4 ms·

You're missing Lessig's central point: $65 million is a ridiculous amount to pay for whatever Zuckerberg got out of Harvard twins and amounts to extortion and a

by kjksf 16y ago

You're missing Lessig's central point: $65 million is a ridiculous amount to pay for whatever Zuckerberg got out of Harvard twins and amounts to extortion and abuse of legal system. If we go by the movie, Zuckerberg and twins met at most a couple of days, they described the general idea of the site (which, by that time, wasn't anything original: it was My Space or Friendster except with exclusivity) and he agreed to program the site. Except he didn't and instead created such a site, from scratch, by himself, dodging the twins the whole time (which implies they had no further contact except the initial meetings). That might be an asshole move but I don't see where did twins contribute anything worth remotely $65 million. If anything at all. If you're under assumption that if you talk to me, describe an idea for a website to me and I go ahead and implement a similar idea (with no help from you) then you deserve any part of revenue for it, they you're very much mistaken. The reason we have NDAs, contracts and other sorts of legal tools is precisely because the above scenario doesn't play the way you think it does and if you want to protect your ideas, you can either use trade secrets (i.e. don't blab about them) or get the other party to sign a contract that spells out his rights wrt. to ideas you're planning to disclose. It really is that simple and Winklevosses won legal lottery - there was no merit in their claims.

anigbrowl 16y ago
Nobody suggests they made $65m worth of contributions. They got that amount because it was mutually agreed to reflect something like the value of what they had initiated considered as if it were equity at launch, and adjusted to reflect the capital gains they might have expected to enjoy from holding such a slice of equity. You think $65 million is a ton of money, but given that Facebook was valued at somewhere between $4 and $15 billion at the time, it's peanuts - something in the vicinity of 2%, at most. But nobody would care if it were expressed in percentage terms because it doesn't sound so unreasonable now, does it? I do not agree that it is extortion and abuse. They made a case that Zuckerberg pulled, as you say, an 'asshole move'; and that he repeatedly misled them into thinking that he was devoting all his technical efforts to their mutual benefit, while they focused on other sorts of business development. I don't know precisely what that involved, but I rather doubt that just because they were not themselves programmers they must have spent the entire period sitting on the couch doing nothing. Yes, if you want legal peace of mind and defensible security, then the best option is to have NDAs and watertight contracts all around. But if those are a prerequisite for any kind of trust to exist, then our legal system would bear a much greater resemblance to the code-based civil law systems which obtain in most of Europe and South America. As things stand, we give substantial weight to common law, with its emphasis on precedent and judicial independence. You may dislike common law for its ambiguity and unpredictability - although I suspect you would chafe under the mechanical inflexibility of the alternative when you find yourself waiting a month or longer for the registration of your business to be completed so that you can legally start harvesting people's data for fun and profit. but either way, Zuckerberg started his empire in this country, and if he paid attention in his classes on American government he knew there might be some legal risks in what he was doing. And when that turned out to be the case, he got over his egotistical reactions and eventually settled for a marginal sum, like a smart person.
- enjo 16y ago
  I find it fascinating that the people on HN, of ALL places, aren't more sympathetic to that point. All of us that have built (or are building) companies have brought a Zuckerberg into our confidence some point. Hell, most recently I was a Zuckerberg. My partner had an idea and the foundations to pull it of. He just needed a partner (me) with the technical chops to make it happen. I could have spent a few days picking his brain and stolen everything I could for my own gain. I didn't... and things have worked out really well for us. For me Zuckerberg is a villian. I've never met the guy, but from what I can tell he committed the most unforgivable act imaginable. He stole a vision, and actively worked to string those who trusted him along as far as he could. That's not something to celebrate, it's something to despise. $65M seems fair to me. Hell it seems low. Fraud really does pay sometimes.
  - csallen 16y ago
    If the ConnectU team had been competently-run, the founders would have realized that their idea was their biggest asset at the time (they had zero execution), and kept it more closely-guarded. Instead, they blurted it out to Zuck before he even agreed to work with him, while completely neglecting to employ the use of NDAs, non-competes, or similar documents. I'm loathe to defend a legal system so "random and inefficient" (as Lessig puts it) that it would allow the ConnectU team to extract $65 million from Zuckerberg regardless. Was it unethical for Zuckerberg to take advantage of their ignorance? I don't think so. He saw an idea he liked in the hands of a couple of people who weren't implementing it correctly, so he did it himself. That describes about half the startups that exist today. Was it unethical for him to lie to the Winklevosses in order to delay their progress as a company? Definitely. But at worst, it amounts to unethical intellectual bullying of an incompetent and inferior competitor. Given that he didn't break any laws, didn't steal any code, and didn't sign any contracts (to my knowledge), I find the eventual $65million settlement hard to stomach.
    - anigbrowl 16y ago
      What is your source for this version of events?
chopsueyar 16y ago
from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ConnectU#Mark_Zuckerberg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ConnectU#Mark_Zuckerberg In November 2003, upon the referral of Victor Gao, the Winklevosses and Narendra approached Mark Zuckerberg about joining the HarvardConnection team.[9] On the evening of November 30th, they all met in the dining hall of Harvard's Kirkland House, where the Winklevosses and Narendra explained to an enthusiastic Zuckerberg the HarvardConnection website; a social network for Harvard students that was to expand to other schools around the country.[6] During the meeting, Zuckerberg allegedly entered into an oral contract with Narendra and the Winklevosses and become a partner in HarvardConnection.[1] Zuckerberg allegedly chose to be compensated in the form of sweat equity.[10][11] Later that evening, Zuckerberg told Cameron Winklevoss in an email that he didn't expect completion of the project to be difficult. Zuckerberg writes: "I read over all the stuff you sent and it seems like it shouldn't take too long to implement, so we can talk about that after I get all the basic functionality up tomorrow night."[9] The next day, on December 1st, 2003, Zuckerberg sent another email to the HarvardConnection team. "I put together one of the two registration pages so I have everything working on my system now. I'll keep you posted as I patch stuff up and it starts to become completely functional."[6] On December 4th, 2003, Zuckerberg writes: "Sorry I was unreachable tonight. I just got about three of your missed calls. I was working on a problem set."[6] On December 10, 2003: "The week has been pretty busy thus far, so I haven't gotten a chance to do much work on the site or even think about it really, so I think it's probably best to postpone meeting until we have more to discuss. I'm also really busy tomorrow so I don't think I'd be able to meet then anyway."[6] On December 17th, 2003, a week later: "Sorry I have not been reachable for the past few days. I've basically been in the lab the whole time working on a cs problem set which I"m still not finished with."[6] On January 8, 2004, Zuckerberg emailed to say he was "completely swamped with work [that] week" but had "made some of the changes ... and they seem[ed] to e working great" on his computer. He said he could discuss the site starting the following Tuesday, on Jan. 13.[9] On January 11th, 2004, Zuckerberg registered the domain name thefacebook.com.[12] Three days later, on January 14th, 2004, Zuckerberg met again with Tyler Winklevoss, Cameron Winklevoss and Divya Narendra about HarvardConnection, however, he never mentioned registering the domain name thefacebook.com or a competing website, rather he reported progress on HarvardConnection, told them he would continue to work on it, and would email the group later in the week.[9] On February 4th, 2004, Zuckerberg launched thefacebook.com. The Winklevosses and Narendra attempted to force the Harvard administration to act on what they viewed as a violation of the university’s honor code. They took the case to the Harvard Administrative Board and the university president Larry Summers, but it was ruled to be outside of university jurisdiction.[13]

