17 ms·
I'd suggest that the doctrine of laches is completely valid in this case. Facebook isn't just a company that has "recently become cash flow positive", it's a c
by philk 16y ago
I'd suggest that the doctrine of laches is completely valid in this case. Facebook isn't just a company that has "recently become cash flow positive", it's a company that's been highly valued for at least six years. In June 2004 Peter Thiel invested $500K for 7% (giving it a valuation of $7.1M) and Accel Partners invested $12.7M in May 2005 (valuation ~ $100M). I'm not sure you can say it would be a waste of time to sue for ownership of Facebook as it existed at either of those points as it was clearly valued by astute investors.
- codexon 16y agoThe problem with that line of thinking is that those valuations would have only been possible with Zuckerberg and his cadre of Harvard branded friends at the helm of Facebook. If Ceglia exercised his right to those shares so early in the stage, those people could have easily been poached by Google or started another company. Just because Peter Thiel and other investors valued it highly doesn't make it so. Would you agree with his investment in largely failed Friendster? No one should be beholden to imaginary valuations by pre-IPO investors who have a higher tolerance for risk.
- mootothemax 16y agoJust because Peter Thiel and other investors valued it highly doesn't make it so. Surely the value of the company's shares is however much investors are willing to pay for them?
- codexon 16y agoThat's only true for public shares. $10,000 from Thiel is different from $10,000 from Joe Sixpack.