5 ms·

Winklevoss Twins Will Appeal Facebook Case to Supreme Court

28 points by ssclafani 15y ago

adrianwaj 15y ago
Throwing tantrums in the name of justice, but really it's for glory, yet the the glory is parasitic. Would you do business with these guys? Mark was right.
vessenes 15y ago
Why would the Supreme Court hear this? Is there anything novel about this case? I haven't read all the filings, but I'm just not aware of something unusual / precedent setting here. It would be stunning if it's each party's responsibility to make sure that the other has absolutely no misconceptions in a settlement, and as far as I can tell, that's really the only question on the table, right? The winklevoss twins would be better off suing counsel for not doing due diligence on the cap table, I'd guess. I suppose counsel doesn't have billions floating around, though.
ujjvala 15y ago
I think they are actually like the movie.
- michaelpinto 15y ago
  I'm wondering now if the film toned them down a bit to make them more believable...
- juiceandjuice 15y ago
  Yeah, Sorkin got that part right.
- tlrobinson 15y ago
  I've talked to a few people who have encountered them and they confirm this.
oldstrangers 15y ago
At some point you'd think these guys would just want to move on with their lives and enjoy their millions of dollars. But no, perpetual court dates are some how more appealing. I wish someone would sue them for wasting everyone's times.
- gvnonor 15y ago
  Exactly. They have a Harvard education, more riches than they could spend in a lifetime and still all they want to do with their lives is act like money-grubbing losers.
  - getsat 15y ago
    > more riches than they could spend in a lifetime I don't think this is true of anyone, even Warren Buffett or Bill Gates. It's really difficult to let someone get away with stealing from you. The Winkelvoss twins may feel they've been legitimately slighted, since it would seem they're not just in it for the cash.
    - gvnonor 15y ago
      > I don't think this is true of anyone, even Warren Buffett or Bill Gates. I meant that as a figure of speech of course :) > It's really difficult to let someone get away with stealing from you. The Winkelvoss twins may feel they've been legitimately slighted, since it would seem they're not just in it for the cash Yes it must hurt, but they received adequate compensation. The point however is that they could be doing something more productive with their time. They'll go nowhere trying to bring Zuckerberg or Facebook down. After The Social Network portrayed them in a good light and Zuckerberg as a thief, you'd think they'd feel vindicated. But that hasn't stopped them from throwing more lawsuits demanding money.
    - bradleyland 15y ago
      "It's really difficult to let someone get away with stealing from you." While that is true, "feeling" slighted is no excuse for the colossal waste of time they're afflicting upon our court system and Facebook as a company. I have personal experience sitting across the table from a plaintiff who refuses to come to grips with reality. They "believe" they were wronged, despite the evidence, despite the rulings, and despite common sense. Litigation expenses have become a tax that we have to pay in order to conduct business. It's maddeningly frustrating to write checks to lawyers for tens of thousands of dollars, knowing that the time, energy, and money could have gone in to your product. What I'm getting at is, it is equally, if not more, frustrating to sit where Mark Zuckerberg's is. The Winkelvoss twins don't get a pass from me for being complete douchebags, just because they "feel" wronged.
daimyoyo 15y ago
Once this is rejected by the supreme court, I hope Facebook takes every dime they have to cover it's legal fees from this nearly decade long waste of court resources. Don't get me wrong, I truly believe that Mark screwed them over while he was building Facebook but they got a decent settlement out of it(odds are much more than they would have if they'd actually ran Harvard Connection) and yet their greed won't let them enjoy the tens of millions they have. Sometimes it's better to just take the deal and move on with your life.
blhack 15y ago
I wonder if they realize how foolish they look. In my social circle, Winklevoss has become a verb. It means to take more than your fair share of something, or to try to screw somebody over. "dude you said you'd help move on saturday; don't Winklevoss me on this" Or "Stop Winklevossing all of the beer."
- fungi 15y ago
  i've heard the opposite about how great they are for doing nothing and making god knows how much from it.
- Bootvis 15y ago
  On the other hand: it looks they have been done wrong by Zuckerberg and are seeking justice. Although I would be on a beach if I was one of them...
  - JasonMoyMN79 15y ago
    no, they're just retards
  - keane 15y ago
    I'm not sure it does look that way. As Sorkin writes "MARK: The 'Winklevii' aren't suing me for intellectual property theft. They're suing me because for the first time in their lives, things didn't go exactly the way they were supposed to for them." They were incredibly lucky to get the settlement they did and for them to consider risking that, or at minimum legal fees, seems very foolish. Also Sorkin: MARK: Did I use any of your code? DIVYA: You stole our whole goddam idea! […] MARK: Match-dot-com for Harvard guys? […] MARK: You know you really don’t need a forensic team to get to the bottom of this. If you guys were the inventors of Facebook you’d have invented Facebook.
    - starpilot 15y ago
      Why are you quoting invented dialogue?
thinkcomp 15y ago
