×

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!

Facebook Wants Ownership Case Thrown Out

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the your-own-personal-facebook dept.

The Almighty Buck 266

crimeandpunishment writes "Attorneys for Facebook and a New York man claiming majority ownership of the site faced off in a Buffalo courtroom Tuesday, and if Facebook gets its way there won't be too many more days in court. The site wants to get Paul Ceglia's claim thrown out of court. He claims a seven-year-old agreement with Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg entitles him to 84 percent of the company. Facebook acknowledges Ceglia and Zuckerberg worked together, but says the contract Ceglia submitted was full of 'things that don't make sense.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

266 comments

like wookies (5, Funny)

lostros (260405) | more than 3 years ago | (#32984446)

It's the chewbacca defense! look at the monkey, look at the silly monkey

Re:like wookies (4, Funny)

Bieeanda (961632) | more than 3 years ago | (#32984600)

Worse, it's the Chewbacca offense! The judge will have to cede the 84%, if he doesn't want to have his arms pulled out of their sockets!

May I suggest another legal strategy... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32985030)

Let the wookie win

Captcha = Shooter. Proves Han Shot First!

make sense? (5, Insightful)

dAzED1 (33635) | more than 3 years ago | (#32984456)

well maybe not now, when it's "worth" so much, but back then when he was just a thieving punk kid with no money the relationship was beneficial to him. Contracts don't need to be written by lawyers to be legally binding.

Re:make sense? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32984488)

Tell that to the lawyers, er, I mean judges.

Re:make sense? (5, Insightful)

Fnkmaster (89084) | more than 3 years ago | (#32984630)

What I don't get is why would they even *think* of letting this get to court. Seriously. Even if the guy's chance of prevailing is only 10%, the downside risk is absolutely gigantic for Zuckerberg, AND for the venture capital guys that have put up a lot of money for Facebook.

Knowing as they do that the signature is legitimate, they should have offered this guy 10 or 20 million bucks to just go away rather than taking the risk that this guy will end up seizing a big chunk of equity.

Also shows you how absolutely useless the "due diligence" is that VCs perform. Zuckerberg probably never disclosed this old contract from the early days to any of his investors or they would have forced a settlement with this guy before things got this far. I've gotta think they are squirming just a bit right now.

Re:make sense? (3, Interesting)

Surt (22457) | more than 3 years ago | (#32984720)

Are you telling me the VCs wouldn't have a contract with Zuckerberg that says he owes them absolutely everything if he failed to disclose a prior contractual obligation materially affecting the company? That would be crazy stupid if true.

Re:make sense? (4, Insightful)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 3 years ago | (#32985686)

What good would that do? He can owe all he wants. There wouldn't be assets under his control to cover that debt.

Re:make sense? (2, Interesting)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 3 years ago | (#32984728)

Yeah, that's just stupidity on FB's part.

"Look, you've got a claim to 84% of something that's not worth a lot of direct cash. You'll have to prove it in court. After maybe five years of appeals, you'll be exhausted personally and financially, and you'll have at most, 25% chance of having this work out. You can spend millions to maybe make millions.

"Or, if I can direct your attention to this new contract and cheque for X million dollars, we have another option available..."

Re:make sense? (3, Informative)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 3 years ago | (#32984902)

You're forgetting. Most attorneys, if they think you have somewhat of a decent case, also have VC money that gets used to fund a civil suit. So it's VC vs VC. Who has deeper pockets is the question.

Re:make sense? (4, Interesting)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#32984980)

Depends on his lawyers more than him.

They'll be looking at hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees, no matter how long it takes. And they can offer to work on contingency.

If they believe it's righteous, they won't let anyone offer him X million. It's going to be a big chunk of the company, or it's going to go to court.

In truth, depending on what the VCs own, it may end up being only a big chunk of Zuckerberg's personal share of the company.

Though the fact that Zuckerberg may not have had the right to enter into deals with the VCs, since Ceglia may be the true owner of the company, may end up costing Zuckerberg all of his nut.

This isn't going away for 8 figures.

Re:make sense? (2, Insightful)

neoform (551705) | more than 3 years ago | (#32984794)

Knowing as they do that the signature is legitimate, they should have offered this guy 10 or 20 million bucks to just go away rather than taking the risk that this guy will end up seizing a big chunk of equity.

How do you know they didn't?

Maybe they offered $50M and the guy said, "I want a billion"..?

Re:make sense? (1)

schmidt349 (690948) | more than 3 years ago | (#32984798)

Wait, wasn't he supposed to have stolen the idea from a couple of millionaire playboys? Or wasn't it that guy who thought he was interesting enough to write an autobiography right after getting out of college? Or wasn't it one of the many predecessor sites he stole the idea from? I'm confused, you're going to have to help me out. If he stole the idea, whose idea was it to begin with again?

Re:make sense? (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#32984990)

Stealing an idea doesn't make the company the property of the person with the idea. It might give that person rights to some back-payment of royalties, but that'd be it.

This is a contract that gives Ceglia 50-84% of the company itself, based on developing the idea.

Re:make sense? (1)

Legion303 (97901) | more than 3 years ago | (#32985744)

Whose idea was it to centralize a location where college kids could keep in touch with one another? I don't know. We were doing it on VAX/VMS back in the early 90s before it was migrated to an OSF2 system. Long before that it was probably the direct successors to ARPANET. Zuckerberg is a newbie.

