Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Court Rejects Winklevoss Twins' Facebook Appeal

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the zuckerberg-likes-this dept.

Businesses 106

angry tapir writes "A US federal appeals court has denied a request by the Winklevoss twins to release them from their settlement with Facebook over their allegations that Mark Zuckerberg improperly appropriated their idea for the social networking site. Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, along with another Harvard classmate, agreed to the settlement in 2008 but the twins later asked a district court to let them back out, saying they were misled by Facebook about the value of the company's shares they received as part of the deal. On Monday, a three-judge appeals court panel sided with the lower court, noting that the Winklevoss twins have actually fared quite well since the settlement was hammered out because the value of Facebook, pegged recently at around $50 billion, means that their shares have more than tripled in value."

cancel ×

106 comments

First post? (1)

metiscus (1270822) | more than 3 years ago | (#35787768)

A social media post without replies? Irony.

Re:First post? (1)

retroworks (652802) | more than 3 years ago | (#35787810)

ditto.

Not rich enough yet? (0)

WonderingAround (2007742) | more than 3 years ago | (#35787778)

If you look up "greed" in the dictionary you'll see a picture of the Winklevoss twins

Re:Not rich enough yet? (3, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#35787926)

On the other hand, as far as anyone can tell, they did come up with the idea, and they did have an agreement with Zuckerberg that he would implement it. Now, this business with trying to renegotiate their settlement is another matter, but I can certainly think of greedier people.

Re:Not rich enough yet? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35788464)

That's nonsense. I have an idea, I want to make a jet pack. I'm not intellectually or creatively capable of actually creating said jet pack myself, so I'm going to find a student at say MIT and see if he can do it for me. Dang it, the student thought the jet pack was a great idea too, but now he has his own vision for how he wants to build it. But we had a verbal agreement, he said he'd do it for me. A decade later, he's a billionaire, I thought of the jet pack idea and now everyone is flying around. I'm pissed. I know, this is America, I'm going to sue him for every penny he's earned for all of the work he put into actually making the idea, a reality.

Re:Not rich enough yet? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35788996)

Aha Mark, nice try posting as AC, but we KNOW your writing style. You may not think that we are talented, but we actually are. You have been figured out by this dynamic duo. Yessir, yessiree. As Darth Vader once said, all too easy!
 
--The Winklevoss Twins
 
P.S.: You owe us a larger undisclosed amount of shares.

Re:Not rich enough yet? (1)

vegiVamp (518171) | more than 3 years ago | (#35790446)

Strictly speaking, a verbal contract is also legally binding. Trouble, of course, is in proving what the verbal contract entailed.

Re:Not rich enough yet? (1)

v1 (525388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35788466)

"So.. we had an idea and an agreement was worked out with you. and we all got what we all agreed on. BUT.. you ended up making a LOT more money off the idea than we expected, so NOW we want a bigger cut.... ok?"

Re:Not rich enough yet? (1, Funny)

Nikker (749551) | more than 3 years ago | (#35788562)

So this is the "I watched the Zuckerberg movie and lets comment on it as it really happened" thread?

Re:Not rich enough yet? (1)

arkane1234 (457605) | more than 3 years ago | (#35788926)

So this is the "I watched the Zuckerberg movie and lets comment on it as it really happened" thread?

The Winklevoss twins are real, not just two guys in a movie...

Re:Not rich enough yet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35789234)

two guys one cup?

Re:Not rich enough yet? (1)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 3 years ago | (#35790532)

No, they didn't win, they came a close second though

Re:Not rich enough yet? (2)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35790156)

Here's a more detailed story, including citations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ConnectU [wikipedia.org]
The movie isn't that far off when it comes to the communication between zuckerberg and the twins. Characters and drama are obviously embelished and I don't know about all the stuff unrelated to HarvardConnection, but atleast this part seems to be reasonably accurate.
Long story short; Zuckerberg agreed to do the project, didn't deliver and released a nearly identical project of his own.

Ofcourse, trying to get out of a settlement is a whole different matter; that's just sad. The idea of a settlement is to end a legal battle, not to provide fertile grounds for more lawsuits.

Re:Not rich enough yet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35788646)

I have an idea will you develop it yourself, market it and sell it and give me $50 Million for just the idea (or whatever the figure was). Then 3 years later, because you do a good job with the idea and the company you built around it I want MORE money than just the shares. I got news for you, Myspace had a similar idea but I don't think they're worth $50 billion. They got plenty of money for their idea.

