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!

Winklevoss Twins Finally Give Up Fighting Facebook

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the keep-on-rowing dept.

Facebook 160

An anonymous reader writes "Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg's former Harvard classmates Cameron Winklevoss and Tyler Winklevoss, who accuse him of stealing their idea for the social network, have decided not to appeal to the Supreme Court. In a filing today with the federal court in San Francisco, the duo said that after 'careful consideration,' they decided not to seek Supreme Court review of the $65 million settlement."

cancel ×

160 comments

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

First! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36536812)

First! Unless Mark wants it instead... I could use $65M

I would have given up a while ago (4, Insightful)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 3 years ago | (#36536826)

and bought my own tropical island to live on.

Re:I would have given up a while ago (1)

Lord_of_the_nerf (895604) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537074)

Maybe if you copyright that idea and sue the Winklevii when they do something that sounds similar (to someone who has no idea about islands) then you can have a couple million for yourself.

Re:I would have given up a while ago (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36537396)

An Island with plenty of lemon party [ebaumsworld.com] .

Re:I would have given up a while ago (1)

Anarki2004 (1652007) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537482)

Unfortunately, I know what that is. I advise that nobody click on that.

Re:I would have given up a while ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36537652)

Actually it's a very mild video and not the image on lemonparty dot org.

I don't know why it has been spammed all over today stories.

Re:I would have given up a while ago (2)

LS (57954) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537514)

These guys never had a problem getting to a tropical island, so this was not about getting enough money to retire.

Re:I would have given up a while ago (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537954)

Actually if the settlement is all in the form of cash, they may end up making more money than pretty much anyone else in the organization, they really should consider themselves lucky.

Take the Money and Run. (1)

billstewart (78916) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538420)

It's too late for the advice "say thank you" or "and then shut up" to do any good. But cash the checks, put some of it in diversified investments where you'll have a safe income stream for life, blow some of it drinking rum on tropical islands, and then either shut up or go invent something else new and cool.

Re:I would have given up a while ago (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538600)

This one [privateislandsonline.com] is within their settlement price and looks a hell of a lot nicer than having to deal with lawyers and talk about Zuckerman.

woo hoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36536834)

always wanted to be #1

Re:woo hoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36536874)

Sorry, Cameron, you missed out again.

Re:woo hoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36536882)

And you failed.

In other words... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36536844)

...$65 million is still more than most will ever see in their entire lives, and the SCOTUS might overturn the case on review and/or FaceBook might turn out to be the next Madoff scheme.

Re:In other words... (1)

CrackerJack9 (819843) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537332)

It was Stock and cash, valued at $65 million...not just cash.

Re:In other words... (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537344)

...$65 million is still more than most will ever see in their entire lives

Ha. Several lives.

Re:In other words... (1)

elsurexiste (1758620) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538024)

If I read correctly, there were indeed two.

The preferred nomenclature (5, Funny)

IvyMike (178408) | more than 3 years ago | (#36536848)

Dude, the preferred nomenclature is "Winklevii".

Re:The preferred nomenclature (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537078)

Dude, the preferred nomenclature is "Winklevii".

But Levi Jeans has a trademark on it.

Re:The preferred nomenclature (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36537448)

you are a dull headed winkertoss,

in so fackwagon ashamed of you!

Re:The preferred nomenclature (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36537144)

For some odd reason I read that in the voice of Hermione from Harry Potter, "Leviosa!"

Re:The preferred nomenclature (2)

guspasho (941623) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537436)

Walter, this isn't a guy who built the railroads here.

Thank Goodness! (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36536856)

I've been having a hard time sleeping at night, with all this uncertainty as to which set of narcissistic pricks would end up minting a giant pile of pretend internet money during the fools-from-their-money-parted IPO... I feel so much better now that the matter is settled.

Re:Thank Goodness! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36536918)

Normally jealousy is unbecoming, but it looks fabulous on you.

Re:Thank Goodness! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36537032)

Normally jealousy is unbecoming, but it looks fabulous on you.

For the TL;DR - the GP post says: "Stuff that matters... indeed </sarcasm>"

Re:Thank Goodness! (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537290)

Normally jealousy is unbecoming, but it looks fabulous on you.

For all you know, fff is worth more than the settlement. But he's right: it's really hard to feel very sorry for anyone involved in this mess.

Re:Thank Goodness! (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538602)

Pretty sure this is more "Who cares" than "I'm envious."

