3 ms·

I believe the Winklevoss claim was that Mark committed to build facebook for and with them. Then, he cut them out of the deal, without terminating their agreem

I believe the Winklevoss claim was that Mark committed to build facebook for and with them. Then, he cut them out of the deal, without terminating their agreement. "Who had the idea" is less important than "we were business partners, but you cut us out without terminating the agreement first."

danssig 16y ago
It's even worse than that, he kept them on hold believing he was working on it. If he had made it clear from the beginning that they weren't a priority they could have hired someone else and had a chance. I would consider what he did sabotage.
- gvnonor 16y ago
  That's true. I can imagine how bad it would hurt to be in Winklevoss' place. But wasting their entire lives suing fb isn't the best course of action. They should forget what happenened and focus on other things and try and make a mark of their own in whatever they're interested.
  - danssig 16y ago
    They seem to be making good money doing what they're doing. 65 million so far. Next round, who knows?
    - gvnonor 16y ago
      From a monetary perspective, it seems very profitable and whatever makes them happy. But if I were in their place i'd rather go out and build something and get known for it than be remembered as someone who kept suing a person just because that guy stole an idea of mine , especially when the guy's already paid me 65 mil.
- isleyaardvark 16y ago
  It for these reasons that it's ridiculous to use the Winklevoss twins in an argument about ideas versus execution. If what Zuckerberg did was considered ethical or even the correct way to do things, it would be impossible for businesses to function. Imagine Zuckerberg hiring a lawyer to register Facebook as a trademark, and the lawyer registers it for himself. Hey, ideas count for nothing, it's all about execution.
marknutter 16y ago
AFAIK there were no formal contracts signed. I'm betting had FB not just settled they would have won the lawsuit, but I'm sure they determined it'd be cheaper in the long run to just settle.

danssig 16y ago

It's even worse than that, he kept them on hold believing he was working on it. If he had made it clear from the beginning that they weren't a priority they could have hired someone else and had a chance. I would consider what he did sabotage.

gvnonor 16y ago
That's true. I can imagine how bad it would hurt to be in Winklevoss' place. But wasting their entire lives suing fb isn't the best course of action. They should forget what happenened and focus on other things and try and make a mark of their own in whatever they're interested.
- danssig 16y ago
  They seem to be making good money doing what they're doing. 65 million so far. Next round, who knows?
  - gvnonor 16y ago
    From a monetary perspective, it seems very profitable and whatever makes them happy. But if I were in their place i'd rather go out and build something and get known for it than be remembered as someone who kept suing a person just because that guy stole an idea of mine , especially when the guy's already paid me 65 mil.
isleyaardvark 16y ago
It for these reasons that it's ridiculous to use the Winklevoss twins in an argument about ideas versus execution. If what Zuckerberg did was considered ethical or even the correct way to do things, it would be impossible for businesses to function. Imagine Zuckerberg hiring a lawyer to register Facebook as a trademark, and the lawyer registers it for himself. Hey, ideas count for nothing, it's all about execution.

marknutter 16y ago

AFAIK there were no formal contracts signed. I'm betting had FB not just settled they would have won the lawsuit, but I'm sure they determined it'd be cheaper in the long run to just settle.