Re:make sense? (1)

LordKronos (470910) | more than 3 years ago | (#32984896)

Knowing as they do that the signature is legitimate, they should have offered this guy 10 or 20 million bucks to just go away rather than taking the risk that this guy will end up seizing a big chunk of equity.

How do you know they didn't? If this guy believes he has a really good case, he'd probably want a heck of a lot more than 10-20 million to settle. If he wins, he may stand to gain 10-20 (or more) BILLION based on facebook's valuation

Re:make sense? (5, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#32984898)

It could be the VCs want it to go forward. Zuckerberg right now maintains the majority share (that's my understanding), and I'll bet he's a pain to work with. Suppose this guy gets 85%, he's not going to want to run the company, he's going to let the VCs do it. Major win for them.

How much money do they stand to lose? as long as they don't own more than 15% of the company (collectively), probably nothing. The loss is going to come out of Zuckerberg's share; they can sue him for fraud for not disclosing the existence of that contract. Even if they do own more than 15% of the company, they will have a way better chance of taking the company public and getting an instant payout which they've wanted to do for a while. It will give them a profit and free up their capital to invest in other projects.

Re:make sense? (2, Interesting)

HarvardAce (771954) | more than 3 years ago | (#32985138)

According to the book The Facebook Effect, Zuckerberg only owns 24% of the company at this point. Or at least that's the citation on that number on Facebook's wikipedia page.

Re:make sense? (2, Interesting)

BitterOak (537666) | more than 3 years ago | (#32985170)

It could be the VCs want it to go forward. Zuckerberg right now maintains the majority share (that's my understanding), and I'll bet he's a pain to work with. Suppose this guy gets 85%, he's not going to want to run the company, he's going to let the VCs do it. Major win for them.

Depends if the 85% is a just a percentage of Zuckerberg's stake in the company, or 85% of the whole company, in which case he'd get a sizable chuck of the VCs' stake as well. That would suck for the VCs.

Re:make sense? (0, Troll)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#32985100)

Zuckerberg probably never disclosed this old contract

And thats yet another reason Zuckerfuck needs to be put in jail. Not disclosing the contract most certainly makes every move the Z douche has made illegal, he's commited SO much fraud I doubt he can tell where it starts and where it ends. He's been selling bits of a company that he doesn't even own a controlling interest in thanks to how he was attempting to rip someone else off.

When Facebook got money, the concept of DD for an Internet company was something along the lines of 'is the site up right now? Yea? Good enough for me!' Or 'No? Ehh, its a website no big deal we can fix it tomorrow, thats Good enough for me!

If this turns out to be legit, there are going to be several VC companies that will rape him over this, rightly so.

Can we please just put a bullet in his head and save everyone a lot of money and time?

Re:make sense? (0)

HarvardAce (771954) | more than 3 years ago | (#32985118)

Also shows you how absolutely useless the "due diligence" is that VCs perform. Zuckerberg probably never disclosed this old contract from the early days to any of his investors or they would have forced a settlement with this guy before things got this far. I've gotta think they are squirming just a bit right now.

Or maybe there was nothing to disclose, because Zuckerberg's only contract with Ceglia was for $1,000 to work on Streetfax, with no mention of facebook at any time. Would you want to give $10 to $20 million to any person who came up with a supposed contract with Zuckerberg? If facebook just started handing out money like this, you'd get more people coming out of the woodwork claiming similar contracts, when all they did is create a similar contract using the signature from the supposed contract currently available at http://i.cdn.turner.com/money/2010/07/13/technology/facebook_lawsuit/facebook_filing.pdf [turner.com] ?

Re:make sense? (5, Informative)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#32984946)

Contracts don't need to be written by lawyers to be legally binding.

No, but it helps. A lot.

Lawyers know what things have to be in a contract to make it a contract. IANAL, so a little wikipedia check (ymmv) shows it's these things:

        * Agreement (Offer and Acceptance)
        * Capacity to contract
        * Consideration
        * Legal purpose
        * Legality of form
        * Intention to create legal relations
        * Consent to contract
        * Vitiating factors: Mistates, undue influence, misrepresentation, duress

If Ceglia covered all of those things in this one, then he's got a valid contract and is going to score.

if he missed even one, or if he failed to carry out some of them, then he's going to become a trivia question.

From the claims he's made, it sounds like he has the basics down. It's claimed the thing was signed, so the offer was made and accepted (in fact, it sounds like Zuckerberg made the offer). Capacity: if Zuckerberg was 18 and owned the website, that's enough. Consideration: Ceglia traded money for ownership rights; so both sides got value from the deal, and fair value at the time, plus the agreed-upon increase in ownership as the project was delayed. Purpose and form: simple trade of cash for ownership; an investment; happens all the time without event. Intention to create legal relations: it's not as though anyone was forced or tricked into this. Consent: Zuckerberg was the one who entered into the deal.

So it's down to what wikipedia calls Vitiating Factors, and that's where his lawyer is going to go. Things like the amount of time Ceglia waited, any informalities or irregularities in the documents, etc. And really, given the current value that Ceglia is chasing and Zuckerberg stands to lose, lawyers can find a lot of potentially vitiating circumstances to tie up the case in court.