On the plus side (2)

Darth_brooks (180756) | more than 3 years ago | (#36536862)

In ten or so years when Facebook goes the way of AOL (Because, lets be honest, facebook will somehow die. Eventually.) the Winkelvoss twins will be the ones who came out ahead.

Re:On the plus side (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36537016)

Would Facebook then be the first company in history to die without its top executives cashing out and retiring rich?

Re:On the plus side (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537156)

What makes that the "plus side?"

Re:On the plus side (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537296)

What makes that the "plus side?"

Two negatives make a positive, I guess. Actually in this case, it's three negatives, so that would make it double-plus good. Or something.

Re:On the plus side (1)

LandDolphin (1202876) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537578)

Three negatives goes back to being a negative. Don't you remember anything from Middle School Math?

Re:On the plus side (0)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538022)

Well, you are assuming we are dealing with some subset of the real numbers. I prefer to do all of my work using modular arithmetic, in which case it is possible to add or multiply three negatives and get a positive...and where your "negatives" are also "positives."

Re:On the plus side (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36537174)

No way will it still be around in ten years. I'd be surprised if anyone still remembers it in three years. Right now, someone, somewhere is putting the finishing touches on the code of the Next Big Thing.

Re:On the plus side (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537308)

No way will it still be around in ten years. I'd be surprised if anyone still remembers it in three years. Right now, someone, somewhere is putting the finishing touches on the code of the Next Big Thing.

Probably not here in the U.S., not with the patent system in general (and software and business-method patents in particular) suppressing anyone that farts even the slightest hint of innovation or disruptive tech. There's a reason there haven't been any more Googles lately.

Re:On the plus side (1)

rssrss (686344) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537302)

"the Winkelvoss twins will be the ones who came out ahead."

Only if they cash out before the crash.

"Timing is Everything" -- Andre Agassi

Re:On the plus side (1)

insertwackynamehere (891357) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537372)

I doubt it... You don't think Zuckerberg will be a billionaire? Even besides your death prediction (which I'm suspicious is colored with bias and perhaps a desire that Facebook dies soon), you don't think anyone else there has already made it?

Re:On the plus side (1)

guspasho (941623) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537458)

How, exactly? Zuckerberg has a property that is worth a lot of money, and may cash in on it at any time between now and its demise to such an extent as to ensure that he and several generations of his family remain filthy rich, and indeed has been cashing in on it. The Winklevii will have what? Their bitterness (mistakenly) vindicated?

Re:On the plus side (1)

Evets (629327) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537916)

Because eventually, facebook will go the way of MySpace, Friendster, et all, and completely lose it's value. Whereas the Winklevii will have cash that they pulled out of facebook, zuckerberg will have a lot of paper that's worth nothing.

Re:On the plus side (1)

jjohnson (62583) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538302)

Did you know that Friendster has 125 million active users still?

It's a little nuts because it's dead in North America, but it's going strong in southeast Asia, and is a very viable business still. Frequently we tend to equate Internet popularity with business success, and the reverse, but neither are very strong correlations.

Zuckerberg is not stupid, obviously... (1)

Goonie (8651) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537462)

...and every investment adviser in the world would tell him to diversify his assets.

He takes 5% of his current net worth and sticks it in a global property portfolio, another 5% in an index fund, and maybe 2% in cash and other liquid assets, and even if Facebook dies tomorrow he's still an extraordinarily rich man.

For that matter, the Winklevoss twins are also extraordinarily rich, and will remain so.

Re:On the plus side (1)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537752)

facebook will somehow die

I agree. And not somehow, but of complete and utter apathy. Social networking as a viable business model is not the "hot new thing" it was 5 years ago. I can't believe Facebook is still chugging along now. I don't see it still around at the level it is currently in 5 years.

Re:On the plus side (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36538032)

facebook will somehow die

I agree. And not somehow, but of complete and utter apathy. Social networking as a viable business model is not the "hot new thing" it was 5 years ago. I can't believe Facebook is still chugging along now. I don't see it still around at the level it is currently in 5 years.

i think you are wrong.

Re:On the plus side (1)

tiddlydum (1943210) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538596)

I think you underestimate the usage it gets from the younger generations. It's going as strong as ever, and will continue to go on, until something replaces it. Social networking is here to stay, it will only evolve.

Re:On the plus side (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36537908)

How the fuck does this dumb shit get modded insightful? It just goes to show how out of touch Slashdorks are anymore.

Since you're too much of a dumbass to do your research yourself, AOL just bought the Huffington Post a few months back for more than 4 times what the Winklevoss twins were contesting over.