Re:Not rich enough yet? (2)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#35790026)

On the other hand, as far as anyone can tell, they did come up with the idea...

For social networking? No they didn't.

For Facebook? No they didn't, they had an idea which was much more restricted and close-minded.

Without Zuckerberg their idea would have died in six months, leaving them in debt. They've done zero work and they're multi-millionaires now.

If I had their money I'd be retired on an island somewhere. STFU already.

Re:Not rich enough yet? (2)

jjohnson (62583) | more than 3 years ago | (#35790090)

They didn't come up with the idea. They said themselves that friendster already existed at the time. Their angle was making it exclusive to Harvard.

Re:Not rich enough yet? (4, Insightful)

lorenlal (164133) | more than 3 years ago | (#35787942)

And if you look up weasel, you'll see Zuckerberg. It's irrelevant if they're greedy. If they were lied to, and screwed that's still bad business. If they really don't have a case, as the appeals court suggests, then too bad so sad.

But being slimy, greedy, or even just a bad person doesn't make you wrong. Signing a bad agreement does.

Eduardo (5, Interesting)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 3 years ago | (#35788180)

Speaking of greed, the way that Zuckerberg is reputed to have treated Eduardo [wikipedia.org] , his partner, and the one who put up all the initial investment money for Facebook is worse than the situation with the W twins.

He is reputed to have taken Eduardo's 30-some percent share down to 0 or so by issuing new stock to venture capitalists while keeping his and Sean Parker's [wikipedia.org] percentages stable.

One phrase for dealing with startups: "non-dilutable shares"

Re:Eduardo (1, Troll)

Meatbucket (2039104) | more than 3 years ago | (#35788440)

Yah he treated him badly, but Eduardo was a liability who's only good decision was to have Standford on the list for Facebook's initial launch. Eduardo also froze their bank account and jeopardized the whole operation. He had bad vision and was immature. He was marginalized for the greater good of Zukerberg's Facebook.

Re:Eduardo (2)

mbkennel (97636) | more than 3 years ago | (#35790386)

Mark Zuckerberg could have fired him, but he didn't just fire him. He stole everything from him.

Re:Eduardo (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35788508)

look at these people's net worth measured in billions. 10 figures. they could give away a million dollars a day for 3 years and still have more money than the average guy makes in a decade. at that level you're not a weasle or a slimebag - you do whatever the fuck you want whenever you want and thank god you're not one of us. Zuckerberg and Eduardo are still good friends.

Re:Eduardo (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35789104)

Actually, non-dilutable shares for a startup is a terrible idea - especially on that is likely to go VC someday. Why? Because then it requires unanimity to get that capital, and the least sane/ethical member can hold the deal hostage to get the best terms for themselves. Instead what should exist are a reasonable set of rules for dilution, particularly when interested parties are involved, with recourse to third-party and/or binding arbitration of the company valuation. The value of sweat equity should also be baked in at the start, so that members who become inactive get neither the gravy train nor the shaft. And, as always, unless all your partners are more ethical than the general population, you must be prepared to demand what you are owed. If none of you will have $10 to spare on an attorney, then it's back to the least sane/ethical person getting away with all kinds of crap. This is part of the risk of a startup - a huge part. Involving the state is expensive and time consuming and many people will call your bluff.

BULL...FUCKING...SHIT (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35789848)

Sorry. If I put up funds for X amount of the company when it starts, I damn well am going to own X amount when it is flourishing. Inactivity? My activity was providing money, money you didn't have and needed. That's the price one pays for borrowing my money.

Re:BULL...FUCKING...SHIT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35797064)

Yeah... then you'd better hope you don't need capital, or that your partners turn out to be your mental identical twins when you do. You have precisely the wrong notion of a company. In order for investors to be successful, the company must be successful. That means the *company* must have significant freedom of action: the ability to raise money, alter its offerings, and hire or fire - including controlling the sweat contributions of its owners. Attempting to guarantee yourself things regardless of future circumstances will only harm the company's chances at success, and therefore your own. Instead you should be concerned with guaranteeing yourself not some particular thing, but merely equitable treatment relative to your fellow investors. And you should be concerned with the cost and feasibility of demanding that equality if the need arises. Even early VC may get diluted by later VC - and against their will, too. Not all future rounds of funding are owner stock - some are new issues.