The judge who gets the case first may skip all that and render summary judgment based on the hard evidence. Which I haven't seen so I won't play judge, yet.

Hopefully Zuckerberg will realize he's actually bound to comply with his agreement, and will find a way to settle with Ceglia. I doubt Ceglia will take less than 50%, but I won't be surprised if he takes that if he's offered it, and let the production delays slide. Unless he's hung up on a few $billion here and there...

Re:make sense? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32985280)

Hopefully Zuckerberg will realize he's actually bound to comply with his agreement, and will find a way to settle with Ceglia.

Hopefully? Hopefully Ceglia will acquire Facebook and as a result Facebook goes down in ruin, obliterated in full.

Ceglia is Gandalf. Zuckerberg is Sauron. And Facebook is Orodruin, or Mt. Doom, the pinnacle of Mordor.

The veiling shadow that glowers in the East takes shape. Sauron will suffer no rival. From the summit of Barad-dur his eye watches ceaselessly. But he is not so mighty yet that he is above fear. Doubt ever gnaws at him. The rumor has reached him. The heir of Facebook still lives.

//because I can.

Re:make sense? (1)

CptNerd (455084) | more than 3 years ago | (#32985356)

Hopefully Zuckerberg will realize he's actually bound to comply with his agreement, and will find a way to settle with Ceglia.

Hopefully? Hopefully Ceglia will acquire Facebook and as a result Facebook goes down in ruin, obliterated in full.

Oh, c'mon, there must be a pony in that pile somewhere !

Re:make sense? (3, Funny)

HarvardAce (771954) | more than 3 years ago | (#32985084)

well maybe not now, when it's "worth" so much, but back then when he was just a thieving punk kid with no money the relationship was beneficial to him. Contracts don't need to be written by lawyers to be legally binding.

Zuckerberg had turned down an offer to work with Microsoft on MP3 playing software ("Synapse") for hundreds of thousands of dollars when he was still in high school. While I know he worked with the Ceglia guy on streetfax for something like $1,000, I doubt he would have sold half of an idea like facebook for merely $1,000, especially since Ceglia was offering absolutely nothing other than the $1,000 -- Zuckerberg would be doing all the work.

Doesn't matter (2, Interesting)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#32984468)

Regardless of whether it makes sense or not, a contract is a contract. If a Lawyer can make sense of it - WHAMMO - you're done.

Re:Doesn't matter (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 3 years ago | (#32984932)

Unless any specifications in the contract are illegal. At least in Belgium that would mean that that the contract is null and void or at least large parts of it, depending the contract.

Re:Doesn't matter (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32985128)

Unless any specifications in the contract are illegal. At least in Belgium that would mean that that the contract is null and void or at least large parts of it, depending the contract.

In Belgium only the illegal clauses would typically be thrown out. The rest would stand.

Re:Doesn't matter (2, Insightful)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 3 years ago | (#32984938)

Regardless of whether it makes sense or not, a contract is a contract.

That's actually not even approximately true. If the terms of a written document purporting to be a contract literally don't make sense (i.e., have a clear meaning), then the agreement may quite well fail to be a contract. The absence of sufficiently clear obligations for either party could, for instance, make the agreement fail to be a contract for lack of mutual consideration. Not making sense could also cause a contract to fail for evidence of an actual agreement on the essential terms of the exchange.

Re:Doesn't matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32985152)

Exactly. I'm guessing they will argue there was no meeting of the minds (each party had a different understanding of what was going on with the contract) and therefore there is no contract.

Re:Doesn't matter (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 3 years ago | (#32985658)

I've read through the contract, it does have a bit of stuff that is odd, and inconsistent. (At first it calls the project "The Face Book", but later "The Page Book". However, technical/typographical errors aren't voidable in a contract so long as it is clear what was intended.

The US has a pretty strong policy of assuming a valid contract. Given that it clearly states that Ceglia gets 50% of all software, and business interests, and Zuckerberg gets $1000 for the project, it's pretty clear that an enforceable contract was constructed.

Re:Doesn't matter (1)

quickOnTheUptake (1450889) | more than 3 years ago | (#32985666)

Is it possible that they mean it doesn't make any sense, in the sense that, it looks fraudulent?
After reading through it I can't help but wonder about it. I mean for this guy to have signed a check for $1000 to a college kid, MZ must have been able to convince him there was substantial opportunity for profit. But (A) I thought FB was initially only supposed to be for Harvard? I can't imagine there would have been *too* much money to be made on something that limited. But more importantly, (B) for MZ to have made such a convincing pitch he must have already realized he was potentially sitting on a big idea. Was he really so cash strapped that he had to sell 50% of this big idea for a measly 1k? I mean it's not like FB needed a big capital to get off the ground. It probably could run on a 5 year old computer over his dorm network connection.
Further, (IANAL but) the contract looks like it was written by a lawyer. It doesn't look like some form contract that someone pasted into Word and changed the names. Who hires a lawyer to write a contract for a set of transactions totaling $2000?
Anyway, questions like that were popping into my head as I read it. (Obviously, I'm not alleging that it is a fraud, just noting that I'll be curious to see how this plays out if it goes to trial.)

SO... How do you think it will turn out? (2, Interesting)

drsmack1 (698392) | more than 3 years ago | (#32984498)

I looked into the merits of the case and it seems to me that Ceglia has a valid case and the defendants are using SCO-like defense tactics already at this early point.

