by the state court is similarly flawed and woefully inadequate.

In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that, as a result of a two-page contract purportedly entered into more than seven years ago (and approximately nine months before the founding of Facebook), he is entitled to an 84% ownership stake in the Company. (Id. at Ex. A 4, 8).

Re:That Must Be One Entertaining Contract (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32888484)

Can someone translate the legalise for us? Thanks

His facebook account is so canceled! (3, Funny)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 4 years ago | (#32887598)

His facebook account is so canceled! But I bet he could do commercials for MySpace. "I designed the look and feel of facebook, but now I use MySpace."

Re:His facebook account is so canceled! (1)

Scaba (183684) | more than 4 years ago | (#32888400)

His facebook account is so canceled! But I bet he could do commercials for MySpace. "I designed the look and feel of facebook, but now I use MySpace."

Why not? Even Myspace Tom has a Facebook page [facebook.com] .

Scary (5, Funny)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#32887618)

He owns Faceboo

Re:Scary (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32887836)

Funny, Facebook in general is about 84% scary, including myself.
I can't count how many years of bad luck i have from all those broken mirrors. No, really, i can't, it's a serious concern, a serious concern.

Re:Scary (5, Funny)

rjch (544288) | more than 4 years ago | (#32888042)

Actually, since 84% of 8 = 6.72, it would be more accurate to say that he owns Faceboc.

Re:Scary (-1, Redundant)

iammani (1392285) | more than 4 years ago | (#32888214)

Nope, that would be 87.5% of Facebock, besides not be part of Facebook at all.

Re:Scary (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32888302)

WOOSH

Re:Scary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32888266)

mod parent up!
(one of the funniest thing i've seen on ./ for a while!

Whats next???? (5, Insightful)

evanism (600676) | more than 4 years ago | (#32887646)

given the "issues" Z-man has, one may wonder how many of these skeletons are in his closet? A bent sapling never grows straight.

Re:Whats next???? (0, Offtopic)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 4 years ago | (#32887780)

If you're accusing him of being a homo, he's not. A little bi-curious maybe, but he definitely likes tha vag.

Re:Whats next???? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32887850)

And how do you know that? :P

Re:Whats next???? (1)

Machtyn (759119) | more than 4 years ago | (#32887898)

Umm... no, he's accusing the Z-man of having a shady past (skeletons in his closet) that the he would not want becoming public knowledge.

Re:Whats next???? (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 4 years ago | (#32888416)

Being gay would be an easy out for the Zuck.

So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32887648)

Facebook was taken over by monkeys

Contracts (1)

helix2301 (1105613) | more than 4 years ago | (#32887718)

This contract does seem kind of shady and plus sounds like a college made deal its probably written in pencil on scrap paper from an old algebra test. That's not a joke when I went to college two CS majors did that for a contract. I seriously dough this will stand up in court Facebook is not going to change hands.

Re:Contracts (3, Insightful)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#32887744)

seriously dough

So I am guessing you were also a CS major?

Re:Contracts (5, Funny)

box4831 (1126771) | more than 4 years ago | (#32887928)

nah, he recently got a nre Kinesis keybiartf as well.

Re:Contracts (1)

Stick32 (975497) | more than 4 years ago | (#32888256)

seriously dough

So I am guessing you were also a CS major?

Hey!! I two was a CS major and I take a fence to that!!

Re:Contracts (1)

Slime-dogg (120473) | more than 4 years ago | (#32888230)

A written contract is binding, just as a verbal one is. The difference is that the written contract has evidence, the verbal one is on each party's honor.

It doesn't matter if it was crayon on toilet paper, if it's got signatures, then it's a valid and fully binding contract.

Not going to matter (4, Insightful)

dward90 (1813520) | more than 4 years ago | (#32887750)

Regardless of whether or not the guy wins some money in the lawsuit, nothing will change. Zuckerberg might be slightly less rich. But he will still be rich, and an asshole. Facebook will still suck.

Re:Not going to matter (4, Insightful)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#32887912)

Isn't Zuckerberg's money all on paper? And not the green, cash-y kind? My point is, if there is an injunction against transfer of assets, then can he sell his stock to get cash? Standard IANAL and all that, but this could prove to be more than just a passing amusement.

Re:Not going to matter (1, Insightful)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 4 years ago | (#32888000)

Isn't Zuckerberg's money all on paper? And not the green, cash-y kind? My point is, if there is an injunction against transfer of assets, then can he sell his stock to get cash? Standard IANAL and all that, but this could prove to be more than just a passing amusement.

Unless expressly stated otherwise we already assume you're not a lawyer. ;)

Re:Not going to matter (5, Funny)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#32888204)

Is it that obvious? I mean, I try to be a good person, but I didn't know how well it came across. Thanks for believing I'm not a lawyer.

