3 ms·
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 br
by 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 agoIf 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 agoWhat is your source for this version of events?
- csallen 16y agoWhat's different from this "version" than what you've heard elsewhere? I've searched and found no mentions of NDAs/non-competes. The only contract ever mentioned is an oral contract, which means they told him the idea, and then I he agreed to work on it. In addition, Zuck's subsequent deceiving emails to ConnectU are well-documented. My point is not to challenge the facts about what occurred and when. My point is that the concept of "oral contract" is hugely vague: clearly Zuckerberg didn't believe he had a legal obligation to complete their website. And in this case, the ramifications ($65 million) of breaking such a vague agreement were much too high.
- anigbrowl 16y agoYour interpretation is not the only possible one, and fails to consider the significance of the fraud involved. If it was a story of two business guys who stole a pile of code and built a business I suspect you'd be demanding jail time.
- csallen 16y agoOf course I would, but only because code is tangible. The legality of stealing tangible items/data is clear in everybody's minds. However, an idea is NOT tangible, and in the absence of signed contracts it is NOT clear that using an idea told you by someone else is illegal.
- waterlesscloud 16y agoThis all leaves out that the idea of ConnectU was no more Facebook than cricket is baseball. They are different things. Very different.