Re:Eduardo (1)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 3 years ago | (#35802928)

He is reputed to have taken Eduardo's 30-some percent share down to 0 or so by issuing new stock to venture capitalists while keeping his and Sean Parker's [wikipedia.org] percentages stable.

One phrase for dealing with startups: "non-dilutable shares"

I've dealt with partners like that in my past as well. No intention of further dealings with them.

Re:Not rich enough yet? (2)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 3 years ago | (#35788520)

The judge's point seems to be the following: you want to back out of the deal because you believe that the shares you were given as part of the settlement were not valued as highly as originally stated. However, those shares are worth a lot of money though, so things have worked out pretty peachy keen for you guys. Please stop wasting any more of the court's time.

Re:Not rich enough yet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35788570)

Or in other words, "Sure, you only agreed to take his settlement because he said it was valued at four times what it really was, but it has tripled in value since then! So really, you weren't cheated at all."

I think we've got a dumb judge on our hands.

Re:Not rich enough yet? (2)

517714 (762276) | more than 3 years ago | (#35789438)

It's more like, you signed a deal that specifically excludes anything said during the negotiations from being admissible in court. So live with that part of the deal. Since the Winklevosses have no evidence, they can't prevail. The relative value of the shares then and now are irrelevant.

Re:Not rich enough yet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35788012)

Is this the same dictionary where your face is under "corny"?

Winklevii (1)

sanman2 (928866) | more than 3 years ago | (#35788182)

It's WinkelVII people - Winklevii

Get your social networking terminology straight

Re:Winklevii (1)

arkane1234 (457605) | more than 3 years ago | (#35788960)

It's there last name, you don't pluralize it.
wow.

Ahem. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35789044)

Pardon me, good sir, you should have typed "their", not "there".

Re:Not rich enough yet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35788186)

So what about Zuckerberg ?

I guess he is a saint ?

Re:Not rich enough yet? (2)

WonderingAround (2007742) | more than 3 years ago | (#35788294)

How could he be a saint? ginger's have no soul's

Re:Not rich enough yet? (1)

OffaMyLawn (1885682) | more than 3 years ago | (#35795628)

Hey, yes we d......ok, yeah, you got me there.

Re:Not rich enough yet? (1)

stealth_finger (1809752) | more than 3 years ago | (#35790700)

If you look up "greed" in the dictionary you'll see a picture of the Winklevoss twins

Their faces will be behind many others.

Facebook (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35787824)

[Like]

Knowledgeable (5, Funny)

Warbane (2034760) | more than 3 years ago | (#35787842)

ITT: Commenters who have seen The Social Network and, accordingly, are now experts on the matter.

hollywood did it better.... (1)

metalmaster (1005171) | more than 3 years ago | (#35787848)

and thats probably the first and only time i'll get to say that

I'm 6-foot-5, 220 pounds, and there are two of me (0)

NetNinja (469346) | more than 3 years ago | (#35787850)

Yeah 2 dudes who lost out. "Big time! Bro!"

Re:I'm 6-foot-5, 220 pounds, and there are two of (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35788218)

You suck as a troll and you suck as valuable commenter. Get a clue, stop posting when you are drinking. If you aren't drinking, then just stfu, dummy.

Winklevoss? More like WANKlevoss! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35787856)

And they are hereby officially nominated for biggest douche of the year award!

Made my day.. (5, Insightful)

NovaSupreme (996633) | more than 3 years ago | (#35787862)

""The Winklevosses are not the first parties bested by a competitor who then seek to gain through litigation what they were unable to achieve in the marketplace."
I wish judiciary was that clear and just in other cases, but this comment made my day.

Re:Made my day.. (5, Interesting)

NovaSupreme (996633) | more than 3 years ago | (#35788060)

PS: the reason I went so ga-ga over this new was because of a much sobering ruling I saw yesterday - http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/10/opinion/10thompson.html [nytimes.com] but I digress..

PS2: Since Winklevosses claim to have had the original idea and design, they should have known how much $$ worth was their site. So, how did they got duped by Zuck? Glad judges saw through it..

Re:Made my day.. (1)

Toam (1134401) | more than 3 years ago | (#35788124)

Off topic and what not, but sobering is an understatement....