Re:Not going to matter (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32888292)

Well you get a couple guys in here who go all defacto Tortalini with all their fancy latin words and you can never tell if they are a lawyer or not, so whenever someone mentions some Fianchetto Defense, its nice if they express if they are a lawyer or not.

Re:Not going to matter (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 4 years ago | (#32888508)

Maybe the Zuck can become a new former Accidental Millionaire. He could move into an efficiency apartment with Eric Raymond.

We can dream, anyway, can't we?

Careful... (4, Insightful)

dpilot (134227) | more than 4 years ago | (#32888070)

No matter how big an jerk you may think Zuckerberg is, and no matter how bad you may think Facebook is, it is practically always possible to get worse.

Not knowing anything that I didn't learn in the last 5 minutes, upon seeing this article, this Ceglia guy certainly has a running start on both. The enemy of your enemy may not be your friend - just a different enemy.

Re:Careful... (1)

dward90 (1813520) | more than 4 years ago | (#32888152)

Certainly true. I suspect that even if Ceglia takes over (which seems unlikely), he will make Facebook suck differently. Probably not better or worse, but differently.

Re:Careful... (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 4 years ago | (#32888536)

What you say may be true. But this dude looks like he will flame and burn quickly. Outta our sight quickly. We're stuck with the Zuck for a long time unless something changes. Zuck is an Marc Andreesen type figure, i.e. someone who unfortunately wasn't smothered as a young child.

This could be a good thing for Facebook (2, Interesting)

assertation (1255714) | more than 4 years ago | (#32887934)

This could be a good thing for Facebook.

I hate to put it this superficially, but about 60% of the trouble is in can be traced back to CEO Mark Zuckerberg's immaturity with handling people. If someone does indeed own 84% of Facebook they could simply order him to stop making public statements.

In fact, he could take it a step further and put out spin how FB is under new derangement, with new policies and better tech coming down the road.

Re:This could be a good thing for Facebook (4, Funny)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 4 years ago | (#32888106)

put out spin how FB is under new derangement

What an interesting comment on the state of Facebook. I've always suspected Facebook represented some type of derangement, now you are suggesting that what it needs is new derangement.

Re:This could be a good thing for Facebook (1)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 4 years ago | (#32888310)

Really? You think this guy wants facebook and would not simply sell his 84% stake immediately?

Re:This could be a good thing for Facebook (1)

assertation (1255714) | more than 4 years ago | (#32888386)

He would end up selling his stake to someone, who would then have majority control and who would then have the authority to put Zuckerberg in a position other than CEO.

Facebook's power (1)

Robotron23 (832528) | more than 4 years ago | (#32887974)

Before we get excited at the prospect of this guy winning against Facebook, it's worth reminding ourselves that Zuckerberg - founder/owner of Facebook - is heavily ingratiated with a number of high profile political figures.

An example would be a video chat [pcr-online.biz] he held with UK Prime Minister David Cameron just a few days ago, the courteousness all too apparant. I can't remember a firm being seriously damaged through the legal system so soon after establishing itself as a ubiquitous and accepted tool by the establishment. The hoohah over the panic button they're now putting in to 'protect the children' is proof that Zuckerberg's cavalier attitude towards privacy will stand, and that we can expect more of the same from Facebook in coming years.

The most feasible way for Facebook to become less influential would not be financial woes through lawsuits...it would have to be another exodus of the same flavour that led to Myspace's relatively irrelevant/musically inclined position. But pride does come before a fall though, and arrogance is certainly something young Zuck isn't short of.

Re:Facebook's power (1)

iammani (1392285) | more than 4 years ago | (#32888172)

You know what politicians do when you ask them for help, especially when your primary source of income & political power is at stake, they RUN.

Thumbs up (1)

bojangler (1851778) | more than 4 years ago | (#32888084)

Bojangler likes this

Yes, your honor, it *is* on a bar napkin... (2, Insightful)

RevWaldo (1186281) | more than 4 years ago | (#32888156)

...but it's a legally binding bar napkin!

.

I've got a question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32888284)

If he wins does he have to pay 84% of the debts?

O-L-D (2, Insightful)

IP_Troll (1097511) | more than 4 years ago | (#32888300)

The order baring transfer of assets was only good until July 9th, it is now July 13th. So what happened?

Zuckerpunched! (1)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 4 years ago | (#32888414)

It says the hearing was scheduled for july 9, what was the outcome?

publicity stunt for upcoming Facebook Movie? (1)

peter303 (12292) | more than 4 years ago | (#32888532)

This is a far out suggestion. But the autumn a movie about Facebook's rise called The Social Network [thesocialn...-movie.com] is coming out. Its supposed to talk about Zuckerbergs's naughty habits, if anyone cares.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?