Court Rejects Winklevoss Twins' Facebook Appeal 106
angry tapir writes "A US federal appeals court has denied a request by the Winklevoss twins to release them from their settlement with Facebook over their allegations that Mark Zuckerberg improperly appropriated their idea for the social networking site. Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, along with another Harvard classmate, agreed to the settlement in 2008 but the twins later asked a district court to let them back out, saying they were misled by Facebook about the value of the company's shares they received as part of the deal. On Monday, a three-judge appeals court panel sided with the lower court, noting that the Winklevoss twins have actually fared quite well since the settlement was hammered out because the value of Facebook, pegged recently at around $50 billion, means that their shares have more than tripled in value."
First post? (Score:1)
A social media post without replies? Irony.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not rich enough yet? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's nonsense. I have an idea, I want to make a jet pack. I'm not intellectually or creatively capable of actually creating said jet pack myself, so I'm going to find a student at say MIT and see if he can do it for me. Dang it, the student thought the jet pack was a great idea too, but now he has his own vision for how he wants to build it. But we had a verbal agreement, he said he'd do it for me. A decade later, he's a billionaire, I thought of the jet pack idea and now everyone is flying around.
Re:Not rich enough yet? (Score:4, Funny)
Aha Mark, nice try posting as AC, but we KNOW your writing style. You may not think that we are talented, but we actually are. You have been figured out by this dynamic duo. Yessir, yessiree. As Darth Vader once said, all too easy!
--The Winklevoss Twins
P.S.: You owe us a larger undisclosed amount of shares.
Re: (Score:2)
Strictly speaking, a verbal contract is also legally binding. Trouble, of course, is in proving what the verbal contract entailed.
Re: (Score:2)
"So.. we had an idea and an agreement was worked out with you. and we all got what we all agreed on. BUT.. you ended up making a LOT more money off the idea than we expected, so NOW we want a bigger cut.... ok?"
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
So this is the "I watched the Zuckerberg movie and lets comment on it as it really happened" thread?
The Winklevoss twins are real, not just two guys in a movie...
Re: (Score:2)
No, they didn't win, they came a close second though
Re: (Score:3)
Here's a more detailed story, including citations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ConnectU [wikipedia.org]
The movie isn't that far off when it comes to the communication between zuckerberg and the twins. Characters and drama are obviously embelished and I don't know about all the stuff unrelated to HarvardConnection, but atleast this part seems to be reasonably accurate.
Long story short; Zuckerberg agreed to do the project, didn't deliver and released a nearly identical project of his own.
Ofcourse, trying to get out of a set
Re: (Score:3)
On the other hand, as far as anyone can tell, they did come up with the idea...
For social networking? No they didn't.
For Facebook? No they didn't, they had an idea which was much more restricted and close-minded.
Without Zuckerberg their idea would have died in six months, leaving them in debt. They've done zero work and they're multi-millionaires now.
If I had their money I'd be retired on an island somewhere. STFU already.
Re: (Score:3)
They didn't come up with the idea. They said themselves that friendster already existed at the time. Their angle was making it exclusive to Harvard.
Re:Not rich enough yet? (Score:5, Insightful)
And if you look up weasel, you'll see Zuckerberg. It's irrelevant if they're greedy. If they were lied to, and screwed that's still bad business. If they really don't have a case, as the appeals court suggests, then too bad so sad.
But being slimy, greedy, or even just a bad person doesn't make you wrong. Signing a bad agreement does.
Eduardo (Score:5, Interesting)
Speaking of greed, the way that Zuckerberg is reputed to have treated Eduardo [wikipedia.org], his partner, and the one who put up all the initial investment money for Facebook is worse than the situation with the W twins.
He is reputed to have taken Eduardo's 30-some percent share down to 0 or so by issuing new stock to venture capitalists while keeping his and Sean Parker's [wikipedia.org] percentages stable.
One phrase for dealing with startups: "non-dilutable shares"
Re: (Score:3)
Mark Zuckerberg could have fired him, but he didn't just fire him. He stole everything from him.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, non-dilutable shares for a startup is a terrible idea - especially on that is likely to go VC someday. Why? Because then it requires unanimity to get that capital, and the least sane/ethical member can hold the deal hostage to get the best terms for themselves. Instead what should exist are a reasonable set of rules for dilution, particularly when interested parties are involved, with recourse to third-party and/or binding arbitration of the company valuation. The value of sweat equity should also
BULL...FUCKING...SHIT (Score:1)
Sorry. If I put up funds for X amount of the company when it starts, I damn well am going to own X amount when it is flourishing. Inactivity? My activity was providing money, money you didn't have and needed. That's the price one pays for borrowing my money.