Even with that said, it always seems that the guy with the biggest legal fund wins.

So, predict away!

Re:SO... How do you think it will turn out? (0, Redundant)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#32984522)

I predict lawyers will be made very rich, and Facebook will continue on its stead decline of user approval rating. Because we all know that whoever wins, they're going to change the UI again, make uploading pictures more buggy, and mine your data.

Re:SO... How do you think it will turn out? (2, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#32984564)

Steady decline in user satisfaction......and steady increase in userbase size and advertising revenue. People may not be satisfied with Facebook, but they will still use it. And I say that in all sadness, wishing they wouldn't.

Re:SO... How do you think it will turn out? (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 3 years ago | (#32984880)

Much like ebay/paypal in that regard, the network effects caused by being the biggest site of their type outweigh for many users the bad behaviour of the site operator.

Re:SO... How do you think it will turn out? (1)

HarvardAce (771954) | more than 3 years ago | (#32985308)

I looked into the merits of the case and it seems to me that Ceglia has a valid case and the defendants are using SCO-like defense tactics already at this early point.

You obviously didn't look too hard. From dailyfinance.com [dailyfinance.com] :

Ceglia's attorney, Paul Argentieri, says bring it on. He says he offered to show Facebook's attorneys the original contract if they were willing to visit his offices in Hornell, N.Y. "They didn't take me up on my offer," Argentieri told DailyFinance. "They had three weeks to get ready to answer this very basic question. I was surprised by their hesitation."

Ceglia's attorney Argentieri says he will gladly explain why his client waited six- and-a-half years to file his lawsuit when the parties go to trial. He added that his client has plenty of other documents and canceled checks with Zuckerberg's signature.

That certainly makes Ceglia sound more like SCO than facebook here -- Ceglia's attorney is basically saying "we have lots of evidence but we won't show it to you."

The timing just doesn't make sense...Zuckerberg was alleged to have stolen the idea from the ConnectU guys in the fall of 2003, was't he? If this contract is actually legitimate, that would have shown that Zuckerberg had the idea long before he had contact with ConnectU -- or am I misremembering the time frame of the ConnectU stuff?

Full of things that don't make sense ... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32984500)

Don't make sense, as in, someone putting up capital being entitled to a slice of the pie? Hmm.

I predict they are screwed.

Note how they are not denying the existence of the agreement or the authenticity of the signatures on that agreement.

What makes sense and what is legally binding are two different things.

Re:Full of things that don't make sense ... (1)

HarvardAce (771954) | more than 3 years ago | (#32985060)

Note how they are not denying the existence of the agreement or the authenticity of the signatures on that agreement.

They aren't denying that Zuckerberg had a contract to work with Ceglia. What they are denying is that the contract included any mention of facebook. They believe that the actual contract was only for the StreetFax.com work, and not facebook.

Re:Full of things that don't make sense ... (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 3 years ago | (#32985722)

Note how they are not denying the existence of the agreement or the authenticity of the signatures on that agreement.

They aren't denying that Zuckerberg had a contract to work with Ceglia. What they are denying is that the contract included any mention of facebook. They believe that the actual contract was only for the StreetFax.com work, and not facebook.

I doubt that they would be making such a bold assertion, when the contract explicitly includes two parts, one for the StreetFax.com, and another for a different project, describing enough what Facebook was/is, with the "tentative title: 'The Face Book'"

So, if they're going to argue that, then Zuckerberg should have kept a copy of his contract so that his lawyers could actually see it, and they would be smacking him hard up the back of the head for suggesting that they should make such a claim.

that's what you get (4, Funny)

vuffi_raa (1089583) | more than 3 years ago | (#32984506)

when you write a contract while stoned and in college.

Re:that's what you get (2, Informative)

Surt (22457) | more than 3 years ago | (#32984786)

He'd be lucky if he was stoned. He might be able to weasel out based on not having the capacity to make a binding contract.

"Competency and Capacity

A natural person who enters a contract possesses complete legal capacity to be held liable for the duties he or she agrees to undertake, unless the person is a minor, mentally incapacitated, or intoxicated. "

http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/contracts [enotes.com]

Be interesting to see the contract (1)

beakerMeep (716990) | more than 3 years ago | (#32984518)

Not a bad tactic if you can pick a winner; make college students hungry for money sign ridiculous contracts. Not a bad ROI for $1k.

Re:Be interesting to see the contract (4, Informative)

HarvardAce (771954) | more than 3 years ago | (#32985048)

The contract is included in the lawsuit, available here: http://i.cdn.turner.com/money/2010/07/13/technology/facebook_lawsuit/facebook_filing.pdf [turner.com]

Re:Be interesting to see the contract (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32985304)

Pg. 11
PURCHASER: Paul Ceglia
CONTRACTOR/SELLER: Mark Zuckerberg et al ...

Section 2 Entire Agreement ...two seperate business ventures...StreetFax LLC and project Seller has already initiated...with working title "The Facebook". It is agreed the Purchaser will own a half interest 50%

This looks like it'll make an amusing trial.

