Slashdot Mirror


Man Claims 84% of Facebook, Gets Order Blocking Assets

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

60 of 326 comments (clear)

  1. That Must Be One Entertaining Contract by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Informative
    Found the complaint on Scribd and man, judging by the complaints, that sounds like one entertaining contract:

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

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

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

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

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:That Must Be One Entertaining Contract by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

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

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

    2. Re:That Must Be One Entertaining Contract by Skilf · · Score: 5, Informative
      here is Facebooks reply (from the same user on scribd: http://www.scribd.com/doc/34240120/Ceglia-v-Facebook-Motion-for-Dissolution snippets:

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

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

    3. Re:That Must Be One Entertaining Contract by goombah99 · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

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

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

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    4. Re:That Must Be One Entertaining Contract by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 5, Informative

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

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    5. Re:That Must Be One Entertaining Contract by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Their response really doesn't seem to actually address the issue. If he wrote the original code for a different entity, and Zucker took that code and used it to create an exceptionally similiarly named company without compensating his 84% partner, he needs to address that.

      Among other things, the countersuit claims there's no need for urgent action (really? Pending sale of the IP doesn't make it urgent?)

      This sounds like a quick and poorly research counter while they circle the wagons and find out just what happened, sounds like Zucker may have "burned" the original company to elimate this little ownership problem, while taking all the assets. This little stunt may have actually sstarted the statue of limitations countdown, if he as CEO of "thefacebook" company wrote himself a severance package where he got the IP and the 84% owner said nothing because he was unaware, thinking he owned a silent but significant owner of "Facebook".

      Of course, odd that you would believe yourself even a 50% owner of a huge internet phenom and not ask for at least a board seat where you can find out what they are doing with your company...

  2. His facebook account is so canceled! by goombah99 · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  3. Re:Not Facebook! by suso · · Score: 5, Funny

    Please win. Please win. Please win.

  4. Scary by gmuslera · · Score: 5, Funny

    He owns Faceboo

    1. Re:Scary by rjch · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    2. Re:Scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      WOOSH

    3. Re:Scary by bennomatic · · Score: 4, Informative

      The last letter isn't a 'c', it's an 'o' that's missing the last 28%. Actually a very clever, opportunistic visual pun, if you ask me.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
  5. Whats next???? by evanism · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
  6. Re:Contracts by Itninja · · Score: 3, Insightful

    seriously dough

    So I am guessing you were also a CS major?

    --
    I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
  7. Not going to matter by dward90 · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    --
    My other sig is clever.
    1. Re:Not going to matter by bsDaemon · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    2. Re:Not going to matter by bsDaemon · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    3. Re:Not going to matter by Abstrackt · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      Always a pleasure. If you'd like me to doubt you in other endeavors as well please let me know!

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
  8. The Pellet thief by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The story gets even jucier:

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

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

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:The Pellet thief by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 5, Funny

      They had to take him to a pellet court.

    2. Re:The Pellet thief by malhombre · · Score: 2

      Good one!

  9. Re:Not Facebook! by lxs · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  10. Re:Not Facebook! by geekoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  11. Here is the photostat of the contract by goombah99 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Here is the photostat of the contract by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I predict a novel legal theory being invented that will protect the big corporation from a seemingly straightforward contract.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:Here is the photostat of the contract by Surt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I predict that thefacebook and facebook will be found to be separable entities, and that ceglia gets 84% of thefacebook.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  12. Re:Not Facebook! by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  13. Re:Contracts by box4831 · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    --
    Miller Lite tastes like water that's somehow managed to rot.
  14. This could be a good thing for Facebook by assertation · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This could be a good thing for Facebook.

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

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

    1. Re:This could be a good thing for Facebook by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Funny

      put out spin how FB is under new derangement

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

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  15. Careful... by dpilot · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

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

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  16. Re:Not Facebook! by eln · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  17. Re:Not Facebook! by Tom · · Score: 3, Insightful

    stay up to date in their lives.

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

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  18. Yes, your honor, it *is* on a bar napkin... by RevWaldo · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    .

    1. Re:Yes, your honor, it *is* on a bar napkin... by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 4, Informative
      As long as the napkin has the proper info on it, it can be binding:

      http://www.post-gazette.com/regionstate/20001102napkin5.asp

  19. Re:Not Facebook! by Chapter80 · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    A proposed settlement.

  20. Re:Not Facebook! by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

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

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

    Fuck you, Zuck.