Re:Made my day.. (1)

gfody (514448) | more than 3 years ago | (#35788578)

that article is amazing. that guy needs to go on a vigilante shooting spree just to make things right!

Re:Made my day.. (2)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 3 years ago | (#35788932)

that article is amazing. that guy needs to go on a vigilante shooting spree just to make things right!

No, two wrongs don't make a right. What this guy needs is a civil suit that can't be overturned :)

Re:Made my day.. (1)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 3 years ago | (#35795112)

All involved in covering up evidence should be prosecuted for attempted murder. There is absolutely no question that they wanted this man dead even though they knew he was innocent. That's conspiracy to commit murder.

There is NO justice in the United States of America. NONE.

Re:Made my day.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35790982)

Of course it was Chief Judge Kozinski who wrote that, who is known for being one of the most brilliant/hilarious members of the judiciary. Here's an example: Can you find all 200 hidden movie titles in this court opinion by him? http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~wgreene/entertainmentandmedia/Syufy.pdf [nyu.edu] The guy is also a huge video game buff too.

Not Winklevosses but... (1)

hey (83763) | more than 3 years ago | (#35787876)

Winklevi

Re:Not Winklevosses but... (1)

glwtta (532858) | more than 3 years ago | (#35790056)

Winklevi

Don't see how. It seems to be Germanic, so "Winklevossen" or "Winklevosse", but could be any number of other things.

Or are we just assuming that all words have second declension Latin roots?

Re:Not Winklevosses but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35791846)

Whooooooooooosh

Re:Not Winklevosses but... (1)

glwtta (532858) | more than 3 years ago | (#35803936)

I hate to be in the dark - please fill me in.

Re:Not Winklevosses but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35795120)

yes, its better that way

Greedy Bastards (1)

black6host (469985) | more than 3 years ago | (#35787964)

You know, they accepted the settlement. They could have held out if they wanted to gamble. They chose to pull their money off black when they were ahead and leave the casino. I'm afraid I feel no unhappiness for them at all. Greedy bastards, and I don't believe that's a term I've ever used before here on /. Doesn't mean I haven't thought it though :)

Discount Swarovski Crystas (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35788122)

Swarovski Crystals [swarovski-outlet.com] are popular in 2011.Discount Swarovski Crystas are hot on sale in our online store,we provide high standard, high-class service to satify your demands for pretty things. including Swarovski Crystal [swarovski-outlet.com] Beads.Welcome to visit our website to search Swarovski Beads [swarovski-outlet.com] you perfer.

Fuck off Ckink (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35789722)

kekeke America nuke me for spamming.

Re:Discount Swarovski Crystas (2)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#35790058)

WTF? If there's one place NOT to spamvertise Swarovski Crystals... they just found it.

Re:Discount Swarovski Crystas (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35791484)

What, don't you think such high quality crystals would be useful in some kind of focussed energy experiment, like, say, if you were trying to create sharks with frickin' laser beams on them?

In fact, I bet there's a Swarovski shark that you could make reflect lasers off in all sorts of directions!

Hacks (1, Troll)

Meatbucket (2039104) | more than 3 years ago | (#35788222)

Winklevoss twins area a bunch of hacks who could never have come close to making anything close to Facebook. They wanted to make a local online Harvard directory, but couldn't do it themselves so they wanted to use Zuckerberg to make it for em. Zucks thought of something better called Facebook and kept them out of the loop. Well played Zucks, the jocks can suck it!

Re:Hacks (2)

ecorona (953223) | more than 3 years ago | (#35788318)

There's no telling if the Winklevii would have taken the site in the same direction did if they weren't screwed over. Facebook was initially local as well.

Re:Hacks (0, Troll)

Meatbucket (2039104) | more than 3 years ago | (#35788414)

Pfff, give me a break. That's like saying Microsoft would have invented the Macintosh had Steve Jobs not been around. The design of Facebook is what made it successful, social networking wasn't new at the time (myspace), Zukerberg had an elegant execution/design and his ambition was never to be local, unlike the Winklevoss twins.

Re:Hacks (1)

ecorona (953223) | more than 3 years ago | (#35788776)

It's convenient for him to say that his ambition was never to be local now and to assume that the Winklevii were against expansion, but this facebook drama intrigues me and I've read about it. I've never come across any evidence supporting your retort. We'll never really know what the Winklevii had in mind. I don't think it was the "elegant design" that made facebook successful, but the initial exclusivity to Harvard and subsequent expansions. That IS what the Winklevii had in mind Mark.