Coincidence? (-1, Troll)

countSudoku() (1047544) | more than 3 years ago | (#32984540)

full of 'things that don't make sense'

The contract or farcebook itself? YOU MAKE THE CALL!!1! I count 500 million things on FB that don't make sense and counting! Just 5.5B users to sign up, and we'll have a wicked-big party and all friend each other and likes will be passed around as if to simulate something that get's passed around. It'll be fun. Friend me, Saddo!

Company Hating (5, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#32984548)

In all my years of Microsoft hating, Oracle hating, IBM hating, closed-source hating, I have never wanted a company to fail so much as Facebook. It is quite surreal to me, a visceral, deep-set dislike of the company and everything it stands for. It is reflexive, not even intellectual. I just can't stand them.

I thought Microsoft would be the worst, because I went through years when they were truly evil, but even at that time I never really hated Bill Gates. He's still kind of a geek, and he did work hard, even if he had an over-burdened competitive streak. And Ballmer, while he is a gorilla, he is just a gorilla. He does plenty of things that are entertaining.

But Zuckerberg is just a douche. He is like the lowest of the low, he stole the idea for the company, he doesn't care about his customers, he doesn't care about his partners, he got lucky, and he has absolutely no redeeming qualities. If Bill Gates hadn't gotten lucky working with IBM, he would have started another company and been successful, although maybe not to the same degree. That's just what kind of person he is. Mark Zuckerberg is the kind of guy who takes everything that is bad about investment bankers and brings it into the programming world. He should go back to banking where he belongs. There are lots of douches there. He would fit right in.

Re:Company Hating (0, Troll)

doctorpangloss (1802380) | more than 3 years ago | (#32984640)

And the individual who's campaigning on a bar-napkin contract, only because the site is now successful, having done no entrepreneurial work of his own—Ceglia isn't a douchebag?

It seems odd that you choose to character-assassinate Zuckerberg on the terms, "he should go back to banking where he belongs." Why's that? Because he's a Harvard student? Because he's Jewish? I've heard this kind of attack, particularly from engineers, particularly from students of computer science. Before we start speculating on Zuckerberg's sense of entitlement and arrogance, let's speak to yours: since when do you get to judge winners and losers? What "kind" of person is he? What "redeeming qualities"? Have you met him? Did you read Accidental Billionaires and feel you know everything about him, and can generalize about young entrepreneurs in general?

The audience resents success. But I resent comments of such obvious, visceral prejudice.

Re:Company Hating (4, Insightful)

mirix (1649853) | more than 3 years ago | (#32984736)

He's the kind of guy that has actually stated "Fuck the users". Sure sounds like a real nice guy.

Fuck him and facebook.

Re:Company Hating (1)

schmidt349 (690948) | more than 3 years ago | (#32984780)

[citation needed]

Re:Company Hating (1)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 3 years ago | (#32984820)

I don't know that he ever said "fuck the users", but he certainly did refer to them as dumb fucks. It was all over the news not that long ago.

Re:Company Hating (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32985358)

Don't get me wrong, I think Zuckerberg is a Class-A douchebag, and I hope Facebook burns, but I think it's amusing that you -- and all Slashdotters here -- would say word-for-word what Zuckerberg did, with no regrets. And, for some reason, when someone with more influence than you says it, you hold him to a higher standard than you do yourselves.

Is this only amusing to me because I don't use Facebook? I would probably feel differently if I did.

Re:Company Hating (5, Insightful)

DogDude (805747) | more than 3 years ago | (#32984768)

I'd call him a douchebag because he's just another dot-commer who builds unprofitable, unsustainable "businesses" off of other people's money. He doesn't create anything of any value. All he does is spend other people's money and pays himself as if he deserves it.

The investors are greedy, stupid people who deserve to lose their money, as well, but that's another story.

Re:Company Hating (3, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#32984958)

The fact that he's a douchebag is apparent from what he is done. Read some of his chat transcripts that have come out on the internet and see if you disagree. He screws everyone around him. He sucks. I don't need to character-assassinate Zuckerberg because he's done it to himself with his actions. It has nothing to do with being Jewish or graduating from Harvard. He fits in the investment banking world because the investment banking world is full of douches who like nothing better than to rip each other off. That is how the banking world works.

As for the rest, I don't know why you think I am generalizing about young entrepreneurs in general. I am not. I respect success. But not when it comes from ripping people off.

Re:Company Hating (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32985144)

The liberals got it exactly right. For years now they’ve been telling us how “vibrant” mass immigration has made stale, pale White societies. Well, London was certainly vibrating on 7th July and that got me thinking: What else have the liberals got right? Mass immigration “enriches” us too, they’ve always said. Is that “enrich” as in “enriched uranium”, an excellent way of making atom bombs? Because that’s what comes next: a weapon of real mass destruction that won’t kill people in piffling dozens but in hundreds of thousands or millions. Bye-bye London, bye-bye Washington, bye-bye Tel Aviv.

I’m not too sure I’d shed a tear if the last-named went up in a shower of radioactive cinders, but Tel Aviv is actually the least likely of the three to be hit. What’s good for you ain’t good for Jews, and though Jews have striven mightily, and mighty successfully, to turn White nations into multi-racial fever-swamps, mass immigration has passed the Muzzerland safely by. And mass immigration is the key to what happened in London. You don’t need a sophisticated socio-political analysis taking in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Jewish control of Anglo-American foreign policy, British colonialism, and fifteen centuries of Christian-Muslim conflict. You can explain the London bombs in five simple words:

Pakis do not belong here.

