Slashdot Mirror


Facebook In Court

ScaredOfTheMan writes "'The lawsuit, filed by brothers Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, and Divya Narendra, accuses Zuckerberg, Facebook's 23-year-old C.E.O, of stealing the source code, design, and business plan for Facebook in 2003 when he briefly worked in the Harvard dorms as a programmer for their own fledgling social-networking site, now known as ConnectU. The plaintiffs have demanded that Facebook be shut down and that full control of the site — and its profits — be turned over to them.' I just wonder why they waited so long to sue? If he really stole their idea in 2003, why wait four years?"

35 of 129 comments (clear)

  1. Why wait by wmelnick · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Until it became massively profitable, why sue? The idea of a lawsuit is to get damages. As long as you do not pass the statute of limitations, waiting is not counted against you.

    1. Re:Why wait by pringlis · · Score: 5, Informative

      They actually originally filed in 2004 but it was dismissed. http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=503336 has details

    2. Re:Why wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And could the editors please start excising biased submitter comments from the article summary?

      It's going to court, the submitter is not the judge or jury, and the comment space is the proper venue for opinions - not the summary.

    3. Re:Why wait by Derosian · · Score: 3, Funny

      Look at the user who submitted it for an explanation of why.

    4. Re:Why wait by jebell · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A dismissal is a dismissal, whether based on a "technicality" or not.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
  2. you wonder why they waited this long.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    Looks like the poster did a very bad job of reading the original article..

    from the article

    For the last three years, lawyers for the two sides have waged an increasingly contentious - though largely unnoticed - court battle.
  3. Not four years, suit filed 2003 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The lawsuit was filed in 2003 actually. This has been an on-going battle for years. There is merit to this case. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=connectu+face book

  4. of course, sue now by ghostlibrary · · Score: 2, Interesting

    > If he really stole their idea in 2003, why wait four years?"

    Because suing isn't about moral properness, suing is a business decision. You sue to profit. That's why you sue for money instead of, say, a sincere apology. Everyone's had business ideas and get-rich schemes stolen, you only sue if someone actually manages to succeed with your half-baked never-completed plan.

    (Put me in the school of "it's not the idea or the code, it's the execution plus luck that creates success" school of thought.)

    'Apology only lawsuits' are limited to kindergarten playgrounds, I guess.

    Then there's the whole 'lawsuit as vengeance' school of thought, but in some ways that's even worse than suing just for money.

    The more I write this, the more I increase my cynicism about the US legal system.

    --
    A.
    1. Re:of course, sue now by ghostlibrary · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > This case has teeth.

      Hmm... IANAL, but the Crimson article is replent with indication that Zuckerberg was not part of their business-- "he never asked for compensation", "we would have been happy to pay for his services.", "his was not a paid position".

      A contract is an offer plus an acceptance plus renumeration. Without renumeration, there's not as many teeth as one might think.

      Key is "neither camp went so far as to label the partnership contractually binding." This could be in the same category as non-competes, i.e. can you limit what someone does in the future just because they worked with you in the past. And without compensation, the 'work' part is kinda iffy, more like 'talked with' or 'stopped by'.

      This is where ethics (did Zuckerberg screw them over) divides with business (did Zuckerberg do something illegal). Law is murky there. Answer hazy, check again later.

      --
      A.
    2. Re:of course, sue now by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Interesting question.

      If I look over your garden fence and see that you're building a giant widget and then you notice and offer me a tour of your giant widget do you have any legal recourse if I decide that I like the idea of having my own giant widget and then make one for myself?

      My gut instinct in that scenario is that you're screwed, unless you got any form of agreement from me before you showed me it. No agreement, no case.

      Is my copying your idea without at least getting your permission ethical? I'd say no but others would disagree. Is it legal? Well, if you didn't get me to sign anything then, unfortunately for you, the answer is probably yes.

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    3. Re:of course, sue now by ScrewMaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I haven't read the article, and I don't plan to and I have no particular interest in Facebook ... but this smacks of sour grapes. Okay ... he took their idea. So what? Ideas are cheap, one in a hundred thousand ever becomes anything worthwhile, and if you have a good idea and you give it away you're an idiot. You're especially stupid if you give it to someone who is better at execution than you are and don't have a formal agreement (granted, contracts are only as good as the people who sign them, but without one you're gonna have a much harder time in court.)

      Now, if the guy stole their source code, that would be different. It still wouldn't be a matter "turning over the company" but it might be worth some damages. Odds are any code he ripped off isn't in service anymore anyway.

      I've been through a few small business ventures (none of them made me millions, alas) and if there's one thing you learn early on it's a. find people that you trust and b. keep your trap shut. The worst enemy of a fledgling business is anyone or anything who will take what's been developed and clone it for their own profit. Secrecy is your best weapon, and until your product or service is launched and everyone knows about it, the most important secret is the central product idea itself.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    4. Re:of course, sue now by happyemoticon · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm not a lawyer, but the NDA/No-Comp angle is enlightening as to exactly why businesses are so meticulous about having people sign such clauses or contracts. This very fact indicates that actually nailing someone on these grounds is difficult.