Re:Hacks (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#35790066)

There's no telling if the Winklevii would have taken the site in the same direction...

I think we can be pretty sure they wouldn't have. In all probability one of the other sites (and there were plenty) would have 'won'.

Re:Hacks (1)

ecorona (953223) | more than 3 years ago | (#35793884)

> I think we can be pretty sure they wouldn't have I disagree. The Winklevii had the exclusivity to Harvard thing down first, which arguably made facebook what it is. The concept that they'd expand is perfectly logical as more users = more $$$.

Link to the full opinion (3, Informative)

chazzf (188092) | more than 3 years ago | (#35788234)

Full opinion, from the 9th Circuit, here: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/04/11/08-16745.pdf [uscourts.gov] .

Are you new here? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35788630)

We don't want facts, we're just here to yackety-yak back and forth!

dubious logic (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 3 years ago | (#35788260)

On Monday, a three-judge appeals court panel sided with the lower court, noting that the Winklevoss twins have actually fared quite well since the settlement was hammered out

How they made out ought to be irrelevant. Either they got cheated or they didn't. If they did, they would have made out even better.

The court's statement is like saying, "sure, someone stole your money. but you have lots of other money, so it's ok".

Re:dubious logic (3, Informative)

chazzf (188092) | more than 3 years ago | (#35788352)

If you read the opinion itself the court's holding did not rest on this observation, which was made in closing.

Look at his UID (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35789766)

GP has been here for a very long time. Hell, he probably is actually a grand parent. He has years, decades even, more experience about not RTFAing than the rest of us.

I have no sympathy (2)

drb226 (1938360) | more than 3 years ago | (#35788306)

for people that didn't actually do any of the actual *work*. The Winklevi are like the ultimate PHBs, but worse.

Re:I have no sympathy (4, Insightful)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 3 years ago | (#35789712)

Actually you're right, but not for the reason you think. They hired someone to do some coding for a very good idea they had. What they failed to do is manage him properly and get a proper contract signed. They had a great idea but zero business sense -- which is understandable as they were Harvard undergrads. I'm kind of surprised they're getting any money at all. That being said, Facebook guy is a douche. And the world, legal loopholes or no, would be better with less douchiness.

Re:I have no sympathy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35792936)

ab-so-lutely.

"Told them???" (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35788418)

The illusion that the company is "worth $50 billion" would evaporate rapidly if an actual effort were made to liquidate it.

Re:"Told them???" (1)

Vegeta99 (219501) | more than 3 years ago | (#35797672)

Considering their product is user's eyeballs, and I still have my facebook account, let's please not try and liquidate the company.

Row row row your boat... (1)

smurphmeister (1132881) | more than 3 years ago | (#35788544)

...and quite yer whining you rich wankers!

Re:Row row row your boat... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35788664)

er "winklers"

request (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35788842)

Could the Winklevii *please* go away? Please?

How they ever got more than a dime... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35789594)

How in hell the Winkelvii ever got more than a dime is amazing. "Oh, I had an idea, I had an idea...". So? There are a million idiots with grand ideas. Little 5 year old kids spread out their arms and pretend they can fly like a bird, and have been doing so for *THOUSANDS* of years. Just wishin' and having an idea doesn't make it happen though. A little bit of science (or quite a bit of science), tenacity and hard work will get you there. Building a killer site isn't quite as hard as designing an entirely new technology (like human flight), but it still takes work. That the Windelvii taught themselves fscking HTML by age 15!?!?! How in the hell is that impressive? I was writing artificial intelligence software by that time (and I taught myself how to do it too). No dimes coming my way for doing so though. Basically the Winkelvii got money because they happened to know Zuckerberg. Zuckerberg tossed them a very generous bone. No one will give them another dime and they can't build a site by themselves. Keep rowing boys. Spend that money very very carefully.

Get on with it (1)

Freakstyle571 (950051) | more than 3 years ago | (#35789644)

From the Opinion:

The parties agreed that Facebook would swallow up Con- nectU, the Winklevosses would get cash and a small piece of Facebook, and both sides would stop fighting and get on with their lives.

Couldn't agree more

Let see if we got this straight. (2, Insightful)

Nyder (754090) | more than 3 years ago | (#35789756)

Loser dude, who can't meet chicks on his own, steals idea of social network, fucks over his partners, gets rich, gets laid, still is a loser.

