💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › mobileNews › 3046.gmi captured on 2021-12-05 at 23:47:19. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-12-03)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Apr 13th 2011, 9:32 by M.G. | SAN FRANCISCO
JUST when it looked like the fuss over Facebook s early days might be about to
die down, the long-running legal soap opera surrounding claims to the site s
ownership has sprung another surprise. On April 11th Paul Ceglia, who last year
filed a lawsuit arguing that he was entitled to half of the equity stake held
by Mark Zuckerberg, the site s youthful co-founder, submitted an amended
complaint complete with e-mails that he claimed would support his case for a
share in the company.
Mr Ceglia s bombshell was dropped on the same day that Facebook s boss received
some far better news in the form of a decision by a panel of federal
appeals-court judges in San Francisco that probably scuppers another legal
battle being waged over the social-network s ownership. The judgment threw out
a petition by two of Mr Zuckerberg s contemporaries at Harvard University,
Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss twins dubbed the Winklevi in The Social Network
, a fictional film about Facebook s creation who wanted to scrap a settlement
they had reached with Facebook in 2008. The settlement required the
Winklevosses and Divya Narendra, another former Harvard student, to end their
claim that Mr Zuckerberg had stolen their idea for a social-networking service,
in return for a deal reportedly worth $65m, including Facebook shares.
Since then, the value of Facebook has soared (it is now said to be worth up to
$60 billion), which may have prompted the Winklevosses to try to get the
settlement scrapped, giving them an opportunity to fight for more generous
terms. But Monday s ruling rejected their claim that they had been misled about
the true value of Facebook when the deal was signed. 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, wrote one of
the judges. At some point litigation must come to an end, he added. That
point has now been reached. However, after the panel's ruling the Winklevosses
lawyer suggested that his clients would seek a judgment from the wider court.
Meanwhile, Mr Ceglia appears to be gearing up in his fight with Mr Zuckerberg.
He has engaged DLA Piper, a high-powered law firm, to represent him and is
pressing his claim that a contract he allegedly signed with Mr Zuckerberg in
2003 entitles him to a share in the firm. The deal supposedly involved Mr
Ceglia giving Mr Zuckerberg $1,000 to develop his social-networking site in
return for a substantial chunk of any future business.
Lawyers representing Mr Zuckerberg and Facebook have dismissed Mr Ceglia s
argument that he is entitled to a stake in the company. And they have argued
that the e-mails he has produced to support it are phony. Some of these
purportedly show Mr Zuckerberg discussing details of the site s development
with Mr Ceglia and giving warning of a potential rival service being developed
by nameless fellow students (presumably the Winklevosses and Mr Narendra). The
courts will no doubt want to establish whether the e-mails are genuine and just
why Mr Ceglia waited seven years before coming forward to stake his claim.