The only reason this case got headlines was because a judge entered a TRO and this usually signifies that a case has merit of some kind. This case is an exception, however, as explained in my comment linked to above (explaining why the case has serious problems).
"Ceglia may be planning to argue that the statute of limitations didn't start until the contract was breached, which would have set the clock ticking in 2004, said Scott & Scott partner Julie Machal-Fulks."
Yes, but when you have "questions" about something's authenticity, it means you are the one asking for proof. If you claim that it's a phony, however, the burden is on you to show why you think it is so.
Do you think most users will care about this? They'll just want to know if they can still see what their friends are doing, who has posted new photos, etc.
What if the new owner decides to "generate revenue" by selling your personal information to the highest bidder, and then turns the site off? Reselling the information is cheaper than keeping a bunch of programmers and sysadmins employed, after all.
That is, if his claim has any truth to it and if he doesn't settle out of court, which might be likely to happen considering what is at stake. (cf. previous Facebook lawsuits)
I'm definitely curious about how that kind of things are handled, where a previous contract appears out of nowhere, completely changing how later contracts and investments would have happened.
If the previous contract is deemed valid, then the later contracts are usually "breached" and they can sue for damages. This means that the first investors all the way until through the latest investors have contracts signed by Zuckerberg or company executives stating the beneficial ownership. And this ownership is no longer accurate.
Could you add a clause in any (subsequent) contracts dealing with this possibility?
If this contract is valid, Zuckerberg would have known about it ever since 2003. If his business associates knew about it, would they have dealt with the situation proactively?
If he chose not to disclose the information, maybe he'll be seen as a danger to the future prosperity of the company?
According to the above Bloomberg Article:
Ceglia claims his alleged contract, which refers to "The Face Book" was signed about nine months before Facebook was founded, the company said in court papers.
According to the NYT from 2007:http://nyti.ms/cC0HwJ
"An e-mail message, circulated widely by Mr. Greenspan to Harvard students on Sept. 19, 2003, describes the newest feature of houseSYSTEM, as "The Face Book" an online system for quickly locating other students. The date was four months before Mr. Zuckerberg started his own site"
My question: did these two parties independently come up with an idea for "The Face Book" for Harvard and both pitched it to Zuckerberg? Seems odd at the very least on the face of things. Greenspan, if you can comment on this -- were you affiliated with Ceglia at all?
The traditional Harvard freshman register is known as "The Facebook".
"Harvard Yearbook Publications is responsible for the creation and production of the Senior Yearbook as well as the Freshman Register (also known as the Facebook). The Freshman Register is an extremely useful hardbound reference book for freshmen that contains photographs, addresses, and secondary schools of class members."
The term "Face Book" as a resource for seeing peoples names and a info along with a photo in a less formal yearbook-style setting is not new at all. My high school had a "Face book" in paperback form that was distributed at the beginning of the year to help folks get to know one another. That was in 2001. The Harvard site was merely an online version of this kind of flat, searchable list, with no user edittable content. You put in a name, major, or dorm, and it would show you a list of pictures of students that matched that search criteria. That's it. Much as I love tales of Zuckerberg sneakily stealing the idea for thefacebook.com, the Harvard site you mention was so basic that I'd say it's no more the precursor to facebook than any online yearbook or student directory.
I'd never heard of Ceglia until a few days ago. Mark certainly didn't tell me about him, just like he didn't tell me about the Winklevosses. By the time Mark talked to me in person he was already a member of houseSYSTEM's facebook.
Here's the timeline of events from my company's trademark proceedings which were filed based in part on the claim (at the time, which has now been settled) that "facebook" is a generic term, as others have discussed here.
If Mark was toying with this idea in April, 2003 (as I was), then he only started really taking it seriously once he saw my progress, which I'd started on independently. Three days after we had dinner he registered thefacebook.com without telling me.
I don't think Ceglia is arguing that he came up with the idea--he was just funding Mark's idea. So essentially Mark and I thought up a solution for the lack of a universal face book at Harvard at the same time, but I actually made mine before he did, and then I asked him for help running it. He turned down my request and instead asked me for help with an unspecified idea, which I declined to help with since he wouldn't tell me anything and had just been disciplined for ignoring privacy issues I considered important.
I was at Harvard at the time. Everyone used/ knew the print face book and the internet was exploding so it doesn't sound at all odd for two people to have the idea of doing an "online face book".
I don't know anything about the case, but based on looking at the document, it looks like Mark's signature and handwriting to me. I guess it could have been copied from something else, though.
On the last page there is a scan of a bank deposit slip with the routing number on the bottom. If the bank deposit slip is real then shouldn't it be possible to verify that with the bank's records?
"This is not necessarily an open-and-shut case for Facebook. The fact that the judge froze Facebook's assets suggests there may be extenuating circumstances favoring Ceglia, Gendelman pointed out.
Also, Ceglia may be planning to argue that the statute of limitations didn't start until the contract was breached, which would have set the clock ticking in 2004, said Scott & Scott partner Julie Machal-Fulks.
There is room for that argument in New York law, she told the E-Commerce Times.
As for the last-minute challenge, that too makes sense -- at least, it can be argued in court, said Jonathan Askin, associate professor of clinical law at Brooklyn Law School.
"Logically, these ownership challenges only occur after a company has value or is on the verge of success. Why would anyone sue a company before it has value?" he asked."
If you're familiar with the content on Reddit, where the first 50% of the comments are puns and memes - not having to wade through that is actually quite refreshing. As to the harshness, I imagine people want to nip that behavior in the bud?
I agree with you on that point, but I mean for a comment that had nothing to do with either a pun or a meme it's kinda ridiculous. This site will be like straight html without any css... and I think a bit of the later helps the former create a good atmosphere.
"Behind every great fortune there is a crime."
- Honore de Balzac
This is getting a bit tiresome. Tiresome to hear about, tiresome to watch, and certainly tiresome to think about. At a gut level I think this isn't the last contest for ownership of something with debatable value. 500,000,000 sets of eyeballs have quite a bit of potential, but what guarantee is there of revenue? Facebook, like Paris Hilton, is popular for being popular. Why is Facebook valuable? No one can say. This is lost on just about everyone.
I suppose I could have just noted that it would be nice if they'd do something worth talking about once in a while instead of getting sued at an interval.
I was aware of Facebook's profitability when I made the post. I still take issue with whether or not they've provided anything of value. When one gives search terms to Google one gets back search results. When one gives personal information to Facebook what does one get in return?
As for the retaliatory down-voting, way to stay classy people.
FBs value is in connecting people. Humans are social by nature and FB extends that social nature out many orders of magnitude. Like you, I do wonder if the value is being over hyped. Who needs or even wants 100s of 'friends?' Real friends take time and effort and I wonder if we'll see backlash where people get back to less friends, but closer relationships.
Basically I'm thinking that a browser-server holds your facebook style profile and mediates access to files on your computer (like photos, videos, or anything you like). Your profile could be minimally cached with a lookup service (like linkedin) which would redirect to your browser-server if you're online or provide an "user is offline" page at other times.
Various services could cache your locally held content.
Basically a decentralised version of FB where each user has their profile on their own computer - like the move from file repos to (torrent) trackers.