Did i get it all?

Re:Let see if we got this straight. (1)

lewko (195646) | more than 3 years ago | (#35790502)

No. You forgot the bit where another clueless dude watches movie and thinks he knows everything. Still is clueless.

Re:Let see if we got this straight. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35790504)

Loser dude, who can't meet chicks on his own, steals idea of social network, fucks over his partners, gets rich, gets laid, still is a loser.

Did i get it all?

Don't be stupid. Even Zuckerberg has openly dismissed the claim made by the movie The Social Network that it was about getting laid. The getting laid part is just the minimal amount of Hollywood spin required to keep a consistency in all works produced that keeps Women whores and Men unproductive from the cheating - its just a form of control with little bearing on the underlying story or on the real-life people the characters are modeled after. Facebook is about controlling people through the sale and exploitation of their personal information - not getting laid.

Re:Let see if we got this straight. (1)

Bobfrankly1 (1043848) | more than 3 years ago | (#35793822)

Loser dude, who can't meet chicks on his own, steals idea of social network, fucks over his partners, gets rich, gets laid, still is a loser.

Did i get it all?

Don't be stupid. Even Zuckerberg has openly dismissed the claim made by the movie The Social Network that it was about getting laid. The getting laid part is just the minimal amount of Hollywood spin required to keep a consistency in all works produced that keeps Women whores and Men unproductive from the cheating - its just a form of control with little bearing on the underlying story or on the real-life people the characters are modeled after. Facebook is about controlling people through the sale and exploitation of their personal information - not getting laid.

That depends on which side of the curtain you reside upon. =D

Re:Let see if we got this straight. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35790590)

Almost. There's also the part where he fucked over some guys in the process, and they went to court, and the court told them to shove it because they still made a bit of money.

Kind of like buying a lottery ticket for a buck, and then having it stolen when it turns out to be the big winner - but the court won't punish the thief because he left you a five for the winning ticket, so you still came out ahead.

Re:Let see if we got this straight. (-1, Flamebait)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 3 years ago | (#35790796)

If it makes you feel any better, Zuckerberg doesn't get laid. He has a Chinese girlfriend who has more than a few extra pounds, and who is not particularly attractive. Obviously, he is a nerd who just wants a submissive Asian woman to serve him. Didn't he have any racism sensitivity courses at Harvard? Look at this photo of the couple [buzzfed.com] . Ugh.

Re:Let see if we got this straight. (1)

donscarletti (569232) | more than 3 years ago | (#35791690)

Obviously, he is a nerd who just wants a submissive Asian woman to serve him.

Try dating a Chinese or better yet Singaporean woman sometime and find out how submissive she is, "men rule the world, women rule men" is a maxim I have heard from Chinese.

Also, I have not met a Chinese programmer with a girlfriend/wife that scores under the 70th percentile. Chinese society is extremely shallow, meaning the guys with stable, well paid, white collar jobs can get pretty girls and that is what happens 90% of the time. Zuckerburg is a billionaire with a very plain woman, which probably means he loves her for something deeper.

Re:Let see if we got this straight. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35792714)

Actually, you're the one who has to take a racism sensitivity course. She sure as hell doesn't look submissive to me.

Re:Let see if we got this straight. (1)

cffrost (885375) | more than 3 years ago | (#35796098)

Look at this photo of the couple [buzzfed.com].

Jesus, look at the size of that lunch bag. What's in there, General Tso's head?

Re:Let see if we got this straight. (0)

Tuan121 (1715852) | more than 3 years ago | (#35790980)

Wow, who modded you up for being such a tool?

Re:Let see if we got this straight. (1)

osgeek (239988) | more than 3 years ago | (#35793200)

It was a movie, dude. Zuckerberg has had a girlfriend since about the same time he started working on Facebook. So he's clearly not lonely, he's extraordinarily successful, and he's obviously brilliant.

Speaking of losers, how many movies about your life do you think Zuckerberg has watched?

Re:Let see if we got this straight. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35794650)

I like documentaries about loosers, for instance about Adolf Hitler, Al Capone, Zuckemberg ;-) Adolf definitely haven't seen any movie about me.