by kjksf 16y ago

anigbrowl 16y ago

Nobody suggests they made $65m worth of contributions. They got that amount because it was mutually agreed to reflect something like the value of what they had initiated considered as if it were equity at launch, and adjusted to reflect the capital gains they might have expected to enjoy from holding such a slice of equity. You think $65 million is a ton of money, but given that Facebook was valued at somewhere between $4 and $15 billion at the time, it's peanuts - something in the vicinity of 2%, at most. But nobody would care if it were expressed in percentage terms because it doesn't sound so unreasonable now, does it? I do not agree that it is extortion and abuse. They made a case that Zuckerberg pulled, as you say, an 'asshole move'; and that he repeatedly misled them into thinking that he was devoting all his technical efforts to their mutual benefit, while they focused on other sorts of business development. I don't know precisely what that involved, but I rather doubt that just because they were not themselves programmers they must have spent the entire period sitting on the couch doing nothing. Yes, if you want legal peace of mind and defensible security, then the best option is to have NDAs and watertight contracts all around. But if those are a prerequisite for any kind of trust to exist, then our legal system would bear a much greater resemblance to the code-based civil law systems which obtain in most of Europe and South America. As things stand, we give substantial weight to common law, with its emphasis on precedent and judicial independence. You may dislike common law for its ambiguity and unpredictability - although I suspect you would chafe under the mechanical inflexibility of the alternative when you find yourself waiting a month or longer for the registration of your business to be completed so that you can legally start harvesting people's data for fun and profit. but either way, Zuckerberg started his empire in this country, and if he paid attention in his classes on American government he knew there might be some legal risks in what he was doing. And when that turned out to be the case, he got over his egotistical reactions and eventually settled for a marginal sum, like a smart person.