  21. O-L-D by IP_Troll · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

  22. Re:Not Facebook! by jadm · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  23. Re:Not Facebook! by LizardKing · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

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

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

  24. Re:Not Facebook! by blind+biker · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  25. Re:Not Facebook! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

  26. Re:Not Facebook! by Domini · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

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

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

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

  27. Re:Not Facebook! by AndrewNeo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    More annoying to me (and more relevant to Slashdot) are sites that support Facebook Connect, but not OpenID.

  28. Re:Not Facebook! by Tuan121 · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    Says the person with a twitter signature?

  29. Re:Facebook's power by Animats · · Score: 2, Informative

    I can't remember a firm being seriously damaged through the legal system so soon after establishing itself as a ubiquitous and accepted tool by the establishment.

    Read more business history. Ones that come to mind immediately are Lehman Brothers, Barings, Enron, Lloyds of London, and Worldcom. Disputes over ownership and contracts happen all the time.

    For more details on the background, see this CNET story.

  30. Re:Not Facebook! by chill · · Score: 5, Funny

    At least in Farmville you can actually have a virtual lawn where your avatar can stand and shake his fist at the kids.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  31. Re:Not Facebook! by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 3, Funny

    I deleted my facebook profile and all my friends and family declared me dead and tryed to sell off all my shit. I really didn't get annoying though until they tried to bury my ass.

    --

    Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

  32. Re:Not Facebook! by idontgno · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm glad empty cynicism and apathy are working out so well for you. Keep up the good work.

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  33. Re:Not Facebook! by dave420 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why? Most people websites cater to will have a Facebook account, and if your users have Facebook accounts, sites can push their content to the FB users' friends. OpenID is great, but apart from being a mechanism to authenticate yourself, they are completely different.

  34. Re:Not Facebook! by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Statue of limitations. English--learn it!

    Holy shit! That's the funniest thing I've read in a while.

    For the record, you might try Googling "Statue of limitations" next time and noticing that Google changes it to "statute" automatically for you.

    It's a clue, you should follow it.

    --
    Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  35. Re:Not Facebook! by jythie · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Unless something really funny is going on, the judge would not have issued such a preliminary injunction if the case was that clearly beyond the statue of limitations. There might be disagreement concerning which limitations apply in this case.

  36. Re:Not Facebook! by nschubach · · Score: 5, Funny

    You obviously aren't looking close enough!

    Humans are naturally drawn towards justice and fairNess, And see Zuckerberg as a person who denIgrates his customers

    --
    Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
  37. Re:Not Facebook! by PitaBred · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So block the app. It's not that hard. My friends all play those inane games, and I never see a peep of them. Only when a new one comes along do I see it, and that's very, very rare. 10 minutes of work too much for you to keep in touch with your family?

  38. Re:Not Facebook! by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So basically you are saying since you don't think Facebook is the most effective way to communicate, nobody else should either.

    --
    "But this one goes to 11!"
  39. 8-bit über alles! by Thud457 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    M.U.L.E. 0WNZ all your crappy newfangled web games and always will.

    since the beginning of time.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  40. Re:Not Facebook! by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The way I see it, if I really care about a person, I will make sure to stay in touch and no need to re-connect.

    That's an excellent point and I would have agreed with when I was a teenager and my long-lost friends were the ones I didn't have classes with that semester. Then I got older and realized that sometimes people move without remembering to notify everyone they've ever corresponded with. I parted ways with some old friends - Navy buddies, college pals, neighbors, etc. - before email was popular among non-geeks and had no way of getting in touch with them short of hiring a private investigator.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  41. Re:Not Facebook! by bledri · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Can't you create a (password + optional SSL protected) website for posting those updates? Hosting is cheap these days and it does not look like you would use a lot of hard drive space and/or bandwidth.

    (I am not the author of the GPP.) I can, but I don't expect all my friends to do so, especially all my non-geek friends. For myself and virtually everyone that I stay in touch with: (free + convenient + slightly evil) trumps (cheap + hassle + ideologically sound). Probably doesn't bode well for the future of personal privacy, but there you go...

    --
    Some privacy policy Slashdot.
  42. Re:Not Facebook! by coaxial · · Score: 2, Informative

    Are you a professor at Glenn Beck University? You could be! ;)

  43. Re:Not Facebook! by dunng808 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In this case the Slashdot conventional wisdom appears to be "Nobody needs Facebook." But, as is so often pointed out here, Slashdotters are not a representative cross-section of personallity types. Reference the frequent comments about women/dating/sex. Facebook addresses social interaction that is mostly incomprehensible to this group. On the other hand, if it weren't for the kinds of people who hang out here there would be no Facebook. Let's not fall into the "what is right for us is right for everyone" hole.

    --

    Gary Dunn
    Open Slate Project