This is a testament to how skilled lawyering can make a difference. Original complaint: Cast primarily as a claim against Facebook seeking a court declaration

This is a testament to how skilled lawyering can make a difference. Original complaint: Cast primarily as a claim against Facebook seeking a court declaration and judgment that Ceglia was the 80% owner of FB. Claim founded on a breach of contract. In essence, a claim by an independent contractor that, for breach of a $1K contract, he is entitled to claim half of what a young kid promised to give him forever after relating to the subject matter of that contract. Result: an inherently flaky claim that can readily be ridiculed as opportunistic and defeated on a variety of legal grounds. Amended complaint: Cast as a series of claims against Mark Zuckerberg only (the sole claim against FB as a company is a technical one that seeks to bind it concerning any judgment declaring that Ceglia has a 50% stake in anything granted or promised to Mr. Zuckerberg). Claim founded on the idea of a general partnership as an association of two or more persons to carry on business as co-owners for profit, with the theme being that one partner misappropriated for his own use and profit assets belonging to the partnership and must now account to the wronged partner for 50% of those assets, both as originally constituted and as enhanced over time. Result: a claim that may or may not be valid, depending on how the evidence eventually plays out, but which is potentially credible if the evidence of a true partnership sticks. In switching the claim from one primarily against FB as a company to one against Mr. Zuckerberg alone, DLA Piper has put it on much firmer ground and has created possible winning chances for its client. How it will likely play out will no longer be determined by one knock-out punch from FB but, instead, in the trenches, with hand-to-hand fighting over every piece of evidence and every fine legal point. That is a decidedly bad turn for Mr. Zuckerberg. The case remains problematic at several levels, not the least of which may be statutes of limitations grounds on the new theories (New York lawyers can assess this). Before we cheer too loudly for Mr. Ceglia, I would note that I have seen many, many situations over the years in which a less-than-attractive "money guy" does indeed exploit founders at the formative stage and the contract here appears to fit within that mode - in essence, a lifetime claim against a founder concerning the subject matter of an engagement in exchange for a token money contribution. Whatever one may think of Mr. Zuckerberg, this is utterly repulsive and will serve as a drag on Mr. Ceglia's case throughout.