enjo 16y ago
I find it fascinating that the people on HN, of ALL places, aren't more sympathetic to that point. All of us that have built (or are building) companies have brought a Zuckerberg into our confidence some point. Hell, most recently I was a Zuckerberg. My partner had an idea and the foundations to pull it of. He just needed a partner (me) with the technical chops to make it happen. I could have spent a few days picking his brain and stolen everything I could for my own gain. I didn't... and things have worked out really well for us. For me Zuckerberg is a villian. I've never met the guy, but from what I can tell he committed the most unforgivable act imaginable. He stole a vision, and actively worked to string those who trusted him along as far as he could. That's not something to celebrate, it's something to despise. $65M seems fair to me. Hell it seems low. Fraud really does pay sometimes.
- csallen 16y ago
  If the ConnectU team had been competently-run, the founders would have realized that their idea was their biggest asset at the time (they had zero execution), and kept it more closely-guarded. Instead, they blurted it out to Zuck before he even agreed to work with him, while completely neglecting to employ the use of NDAs, non-competes, or similar documents. I'm loathe to defend a legal system so "random and inefficient" (as Lessig puts it) that it would allow the ConnectU team to extract $65 million from Zuckerberg regardless. Was it unethical for Zuckerberg to take advantage of their ignorance? I don't think so. He saw an idea he liked in the hands of a couple of people who weren't implementing it correctly, so he did it himself. That describes about half the startups that exist today. Was it unethical for him to lie to the Winklevosses in order to delay their progress as a company? Definitely. But at worst, it amounts to unethical intellectual bullying of an incompetent and inferior competitor. Given that he didn't break any laws, didn't steal any code, and didn't sign any contracts (to my knowledge), I find the eventual $65million settlement hard to stomach.
  - anigbrowl 16y ago
    What is your source for this version of events?

chopsueyar 16y ago

from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ConnectU#Mark_Zuckerberg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ConnectU#Mark_Zuckerberg In November 2003, upon the referral of Victor Gao, the Winklevosses and Narendra approached Mark Zuckerberg about joining the HarvardConnection team.[9] On the evening of November 30th, they all met in the dining hall of Harvard's Kirkland House, where the Winklevosses and Narendra explained to an enthusiastic Zuckerberg the HarvardConnection website; a social network for Harvard students that was to expand to other schools around the country.[6] During the meeting, Zuckerberg allegedly entered into an oral contract with Narendra and the Winklevosses and become a partner in HarvardConnection.[1] Zuckerberg allegedly chose to be compensated in the form of sweat equity.[10][11] Later that evening, Zuckerberg told Cameron Winklevoss in an email that he didn't expect completion of the project to be difficult. Zuckerberg writes: "I read over all the stuff you sent and it seems like it shouldn't take too long to implement, so we can talk about that after I get all the basic functionality up tomorrow night."[9] The next day, on December 1st, 2003, Zuckerberg sent another email to the HarvardConnection team. "I put together one of the two registration pages so I have everything working on my system now. I'll keep you posted as I patch stuff up and it starts to become completely functional."[6] On December 4th, 2003, Zuckerberg writes: "Sorry I was unreachable tonight. I just got about three of your missed calls. I was working on a problem set."[6] On December 10, 2003: "The week has been pretty busy thus far, so I haven't gotten a chance to do much work on the site or even think about it really, so I think it's probably best to postpone meeting until we have more to discuss. I'm also really busy tomorrow so I don't think I'd be able to meet then anyway."[6] On December 17th, 2003, a week later: "Sorry I have not been reachable for the past few days. I've basically been in the lab the whole time working on a cs problem set which I"m still not finished with."[6] On January 8, 2004, Zuckerberg emailed to say he was "completely swamped with work [that] week" but had "made some of the changes ... and they seem[ed] to e working great" on his computer. He said he could discuss the site starting the following Tuesday, on Jan. 13.[9] On January 11th, 2004, Zuckerberg registered the domain name thefacebook.com.[12] Three days later, on January 14th, 2004, Zuckerberg met again with Tyler Winklevoss, Cameron Winklevoss and Divya Narendra about HarvardConnection, however, he never mentioned registering the domain name thefacebook.com or a competing website, rather he reported progress on HarvardConnection, told them he would continue to work on it, and would email the group later in the week.[9] On February 4th, 2004, Zuckerberg launched thefacebook.com. The Winklevosses and Narendra attempted to force the Harvard administration to act on what they viewed as a violation of the university’s honor code. They took the case to the Harvard Administrative Board and the university president Larry Summers, but it was ruled to be outside of university jurisdiction.[13]