Re: (Score:2)
He is reputed to have taken Eduardo's 30-some percent share down to 0 or so by issuing new stock to venture capitalists while keeping his and Sean Parker's [wikipedia.org] percentages stable.
One phrase for dealing with startups: "non-dilutable shares"
I've dealt with partners like that in my past as well. No intention of further dealings with them.
Re: (Score:3)
The judge's point seems to be the following: you want to back out of the deal because you believe that the shares you were given as part of the settlement were not valued as highly as originally stated. However, those shares are worth a lot of money though, so things have worked out pretty peachy keen for you guys. Please stop wasting any more of the court's time.
Re: (Score:3)
It's more like, you signed a deal that specifically excludes anything said during the negotiations from being admissible in court. So live with that part of the deal. Since the Winklevosses have no evidence, they can't prevail. The relative value of the shares then and now are irrelevant.
Winklevii (Score:2)
It's WinkelVII people - Winklevii
Get your social networking terminology straight
Re: (Score:1)
It's there last name, you don't pluralize it.
wow.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
If you look up "greed" in the dictionary you'll see a picture of the Winklevoss twins
Their faces will be behind many others.
Facebook (Score:1)
[Like]
Knowledgeable (Score:5, Funny)
hollywood did it better.... (Score:2)
Made my day.. (Score:5, Insightful)
""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."
I wish judiciary was that clear and just in other cases, but this comment made my day.
Re:Made my day.. (Score:5, Interesting)
PS: the reason I went so ga-ga over this new was because of a much sobering ruling I saw yesterday - http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/10/opinion/10thompson.html [nytimes.com] but I digress..
PS2: Since Winklevosses claim to have had the original idea and design, they should have known how much $$ worth was their site. So, how did they got duped by Zuck? Glad judges saw through it..
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
that article is amazing. that guy needs to go on a vigilante shooting spree just to make things right!
No, two wrongs don't make a right. What this guy needs is a civil suit that can't be overturned :)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Creative folks never tend to think of the value of their creations, that's up to the marketing whores to do.
Not Winklevosses but... (Score:2)
Winklevi
Re: (Score:2)
Don't see how. It seems to be Germanic, so "Winklevossen" or "Winklevosse", but could be any number of other things.
Or are we just assuming that all words have second declension Latin roots?
Re: (Score:2)
Greedy Bastards (Score:2)
You know, they accepted the settlement. They could have held out if they wanted to gamble. They chose to pull their money off black when they were ahead and leave the casino. I'm afraid I feel no unhappiness for them at all. Greedy bastards, and I don't believe that's a term I've ever used before here on /. Doesn't mean I haven't thought it though :)
Hacks (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There's no telling if the Winklevii would have taken the site in the same direction...
I think we can be pretty sure they wouldn't have. In all probability one of the other sites (and there were plenty) would have 'won'.
Re: (Score:1)
Link to the full opinion (Score:4, Informative)
dubious logic (Score:2)
On Monday, a three-judge appeals court panel sided with the lower court, noting that the Winklevoss twins have actually fared quite well since the settlement was hammered out
How they made out ought to be irrelevant. Either they got cheated or they didn't. If they did, they would have made out even better.
The court's statement is like saying, "sure, someone stole your money. but you have lots of other money, so it's ok".
Re:dubious logic (Score:4, Informative)
Look at his UID (Score:5, Funny)
GP has been here for a very long time. Hell, he probably is actually a grand parent. He has years, decades even, more experience about not RTFAing than the rest of us.
I have no sympathy (Score:2)
Re:I have no sympathy (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually you're right, but not for the reason you think. They hired someone to do some coding for a very good idea they had. What they failed to do is manage him properly and get a proper contract signed. They had a great idea but zero business sense -- which is understandable as they were Harvard undergrads. I'm kind of surprised they're getting any money at all. That being said, Facebook guy is a douche. And the world, legal loopholes or no, would be better with less douchiness.
"Told them???" (Score:2, Insightful)
The illusion that the company is "worth $50 billion" would evaporate rapidly if an actual effort were made to liquidate it.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering their product is user's eyeballs, and I still have my facebook account, let's please not try and liquidate the company.
Row row row your boat... (Score:1)
Get on with it (Score:1)
From the Opinion:
The parties agreed that Facebook would swallow up Con- nectU, the Winklevosses would get cash and a small piece of Facebook, and both sides would stop fighting and get on with their lives.