Re:Let see if we got this straight. (1)

wamatt (782485) | more than 3 years ago | (#35801420)

Loser dude, who can't meet chicks on his own, steals idea of social network, fucks over his partners, gets rich, gets laid, still is a loser.

Did i get it all?

I don't think factually anyone can say he is a loser by any objective measure. I suspect it might make you feel better to see him as one though.

I find his loyalty refreshing and principled. He could quite easily get a much hotter GF.

Furthermore I have huge respect for the force behind Facebook. Visionaries always have many real losers (as in those that continually fail to make any meaningful success or impact on the world) who are insecure about themselves and project that on.

You probably won't read up on it more...

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

"The Winklevii" (1)

Cervantes (612861) | more than 3 years ago | (#35790576)

"The Winklevii".

Best movie line I've heard in years. Had me rolling in my seat.

Also, the only good thing about these guys, as near as I can tell (yes, based on more than The Social Network). They fed meat to a shark and then complained when they had no dinner. Better luck next time.

$65 million (1)

gatkinso (15975) | more than 3 years ago | (#35791916)

While it may be that they were massively screwed (I honestly couldn't say), they are wealthy.

They will live in comfort for the rest of their lives, they are now famous, and their kids futures are secure.

Can't really feel too sorry for them.

Re:$65 million (1)

Sedated2000 (1716470) | more than 3 years ago | (#35793784)

From what I have seen and read, they were well off to begin with. I think they were already going to be well off even without the lawsuit. The settlement was more like giving Jay Leno as Lamborghini for his collection than giving two guys a good life they might not have otherwise had.

Business is War, Be Smart, & Don't Emulate Zuc (1)

Kamiza Ikioi (893310) | more than 3 years ago | (#35793016)

This is why if you come up with an idea, you don't hire anyone without an NDA with a noncompete clause (and you incorporate in a legally friendly state). Why the hell would you want the programmer you hire to just flip you the bird and start the same project under a new name, knowing that you have nobody else to replace them immediately?

I often hear people call Mark Z a loser. Why? Well, let's assume that his little stunt backfired, and the Winklevoss twins found another programmer and ran ahead full speed instead of sitting on their asses. And let's suppose that using their connections, they beat Mark to market? Who wins? The rich Winklevoss twins, or Mark "who-the-fuck-are-you" Zuckerberg? Would mark every get hired by any other startup if Facebook were owned by the Winklevoss twins, and they let it be known that some little creep almost stole their business on day 1?

Hell no, he'd be flipping burgers. It wasn't that he was THAT good of a programmer or THAT good of an entrepreneur. It wasn't like he had another idea to fall back on. He's no Kevin Rose or Steve Jobs. He took a chance at the right place at the right time, and got VERY lucky.

So why is he a loser? Cause if you are a college kid thinking of pulling this little stunt, you're not going to be a billionaire, you're going to be working help desk until you're 80. Come up with your own ideas, or find a good one someone else has, and be smart and get an ironclad stock option agreement.

Re:Business is War, Be Smart, & Don't Emulate (2)

osgeek (239988) | more than 3 years ago | (#35793556)

I beg to differ. An initial idea is worth almost nothing. The initial ideas for social network sites were already out there. People have great ideas all the time that they just don't do anything with. I started my career right before the Internet took off and lived in Silicon Valley hanging out with people from Apple, Netscape, Exodus, Sun, etc. Whenever the next big idea hit like Ebay, some acquaintance would say, "Damn, I had that idea 2 years ago."

Yeah, well, ideas are barely worth shit.

Discrimination of which ideas to pursue and how to refine them as well as the willpower and ability to execute upon them are vastly more important. Some funding is nice, too.

Guys like Zuckerberg who go after it, not letting anything stop him will succeed time and time again.

Re:Business is War, Be Smart, & Don't Emulate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35794300)

Here here! Finally the voice of reason. I'm sick of the jealous people here "he stole this" "he fucked them" blah blah. They just can't make their cool ideas a reality, and they hate anyone who succeeds at doing it.

I had some cool ideas, got some funding, and spent years learning how hard it is to make it succeed. I've tried my hardest, and still haven't gotten lucky yet or had a big break. But I don't give up, and I have more respect now for the Page/Gates/Jobs/Zuckerberg types. They ALL borrowed ideas. And they all worked hard.

Ideas are not property... (1)

Dwonis (52652) | more than 3 years ago | (#35803602)

...nor should they be. Get over it.
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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...