And you can sum up how to prevent further London bombs – and worse – in three simple words:

PAKI GO HOME.

At any time before the 1950s, brown-skinned Muslim terrorists would have found it nearly impossible to plan and commit atrocities on British soil, because they would have stood out like sore thumbs in Britain’s overwhelmingly White cities. Today, thanks to decades of mass immigration, it’s often Whites who stand out like sore thumbs. Our cities swarm with non-whites full of anti-White grievances and hatreds created by Judeo-liberal propaganda. And let’s forget the hot air about how potential terrorists and terrorist sympathizers are a “tiny minority” of Britain’s vibrant, peace-loving Muslim “community”.

Even if that’s true, a tiny minority of 1.6 million (2001 estimate) is a hell of a lot of people, and there’s very good reason to believe it isn’t true. Tony Blair has tried to buy off Britain’s corrupt and greedy “moderate” Muslims with knighthoods and public flattery, but his rhetoric about the “religion of peace” wore thin long ago. After the bombings he vowed, with his trademark bad actor’s pauses, that we will... not rest until... the guilty men are identified... and as far... as is humanly possible... brought to justice for this... this murderous carnage... of the innocent.

His slimy lawyer’s get-out clause – “as far as is humanly possible” – was soon needed. Unlike Blair and his pal Dubya in Iraq and Afghanistan, the bombers were prepared not only to kill the innocent but to die themselves as they did so. And to laugh at the prospect: they were captured on CCTV sharing a joke about the limbs and heads that would shortly be flying. Even someone as dim as Blair must know you’ve got a big problem on your hands when there are over 1.6 million people in your country following a religion like that.

If he doesn’t know, there are plenty of Jewish journalists who will point it out for him. There’s the neo-conservative Melanie Phillips in Britain, for example, who never met an indignant adverb she didn’t like, and the neo-conservative Mark Steyn in Canada, who never met an indignant Arab he didn’t kick. Reading their hard-hitting columns on Muslim psychosis, I was reminded of a famous scene in Charles Dickens’ notoriously anti-Semitic novel Oliver Twist (1839). The hero watches the training of the villainous old Jew Fagin put into action by the Artful Dodger:

What was Oliver’s horror and alarm to see the Dodger plunge his hand into the old gentleman’s pocket, and draw from thence a handkerchief! To see him hand the same to Charley Bates; and finally to behold them both running away round the corner at full speed! He stood for a moment tingling from terror; then, confused and frightened, he took to his heels and made off as fast as he could lay his feet to the ground.
In the very instant when Oliver began to run, the old gentleman, putting his hand to his pocket, and missing his handkerchief, turned sharp round. Seeing the boy scudding away, he very naturally concluded him to be the depredator; and shouting “Stop thief!” with all his might, made off after him. But the old gentleman was not the only person who raised the hue-and-cry. The Dodger and Master Bates, unwilling to attract public attention by running down the open street, had merely retired into the very first doorway round the corner. They no sooner heard the cry, and saw Oliver running, than, guessing exactly how the matter stood, they issued forth with great promptitude; and, shouting “Stop thief!” too, joined in the pursuit like good citizens.

“Wicked Muslims!” our two Jewish Artful Dodgers are shouting. “Can’t you see how they hate the West and want to destroy us?” Well, yes, we can, but some of us can also see who the original West-haters are. Mark Steyn claims not to be Jewish, but his ancestry shines through time after time in his writing. Above all, there’s his dishonesty. One week he’s mocking anti-Semites for claiming that the tiny nation of Israel could have such a powerful influence for bad on the world’s affairs. The following week he’s praising the British Empire for having had such a powerful influence for good. You know, the world-bestriding British Empire – as created by a tiny nation called Britain.

If the Brits could do it openly and honestly, Mr Steyn, why can’t the yids do it by fraud and deception? And the yids have done it, of course. They’ve run immigration policy and “race relations” in Europe and America since the 1960s, and Steyn is very fond of pointing out what’s in store for Europe as our Jew-invited non-white guests grow in number and really start to show their appreciation of our hospitality.

Funnily enough, I’ve never seen him point out that the same is in store for North America, which has its own rapidly growing non-white swarms. And when Steyn launches one of his regular attacks on the lunacies of multi-culturalism and anti-racism, a central fact always somehow seems to escape his notice. He recently once again bemoaned the psychotic “Western self-loathing” that has such a “grip on the academy, the media, the Congregational and Episcopal Churches, the ‘arts’ and Hollywood”. Exhibit one: the multi-culti, hug-the-world, “Let’s all be nice to the Muslims” memorial for 9/11. This was his list of those responsible for it:

Tom Bernstein... Michael Posner... Eric Foner... George Soros...
Well, that’s a Jew, a Jew, a Jew, and a Jew – sounds like a lampshade collector showing off his Auschwitz shelf. But fearless “Tell It Like It Is” Steyn, ever-ready to mock the “racial sensitivity” of deluded liberals, is himself very sensitive about race when it comes to the Chosen Ones. He’ll kick dark-skinned Muslims and their liberal appeasers till the sacred cows come home and he can start kicking them too, but just like Melanie Phillips he never whispers a word about the Jews who created liberal appeasement or about the enormous power Jews wield in “the academy, the media, the 'arts', and Hollywood”.