      1) Business plan/"Idea": Seems to me this would be classified as a trade secret. However, they did not attempt to protect themselves via contract. If you just told this guy, who might as well be your mother-in-law, a reporter or John Doe off the street, it's not a secret anymore.

      You might also take a patent angle in these times when everything can be patented, but since these guys are in college, I'm going to guess that they didn't apply for a patent.

      2) Design: The rough idea of how things fit together. This, I would say, is precisely what patents were intended for, and again, since they're geeks, not lawyers, and no materials I've read thus far have mentioned patent infringement, I'm going to guess they don't have a patent. Therefore, they don't have a case.

      3) Code: I followed the SCO v IBM litigation for a few years, then I got bored. Clearly the law has a bit of catching up to do, still, because while it would seem obvious to search for identical code, it took years to get to the point where SCO would say what actually infringed.

      Their case then amounts to "They stole our code!" which has been established as a pretty murky area as far as the law is concerned.

    5. Re:of course, sue now by hamelis · · Score: 2, Informative

      Having recently graduated from the (not so) illustrious institution from which this case originates.. I can safely say that anyone who was around at the time and paid attention knows Zuckerberg essentially stole the idea. As the parent poster says, the legalities of that reality are something else.

      I can also say that hardly anyone actually cares. Competition, he won. We only pretend to be less cutthroat than other schools.

  5. let them do all the hard work by Alien54 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    of becoming a roaring success.

    Then you come in and steal the fruits of their labors. Because the way they developed it and did it is not the way you would have done it.

    and their way worked.

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    1. Re:let them do all the hard work by EveryNickIsTaken · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or, the guy stole their source code and profited off it, and now they want a cut for their hard work. It really all depends which angle you look at it.

  6. Difficult to check up on; not worth the bother. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    A) there's no point suing someone who has no money. Did you expect them to do it when he was in massive debt? He'd just declare bankrupcy, close the company and they'd get nothing.

    B) to get full damages you normally have to try to resolve things equitably without the court. It probably takes a long time to prove he wasn't cooperating.

    C) when you start suing, you have to be sure of your case. That means you have to get witnesses together and proof of your right to whatever you are suing over. He says / she says is not a good thing to risk the cost of an American lawsuit over.

    Now I'm not saying they are right (I don't know and you also don't know) or have a moral right to this, but the reasons are pretty obvious.

  7. Musta only stole the good bits by OverlordQ · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well he must have only stole the good bits, loaded up the front page of ConnectU and must say that it looks like crap.

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    1. Re:Musta only stole the good bits by Angelwrath · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I looked at the site and it looks quite professional, actually. It looks very good considering that it's a student effort. Now if they had $100,000 to hire a UI design consultant, a graphics expert, and some expert coders, I'm sure it could look and perform much better.

  8. Serendipity ? by cuchualainn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Funny though, in terms of business psychology - you'll often find people with exceptional programming ability and tons of great ideas. But are too scattered and unfocused to actually run and slowly build a business from the ground up. Then on the other hand, you'll get individuals who aren't nearly as creative in the same sense. But who can take and idea and foster it until it becomes a true global champion. Maybe this could count as a kind of Internet serendipity ? As for who gets the cash ? Don't ask me ...

  9. Facebook COUNTERSUED! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    http://news.justia.com/cases/connectu-facebook/337 138/

    However, it seems like Facebook's suit is more of a leverage to get the first case dismissed. Facebook is saying ConnectU damaged them somehow, but when asked, Facebook said they couldn't identify what the damages were. This is from a company worth billions, and rejected a $1 billion buy out offer.

    And the defendent list includes new people, Winston Williams, Pacific Northwest Software, Wayne Chang, David Gucwa.

    Let the battle of the titans begin!

  10. Shutdown face book? by Broken+scope · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do they have a deathwish? Socially active college students everywhere won't be able to function without facebook! How will they nkow who is dating who? Where will the post photographic proof of the latest stupid shit they did? Where else will the put their whiny I hate the opposite sex notes. Certainly not myspace.. for there is an evil there that does not sleep.

    You would have an agrngy horde on your hands very quickly.

    --
    You mad
  11. Re:Wikipedia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny
    dismissed w/o prejudice = they can refile the lawsuit

    lack of diversity among parties = someone vandalized wikipedia.

  12. Editors, please edit! by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    OK, I realise that people aren't being paid to submit their stories but surely the editors are being paid to edit them?

    Shouldn't they at least be reading the submissions (titles and story) and then any linked articles as well to make sure that they've been accurately summarised (not to mention relevant)?

    It seems the Firehose is catching most dupes (we get the occasional one but not 2-4 a day as we did a couple of years back) but typos, innacurate headlines, poorly worded summaries and even innacurate stories (such as this one) still abound.

    Just looking at the current frontpage, I can see several stories that either have titles or summaries that need editing:

    Facebook in Court : the summary, which fails to tell us that the legal fight has been going on for years, and implies that it's only been started now because of greed.