If "goes the way of AOL" is an insult, I'd love to be insulted. And it's not that I'm so stupid as to see that they're bleeding money but they're far from down and out. Steve Case is *STILL* worth over a billion dollars.

Check your facts, buddy. You came out of this one looking like a royal twit.

Re:On the plus side (1)

oztiks (921504) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538312)

If we're talking technology FaceBook it will die the same way IRC died, something fresher and hotter will be on its way soon enough.

Home entertainment and Internet, webcam and VoIP. All you need is just the bottle of your favorite drink, sit down on the couch and you could have yourself fairly compelling social gathering, sheesh most SmartPhones these days carry all these components. If you think of the possibilities, virtual nightclubs, parties, the sky's the limit. Throw a few bits of profile matching stuff in and presto, yet another intrusive piece of technology that bugs the crap out of me.

That's just one thought, maybe that's to far ahead, maybe a step or two behind that but still you can see it all in the making with how things are going.

And as smart as Zuckerberg is he's made the rookie mistake of jumping into bed with Microsoft, that'll surly be his achilles heal.

Stealing underpants for real cash (2, Insightful)

nighty5 (615965) | more than 3 years ago | (#36536868)

1) intend to launch a social network based on academia but do hardly anything
2) ???
3) profit!

Re:Stealing underpants for real cash (2)

joeflies (529536) | more than 3 years ago | (#36536894)

I think we know what Step #2 and #3 are

2) Sue

3) Sue Again!

Re:Stealing underpants for real cash (2)

bjd1970 (1908116) | more than 3 years ago | (#36536942)

Your comments are of course based on the movie rather than the facts.

Re:Stealing underpants for real cash (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537036)

...and your comment is based on what, exactly?

Re:Stealing underpants for real cash (2)

kodomo (1100141) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537404)

Are really based on the trailer.. I didn't see the movie

Re:Stealing underpants for real cash (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537490)

    Don't bother. It was 90 minutes of my life wasted, that I'll never get back. At least I can say I slept through 30 minutes of it.

    Basically, take some kids who want to be the center of attention, keep raising that attention level ad nauseum, and lowering their level of social graces until they finally roll the closing credits.

    I think there was something about some web site, a boat, sleeping with groupies, and drugs.

Re:Stealing underpants for real cash (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36538528)

How many minutes of your life can you chalk up wasted to Facebook?

Re:Stealing underpants for real cash (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36536960)

Heh seems to me that for this one story, the idea was quite a lot important; the realisation I'm not completely sure.
I've seen lots of much more trollesque patent-driven lawsuits stories...

That being said yeah I don't care who wins the millions.

Re:Stealing underpants for real cash (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537306)

"Heh seems to me that for this one story, the idea was quite a lot important;"

What idea? It was a myspace ripoff that managed to implement it slightly better.

Maybe because of their OTHER lawsuit (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36536902)

It was just announced that they are going after the Doublemint Twins. Hoping for double the pleasure and double the fun.

Re:Maybe because of their OTHER lawsuit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36537574)

You're a funny guy!

http://www.oilfilterwrenchhq.com

More candy? (1)

ace123 (758107) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537596)

It was just announced that they are going after the Doublemint Twins. Hoping for double the pleasure and double the fun.

Because going after the sugar mountain [google.com] wasn't enough?

In streetspeak (-1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537000)

"after 'careful consideration," = "after a polite nudge from nsa/cia whatever"

some people had forgot that this 'social networking' thing in its current form (facebook etc) had started as an intelligence operation to find out where saddam hussein was hiding back then - they brought together people's photos, and linked their relations to find out the people most likely to be hiding hussein in a research effort.

Tinfoil already? (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537192)

Where do you buy the tinfoil for your hats? I think I know which company to invest my money in.

Yes, there was something strange about the source of money that went into creating Facebook, but somehow I doubt that the CIA thought that social networking websites were going to help track down targets. More likely, they wanted to see what sort of technology social networking websites would produce, which might be useful for their own intelligence gathering operations.

Re:Tinfoil already? (1, Funny)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537540)

Well, I do list tinfoil hat adjustments [jwsmythe.com] on the list of services I provide. It's not on the list, but we'll be more than happy to hand craft the finest tinfoil hats that money can buy. I can't disclose the secret materials we make it with, nor the testing procedures involved, but I can say that none of my clients has ever proven that any government, aliens, or bigfoot has penetrating their minds. :)

Re:Tinfoil already? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538608)

Where do you buy the tinfoil for your hats? I think I know which company to invest my money in.