The same is true of all other Jewish “conservatives”. They’re shouting “Stop thief!” at the top of their voices and hoping that no-one will notice that they all belong to the biggest race of thieves who ever existed. Those bombs went off in London because Jews have stolen large parts of Britain from their rightful White inhabitants and handed them over to the non-white followers of a psychotic alien religion. When non-whites commit more and worse atrocities in future, you won’t need to ask who’s really responsible: it’s liberal Jews like Tom Bernstein and George Soros, who organize mass immigration and the anti-racism industry, and “conservative” Jews like Mark Steyn and Melanie Phillips, who distract White attention from the racial motives of Jews like Soros and Bernstein. Heads they win, tails we lose – liberal, “conservative”, they’re all of them Jews.

Re:Company Hating (5, Insightful)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | more than 3 years ago | (#32984654)

If Bill Gates hadn't gotten lucky working with IBM, he would have started another company and been successful, although maybe not to the same degree.

Microsoft was doing okay without DOS. Not anything like what they became with it, but Microsoft, and MS-Basic would have at least left Gates comfortable.

Gates was able to build a strong enough business to await a good opportunity. And then seize it. As a person, I respect him.

Google Me (5, Interesting)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 3 years ago | (#32984558)

The average user doesn't know how much of a dick Zuckerberg is. But this trial will expose that to more of the public, as will the upcoming Fincher movie.

And frankly Zuckerberg's history of screwing over other early partners, and intentionally screwing his users by constantly changing privacy settings to expose users will come out as evidence that he sought to exploit Ceglia and never honor the contract.

In the meantime, Google is putting together a Facebook killer. And the killer feature will be that your Mafia Wars and Farmville accounts will transfer over to this new social network, Google Me.

Re:Google Me (2, Funny)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 3 years ago | (#32984638)

"...this new social network..."

Then, almost at once, all the users of social neworking, games, apps, all of it, almost to a man, woke up, and yelled "I've been spending 10 years of my life doing what????

Re:Google Me (2, Insightful)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 3 years ago | (#32984738)

In the meantime, Google is putting together a Facebook killer. And the killer feature will be that your Mafia Wars and Farmville accounts will transfer over to this new social network, Google Me.

Umm, you do know who they're working with right? Zynga, the other Facebook company that doesn't care about users.

Re:Google Me (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32984948)

Umm, you do know who they're working with right? Zynga, the other Facebook company that doesn't care about users.

That's just bullshit.

Zynga has worked diligently to improve it's customer service. If you're referencing the "scamville" situation that was reported by TechCrunch last year, I'd suggest you read the follow-up articles also posted by TechCrunch praising the approach that Zynga took in completely removing those offers from all games until they were able to gain better control. In fact, one of those offer companies is likely to go out of business soon because they recently lost out on a facebook bid to be the lone offer provider of facebook credits. (see link here [socialtimes.com] )

Zynga certainly hasn't been a perfect company in terms of user relations, but they have been one of the very few who have publicly acknowledged their problems and worked to get them corrected.

Re:Google Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32984752)

Fair enough. But Ceglia is no lily-white venture capitalist philanthropist either, according to TFA. These two richly deserve one another. Feh!

Re:Google Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32984824)

I'd mod this up if I could, even as it's already a 5. FB is practically everything I hate all nicely bundled into one site. On top of it all, the guy behind it is a douche. Now to hope this whole court battle hurts them in the end, though that might be too much to ask.

Re:Google Me (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#32984870)

In the meantime, Google is putting together a Facebook killer. And the killer feature will be that your Mafia Wars and Farmville accounts will transfer over to this new social network, Google Me.

Orkut much?

Orkut? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32985316)

I heard they have a brazilian members!

Re:Google Me (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#32985044)

I tried Googling you, but I'm having trouble figuring out how you tie in to the new Google social network. /Abbott

Coming to a court room near you (1)

SmegginHell (1519509) | more than 3 years ago | (#32984578)

Staring Jesse Eisenberg in his breakthrough role as yet another awkward, nerdy, soft-spoken teenager.

which defended doesn't want their case thrown? (1)

Nyder (754090) | more than 3 years ago | (#32984616)

Nice article.

Of course, seeing as most defends want to have their cases thrown out, it's not really news.

Deal with the devil - time to pay up... (3, Insightful)

hadesan (664029) | more than 3 years ago | (#32984620)

Mark, come on man - give the man his due - it's only 84% of the stuff you ripped others off for...

Re:Deal with the devil - time to pay up... (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#32985012)

Minus the part he already sold to his other investors, minus what they'll sue him for once the judge takes some of that back to give it to Ceglia...

Zuckerberg could end up deep in debt after this.

Where's the Beef? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32984712)

It would be great to see the actual contract. Isn't it/wouldn't it be publicly available as part of the court filings? This may be a cautionary tale for all of us who claim IANAL and then provide legal advice...

What's this got to do with "my rights online"? (5, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#32984790)

It's a contract dispute between two individuals. The outcome will depend on the facts of the case and the judge's interpretation of the contract. No rights involved, except for the plaintiff's exercise of his right to sue.

Re:What's this got to do with "my rights online"? (5, Funny)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#32985016)

You have the right to watch Facebook's ostensible founder go up in flames, online.

