This is obviously a "troll" case that is getting undue attention and credibility by DLA Piper's representation. To prevent these type of cases in the future, we

This is obviously a "troll" case that is getting undue attention and credibility by DLA Piper's representation. To prevent these type of cases in the future, we, as entrepreneurs, should not give business to DLA Piper and other firms that take on cases like this to make the point that this is not ok. That DLA Piper has taken on the case doesn't mean that the claim is credible. It only means that they deemed the case credible enough that Facebook likely will try to kill the case with a big settlement and DLA Piper will get a large chunk of that because they probably represent Ceglia on contingency basis. The bigger problem is that by taking on the case, DLA Piper has made the claim appear more credible not only because of their skillful lawyering, but also because of their reputation. But the fact still remains that this is a "troll" case. Zuckerberg built Facebook and implemented his idea to make it big, and it's rather unfortunate if the outdated "general partnership" business structure could be applied to an internet company in this way. It appears that while DLA Piper can use its reputation to make the case more credible, the fact that the firm took on a "troll" case doesn't affect its reputation, though it should. When a small law firm that is struggling for its survival takes on questionable cases that is one thing, but DLA Piper has a choice even in a bad economy.