Which company is that? Because I was talking about starting a tinfoil hat business one day, I need to know who to sue to get that $65 mil settlement.

Re:In streetspeak (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537528)

Obviously ignoring all the Geocities and Angelfire clones out there.

Excuse me while I add you to my web ring.

Tosser.

--
BMO

Re:In streetspeak (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36538194)

Wow, I haven't seen a troll like this in a long time. Hopefully you don't take yourself seriously...

none of this was really that surprising (2)

v1 (525388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537018)

they'd already won 65mil$, they had plenty of spare money to piss away trying to get a lot more. Even if their lawyers said hey you have about a 2% chance of winning, it'd still be worth the try.

I wonder if zuck will go after legal fees? again that's just a drop in both of their buckets at this point though. As usual, "the only winners are the lawyers".

I wonder if their animosity runs deep enough... (1)

dominion (3153) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537042)

... that they'd be willing to kick down some money for open source, distributed social networking projects (like, Appleseed [appleseedproject.org] :)

They may not get any return on their investment, unless you count sweet, sweet revenge.

Re:I wonder if their animosity runs deep enough... (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537094)

That just doesn't sound like the type of open-source project that would succeed, because social networking is ultimately a marketing vehicle. Either you build a big network and sell the eyeballs, or you fade into obscurity before anyone even notices.

Re:I wonder if their animosity runs deep enough... (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537208)

What makes you think any of this is about animosity? They are greedy, that's all -- they didn't get billions they only got millions and they weren't satisfied with that. The fact that they could live comfortable for the rest of their lives without having to do any work whatsoever is irrelevant to them.

Coming up next... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36537054)

The battle with "wood pellet dude". He has an army of lawyers now.

Just a thought... (3, Interesting)

zill (1690130) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537090)

$65 million

Suppose I had a nemesis and I won the lottery, I would immediately send my nemesis a check for $1000 just to piss him off. He would anguish over it for weeks and would never cash it in the end.

Seeing as how Zuckerberg's personal wealth is around $13.5 billion, this $65 million probably served a similar purpose.

Re:Just a thought... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36537162)

I would like to apply for the position as your nemesis, just in case.

Re:Just a thought... (2)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537664)

I agree. 13.5 billion is a lot of money. But maintaining that kind of wealth requires Zuckerberg to remain in the spotlight for 40+ hours a week. That life is not for me (if I can help it). Ya, I'd be miffed -for a moment-, but who wouldn't be if your objective is to run a small business and become modestly wealthy. Little did all three know...

After receiving 65 million, I would have tipped my hat to Zuckerberg and left quietly in the night. My next stop would be a world of permanent vacation without a financial care in the world.

Re:Just a thought... (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538622)

I agree. 13.5 billion is a lot of money. But maintaining that kind of wealth requires Zuckerberg to remain in the spotlight for 40+ hours a week.

Why would that be? I'm honestly asking, I have no frame of reference for wealth beyond about 5 digits. Seems like if he were to retire to an apartment overlooking central park and take up a habit of smashing faberge eggs, he'd still likely die with more than a billion dollars.

Re:Just a thought... (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537172)

Except that it was not voluntary (he was kind of forced to make a settlement, since the court case was going to be pretty tough) and that it is enough money that the twins will never have to work again, if they choose not to. They say $1 million is not what it used to be; somehow I get the feeling that $65 million is what it used to be.

Re:Just a thought... (3, Informative)

nomadic (141991) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537214)

They come from family money, too; their father runs a successful actuarial consulting company that I've dealt with, and if he chose they could have never worked again without the $65 million dollars.

Re:Just a thought... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36538462)

What's all this "never work again if they so choose" nonsense?

Who in their right mind would throw away 40 hours a week of their life working if they didn't have to?

Re:Just a thought... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36538636)

It's still a dollar for every year since the dinosaurs died.

Re:Just a thought... (1)

rahvin112 (446269) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537206)

You mean his pretend worth based on completely factless estimates from the people that want to take the company IPO (for the millions they will be paid). Facebook makes no money as in zero net revenue. Once that is common knowledge the "real" value of this company will be near zero and Zuckerberg's share will be pennies on the current value.

They are refusing to sell American's stock because they will violate US regulations by concealing the financial documents. Do you know why they want to conceal the financials? Because they are very very scary and indicate how little money the company actually makes.