Couldn't agree more
Let see if we got this straight. (Score:3, Insightful)
Loser dude, who can't meet chicks on his own, steals idea of social network, fucks over his partners, gets rich, gets laid, still is a loser.
Did i get it all?
Re: (Score:2)
No. You forgot the bit where another clueless dude watches movie and thinks he knows everything. Still is clueless.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Loser dude, who can't meet chicks on his own, steals idea of social network, fucks over his partners, gets rich, gets laid, still is a loser.
Did i get it all?
Don't be stupid. Even Zuckerberg has openly dismissed the claim made by the movie The Social Network that it was about getting laid. The getting laid part is just the minimal amount of Hollywood spin required to keep a consistency in all works produced that keeps Women whores and Men unproductive from the cheating - its just a form of control with little bearing on the underlying story or on the real-life people the characters are modeled after. Facebook is about controlling people through the sale and e
Re: (Score:2)
Loser dude, who can't meet chicks on his own, steals idea of social network, fucks over his partners, gets rich, gets laid, still is a loser.
Did i get it all?
Don't be stupid. Even Zuckerberg has openly dismissed the claim made by the movie The Social Network that it was about getting laid. The getting laid part is just the minimal amount of Hollywood spin required to keep a consistency in all works produced that keeps Women whores and Men unproductive from the cheating - its just a form of control with little bearing on the underlying story or on the real-life people the characters are modeled after. Facebook is about controlling people through the sale and exploitation of their personal information - not getting laid.
That depends on which side of the curtain you reside upon. =D
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously, he is a nerd who just wants a submissive Asian woman to serve him.
Try dating a Chinese or better yet Singaporean woman sometime and find out how submissive she is, "men rule the world, women rule men" is a maxim I have heard from Chinese.
Also, I have not met a Chinese programmer with a girlfriend/wife that scores under the 70th percentile. Chinese society is extremely shallow, meaning the guys with stable, well paid, white collar jobs can get pretty girls and that is what happens 90% of the time. Zuckerburg is a billionaire with a very plain woman, which probably means he
Re: (Score:1)
Look at this photo of the couple [buzzfed.com].
Jesus, look at the size of that lunch bag. What's in there, General Tso's head?
Re: (Score:2)
It was a movie, dude. Zuckerberg has had a girlfriend since about the same time he started working on Facebook. So he's clearly not lonely, he's extraordinarily successful, and he's obviously brilliant.
Speaking of losers, how many movies about your life do you think Zuckerberg has watched?
Re: (Score:2)
Loser dude, who can't meet chicks on his own, steals idea of social network, fucks over his partners, gets rich, gets laid, still is a loser.
Did i get it all?
I don't think factually anyone can say he is a loser by any objective measure. I suspect it might make you feel better to see him as one though.
I find his loyalty refreshing and principled. He could quite easily get a much hotter GF.
Furthermore I have huge respect for the force behind Facebook. Visionaries always have many real losers (as in those that continually fail to make any meaningful success or impact on the world) who are insecure about themselves and project that on.
You probably won't read up on i
"The Winklevii" (Score:2)
"The Winklevii".
Best movie line I've heard in years. Had me rolling in my seat.
Also, the only good thing about these guys, as near as I can tell (yes, based on more than The Social Network). They fed meat to a shark and then complained when they had no dinner. Better luck next time.
$65 million (Score:2)
While it may be that they were massively screwed (I honestly couldn't say), they are wealthy.
They will live in comfort for the rest of their lives, they are now famous, and their kids futures are secure.
Can't really feel too sorry for them.
Re: (Score:1)
Business is War, Be Smart, & Don't Emulate Zuc (Score:2)
I often hear people call Mark Z a loser. Why? Well, let's assume that his little stunt backfired, and the Winklevoss twins found another programmer and ran ahead full
Re: (Score:3)
I beg to differ. An initial idea is worth almost nothing. The initial ideas for social network sites were already out there. People have great ideas all the time that they just don't do anything with. I started my career right before the Internet took off and lived in Silicon Valley hanging out with people from Apple, Netscape, Exodus, Sun, etc. Whenever the next big idea hit like Ebay, some acquaintance would say, "Damn, I had that idea 2 years ago."
Yeah, well, ideas are barely worth shit.
Discriminati
Ideas are not property... (Score:2)
gucci shoes women (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
WTF? If there's one place NOT to spamvertise Swarovski Crystals... they just found it.