    Gadgets Have Taken Over For Our Brains : the summary, which references Trinity College, but not which Trinity College. Is it the one in London, Cambridge, Washington DC, Toronto, Carmarthen, Florida, Melbourne...? No, it's the one in Dublin? So tell us.

    Linux Creator Calls GPLv3 Authors 'Hypocrites' : Ridiculous story that takes quotes out of context to sensationalise the issue.

    Gigabyte N680SLI-DQ6 - A Mother Of A Motherboard : At last! A motherboard with three full-length PCI Express x16 slots! Except it only has two.

    CEO Questionably Used Pseudonym to Post Online : An ambiguous if not misleading headline. Read the comments for more, but one thing that's not in question is that he used a pseudonym.

    One Laptop Per Child and Intel Join Forces : Another ambiguous title, which seems to imply a joint venture. As Intel has joined the OLPC project it would have been more accurate for the title to simply say "Intel joins OLPC Project".

    Call me a pedant if you want to but there are editors for a reason, so they should edit. Their job isn't that hard, and now they even have people looking at the Firehose helping them out, so why are we still getting so many poor or poorly-presented stories?

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    1. Re:Editors, please edit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      "...but not which Trinity College. Is it the one in [...] Cambridge,..."

      That's all very well, but which Cambridge? Is it the one in England or Massachusetts?

    2. Re:Editors, please edit! by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, there is no real economic incentive for the editors to do otherwise. Slashdot is unimaginably successful. No one has voted with their feet.

      It's just sad that they take such little care and pride in their own project.

    3. Re:Editors, please edit! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I suspect that's because most people come here for the discussion, rather than the articles. Slashdot only posts around 10 articles a day, out of hundreds of possible stories. Many of these are so late that they are no longer topical. After a while, I started regarding the article as just a general topic; something akin to the subject in a chat room, which may be followed or ignored. Many of the most interesting threads here are wildly off-topic.

      In short: We don't care about TFA, why should the editors?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  13. Re:why wait four years? by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I didn't hear about Facebook until last year. Not everyone is a social network whore you know.

    --
    I like muppets.
  14. precedent by Jeek+Elemental · · Score: 5, Funny

    I hope this ends setting some kind of precedent, where lawyers everywhere are forced to reference the Winklevoss-Zuckerberg case with a straight face.

    1. Re:precedent by kumanopuusan · · Score: 2, Informative

      I hope this ends setting some kind of precedent, where lawyers everywhere are forced to reference the Winklevoss-Zuckerberg case with a straight face. You've obviously never heard of my favorite Supreme Court case, United States v. One Package of Japanese Pessaries.
      --
      Use of the words "good", "bad" or "evil" is almost invariably the result of oversimplification.
  15. Re:Google and Facebook by pmac2322 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yahoo put a bid in, I believe, at $1B, but Facebook demanded $2B, and they are now considering an IPO, which would be the "first big IPO of web 2.0"

    http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9741016-7.html

  16. Re:You'd expect the poster to have read the articl by Daverd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Facebook then filed a terse countersuit in California federal court, accusing ConnectU of tort violations and unfair business practices.

    Facebook went a step beyond just that, they are also suing the programmers that worked for ConnectU at the time. I am now looking at having to pay a potential $25,000 if Facebook wins because I coded for ConnectU, simply because of this countersuit. Talk about unethical lawsuits...

  17. Re:You'd expect the poster to have read the articl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Get yourself a lawyer obviously, if you were being paid as an employee and had no way of knowing you were doing anything illegal (or what they are accusing you of doing was illegal anyways) you should not be liable for anything. If you were a "partner" in the business, you're fucked and this is why they created the S class corporation; limited liability for smaller businesses.

  18. Re:The american dream by john82 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The other points of the greater argument notwithstanding, there is a significant difference between copying (stealing) a business plan and successfully realizing that plan. Further, it is highly unlikely that the code of Facebook today is identical and unimproved over a source base allegedly stolen some four years ago. In short while the origin of this service is in doubt, those behind Facebook made it work.

  19. same simple idea, not business by ToKsUri · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Facebook core is simple and basic. A lot of people have had similar ideas, and the early version of facebook (no more than a year ago) was something that anyone with medium level of php+mysql+html would have thought to themselves "I could do that and better in a few days!".

    But thats not the merit. The difficult thing is turning that simple idea and design into something useful and into a profitable business. When I first heard of facebook i just thought it was one more of those pages i dont want to know about, but it somehow hooked. Looking at the connectu web page makes me wonder if they really have any user base. The page is simply ugly and difficult.

    The difficulty of most businesses is not just having a good idea. It is knowing how to turn a good idea into a good business. Even if Zuckerberg really was influenced by the others, it was him who turned it into a success. Putting it in another way, if facebook would have never existed, connectU would not be the success facebook is now.

  20. Re:You'd expect the poster to have read the articl by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If I were you I'd do two things: a. retain the services of a competent attorney and b. listen to him when he tells you to stop posting about the case on a public forum. You have no idea what effect what you just wrote could have if the opposition were to bring it up in court. Shut up about it until it's over and done. At that point, every software developer on Slashdot will want to hear all about it, me included, but in the meantime don't risk compromising yourself.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.