Re:Just a thought... (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537328)

Because they are very very scary and indicate how little money the company actually makes.

Well, sure. Where exactly does Facebook make its money? They don't charge for the service (as if anyone would pay for it, which should tell you something) Advertising? I suppose, but they're no Google ... we're not Google's customers anyway. The advertisers are.

Re:Just a thought... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36537454)

I suppose, but they're no Google ... we're not Google's customers anyway.

No, you are Facebook's product (and Google's for that matter).

Re:Just a thought... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36538044)

I thought this topic had been canvassed extensively on Slashdot? Facebook makes money by datamining its userbase and selling the information to advertisers who then tailor the advertising that appears on your FB page to meet your personal taste. They are basically the worlds largest market research company, except they found a way of getting people to freely divulge all the information about themselves.

Re:Just a thought... (1)

pokerdad (1124121) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537526)

They are refusing to sell American's stock because they will violate US regulations by concealing the financial documents. Do you know why they want to conceal the financials? Because they are very very scary and indicate how little money the company actually makes.

Or maybe they make lots of money and don't want it made public just how they are doing that. I bet 500 million users' personal info could be worth a lot of money to a lot of companys.

Re:Just a thought... (1)

snotclot (836055) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537992)

I thought they made quite a bit through targeted ad's and selling data-mined demographics to large/small businesses ?

Of course, I read this on the internet (probably some TC such site, although I dropped TC after they went to Facebook's commenting system, how retarded of them).

Could just be FB propaganda thrown out there to increase their value and keep it all stable.

Re:Just a thought... (5, Funny)

SlithyMagister (822218) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537486)

Just in case -- I am now your nemesis
--but I WILL cash it

Re:Just a thought... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36538248)

Just in case -- I am now your nemesis

--but I WILL cash it

and I am yours, so when you get that check, don't forget to cut me one for $10

Use of proceeds (1, Offtopic)

turkeyfeathers (843622) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537110)

They should take the $65 million (or whatever they have left after paying their lawyers) and invest in BitCoins. Then they'll end up richer than Zuckerberg.

Re:Use of proceeds (1)

Legion303 (97901) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537946)

You mean whoever steals their bitcoin wallet and passphrase (via keylogging) will end up richer than Zuckerberg.

Good for them (1)

m.dillon (147925) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537204)

Sometimes its hard to back off the excess greed. Kudos to them. That's a lot of money to be able to retire on, easily $15M each after taxes. About $750K in income every year if maintaining their basis at-par (inflation adjusted) with a conservative portfolio.

-Matt

Re:Good for them (5, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537430)

...maintaining their basis at-par (inflation adjusted) with a conservative portfolio.

Or they could spend it all on hookers and blow in the first year, dieing penniless, unloved, and face down in their own vomit. Send your suggestions to winklevossmillions.org today.

Re:Good for them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36537936)

awwwww...thats not even a real site

Re:Good for them (1)

PCPackrat (1251400) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538250)

Am I the only one that read penisless? I mean the hookers and all; in the end they could fall off.

Re:Good for them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36537446)

Is the settlement in an Annuity?

Why not? (3, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537258)

I'd have done it, just for kicks. What other excitement exists in the life of a multi-millionaire, besides suing each other and being sued?

Re:Why not? (4, Insightful)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537478)

Banging gold-digging super models from what I've heard.

Re:Why not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36537878)

Shooting poor people?

What a coincidence! (0)

nightcats (1114677) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537418)

Day after the Wal-Mart decision at SCOTUS -- think it got through to the Winkies that SCOTUS is a deep friend of wealthy established multi-billion $ corporate entities? Young Winki, you chose wisely.

Re:What a coincidence! (1)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537502)

Day after the Wal-Mart decision at SCOTUS -- think it got through to the Winkies that SCOTUS is a deep friend of wealthy established multi-billion $ corporate entities? Young Winki, you chose wisely.

Why wisely? Sure, they might spend another half-mil trying to push the case up to SCOTUS, and then they might lose. And what then? They'd basically be right where they are now, minus the half-mil. If you've already won the lottery to the tune of $65 million, why wouldn't you buy one more ticket, just to see?

With 65 million... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36538000)

It would be far easier just to have ol markie z killed now. No lawyers needed.

Accidents happen. The world is a dangerous place.

So does this mean? (1)

Cito (1725214) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538340)

There will be a Social Network part 2 to bring this to conclusion so Trent Reznor can win another academy award for soundtrack?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>