Re:What's this got to do with "my rights online"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32985384)

You have the right to watch Facebook's ostensible founder go up in flames, online.

Exactly. It's not our right to watch that. It's our duty. Minor difference.

Re:What's this got to do with "my rights online"? (2, Informative)

selven (1556643) | more than 3 years ago | (#32985022)

Due to Slashdot's lack of a "law" section, all legal stories get thrown into YRO. Unless they relate specifically to Apple, Microsoft, or some other category, where else could they go?

Re:What's this got to do with "my rights online"? (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#32985094)

When Zuckerberg starts getting really scared about losing it all, he's probably going to do something stupid and illegal with all the information he's acquired from Facebook. Desperate people do desperate things.

Re:What's this got to do with "my rights online"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32985674)

Someone should start an online bet on which country Zuckerberg moves to with all his stolen money.

Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32984804)

Dude, fuck facebook, seriously! - Stan Marsh

Things that Don't Make Sense (4, Funny)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 3 years ago | (#32984850)

I'd love to submit an amicus curiae brief to some random trial and just copy paste www.timecube.com .

If it's part of the court record, they've got to read it, right?

Re:Things that Don't Make Sense (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#32985158)

I'd love to submit an amicus curiae brief to some random trial and just copy paste www.timecube.com . If it's part of the court record, they've got to read it, right?

+4 Corner Simultaneous 4-Day Informative
EVIL /. Moderators block and suppress www.timecube.com

I get that Zuckerberg is not well thought of (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32984858)

but I need to know who Paul Ceglia if he is about to own 84% of everything I have ever posted to Facebook. Can I trust him with my carefully composed photos? My thoughtful opinions? My flashes of insight? The results of a test determining what kind of writer I am (Leo Tolstoy, BTW)?

Re:I get that Zuckerberg is not well thought of (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32985650)

And nothing of value was lost...

Forgery? (1)

kabloom (755503) | more than 3 years ago | (#32984984)

Why isn't Zuckerberg claiming the contract is a forgery?

Re:Forgery? (1)

msauve (701917) | more than 3 years ago | (#32985092)

Because perjury is a criminal offense? Do you think he wants to give up $xx billion, control of Facebook, and pick up soap in prison for up to 5 years?

Re:Forgery? (1)

HarvardAce (771954) | more than 3 years ago | (#32985342)

Why isn't Zuckerberg claiming the contract is a forgery?

I think they're heading in that direction. Facebook has asked to see an original copy of the contract and Ceglia's lawyer told them to "come visit my office and I'll show it to you." Sounds fishy.

Re:Forgery? (1)

msauve (701917) | more than 3 years ago | (#32985494)

It's fishy that they don't want to let a document which may be worth billions of dollars out of their control/sight? Where's Zuckerberg's copy? Facebook's lawyers can look at that. Zuckerberg knows whether or not there was a contract, and if he knew there wasn't one, they wouldn't delay in saying so. They've already admitted to a business relationship. Lacking a Zuckerberg copy which differs from the one in the filing, it will be hard to argue/prove it was modified after the fact. Hence, the Chewbacca defense.

Next up, Ceglia's lawyer's office gets burgled.

Schoolyard arguments . . . (2, Interesting)

Tanman (90298) | more than 3 years ago | (#32985014)

Sally: TEACHER, I told Billy he could have my crackers yesterday if he'd give me his desser TODAAAAAAAY!
Teacher: Is that true, Billy?
Billy: But, but, I didn't KNOW my mommy was gonna make BROWNIES. SALLY just gave me an oreooo!
Teacher: Now Billy, you made a legally binding agreement with Sally. I'm afraid that I will have to enforce the terms of the contract, as Sally did uphold her end of the bargain. If you thought you might be getting a brownie today, then you should have just waited and shown some restraint and considered any future ramifications from your actions.
Billy: WAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Re:Schoolyard arguments . . . (1)

BitterOak (537666) | more than 3 years ago | (#32985188)

Sally: TEACHER, I told Billy he could have my crackers yesterday if he'd give me his desser TODAAAAAAAY!

It is a good analogy, but what is a "desser"? At first I thought you meant to say "dresser", but kids don't usually trade in furniture. An Xbox-360 or something similar would make more sense here.

"Your Honor, I demand..." (5, Funny)

CptNerd (455084) | more than 3 years ago | (#32985446)

"Your Honor, I demand this contract be thrown out as evidence!"

"On what grounds?"

"On the grounds that it incriminates my client!"

IANAL, but... (1)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 3 years ago | (#32985536)

"Facebook attorney Lisa Simpson acknowledged on Tuesday that Zuckerberg and Ceglia had worked together on the street-mapping website but said the contract submitted by Ceglia was full of "inconsistencies, undefined terms and things that don't make sense."

Um, as if that means much. If the contract is otherwise legally correct, this is not the defense I would want to be counting on...

"We have serious questions about the authenticity of this contract," Simpson told U.S. District Judge Richard Arcara. "What the contract asserts is there is a relationship about Facebook and there isn't one."

This is the interesting statement. Does Ceglia need a relationship with Facebook, or with Zuckerman? Actually, doesn't he just need a contract?

I'm gonna enjoy this. What a show! Zuckerman is a lawsuit machine!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...