My settlement was negotiated by the same mediator, so this is of interest insofar as it might shed some light on how strong his rather informal style is. I've been told that it's pretty strong. Now if only they could both lose...
- phlux 15y ago
  You can see in my HN comment history that I have no love for neither the twins nor MZ -- but I have to wonder if their perpetual legal battle is egged on by the lawyers who stand to gain much but lose nothing should this continue. The twins could lose (everything?) a lot should this be thrown out. I think the lawyers are pushing for this all the way...
joshu 15y ago
i've been avoiding it, but is it worth seeing the movie?
- tlrobinson 15y ago
  I enjoyed it. The soundtrack (composed by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) is awesome too.
- ramanujan 15y ago
  Absolutely, 100%. Strongest possible recommendation. It's rare that what we do here makes it to the big screen. Even emacs gets name checked, accurately.
  - s1rech 15y ago
    I might have to see the movie just to see emacs mentioned and giggle like a schoolgirl.
- jf 15y ago
  It's good if you treat it as historical fiction.
adrianwaj 15y ago
Here's a thought for the judge: at the time Mark supposedly stole their idea, he wouldn't have thought he was stealing $50 Billion, and the Winklevii wouldn't have thought it was worth $50 Billion. Let's say they had $10 million on average in their minds. Given that the Winklevii, as far as I can see, have done squat in the meantime online, or of any achievement, had the pair worked together as they had hoped they may have been lucky to exit on $2 million, if that, and it would've been on Mark's doing. The pair should get $1 million between them, and then they should be penalized for wasting legal resources that could've been put to better use. They deserve Zilch, and their awards so far confiscated. Mark could help pay for legal costs, because it was his actions that led to the dispute.
marcin 15y ago
I'm sure there are some lawyers doing it just on a success fee basis. The stakes are def high enough. Marcin / http://linkfindr.com http://linkfindr.com
- rimantas 15y ago
  Please don't sign comments, especially with your url. They're already signed with your username. If other users want to learn more about you, they can click on it to see your profile. Source: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - marcin 15y ago
    yeah, already got that under another post - sorry :)
ary 15y ago
Since pointing fingers at the Winklevoss twins is a common theme in these threads I'll just post at the top. Regardless of who's side you're on in this you have to accept that the value of what's contested (who came up with / owns / started Facebook) is worth much, much more than ~$65 million (the original settlement amount). Call it greed or call it white-collar entitlement, but these guys seem serious about seeing it all the way through. Who wouldn't? No sane lawyer is going to advise them to settle for a fraction of what they might actually have a legal right to. Too much money is on the table. The crux of the argument (for me personally) is whether or not these guys hired Zuckerberg to build the original version of what became Facebook. I've not read up enough to be convinced either way, but again, lawyers will weigh the options and advise accordingly. At the end of it there will at least be some more case law around who-owns-what under similar circumstances.
- edanm 15y ago
  "Regardless of who's side you're on in this you have to accept that the value of what's contested (who came up with / owns / started Facebook) is worth much, much more than ~$65 million (the original settlement amount). " If you mean the value of Facebook, of course it's worth more. But nobody would give them the entire value of Facebook, not even close. They settled because, apparently, their lawyers thought it was the best deal they were going to get. Otherwise why settle in the first place? They're not trying to get the settlement undone because they didn't like the settlement itself. They're just claiming that Facebook lied about how much money exactly they were getting as part of the settlement. "No sane lawyer is going to advise them to settle for a fraction of what they might actually have a legal right to. Too much money is on the table." Well first of all they did settle, originally. And by the way, they refused to pay their first lawyers (who did the settling) for 2 years. Recently, a judge ordered them to pay their lawyers. "The crux of the argument (for me personally) is whether or not these guys hired Zuckerberg to build the original version of what became Facebook." They did hire Zuckerberg to build their site. This is not contested. I'm pretty sure it's also uncontested that Zuckerberg didn't copy any of their code or anything. How similar the two ideas are is something that's pretty hard to say, though.
  - 15y ago
stretchwithme 15y ago
you took the deal. suck it up.

28 points by ssclafani 15y ago

Throwing tantrums in the name of justice, but really it's for glory, yet the the glory is parasitic. Would you do business with these guys? Mark was right.

vessenes 15y ago

Why would the Supreme Court hear this? Is there anything novel about this case? I haven't read all the filings, but I'm just not aware of something unusual / precedent setting here. It would be stunning if it's each party's responsibility to make sure that the other has absolutely no misconceptions in a settlement, and as far as I can tell, that's really the only question on the table, right? The winklevoss twins would be better off suing counsel for not doing due diligence on the cap table, I'd guess. I suppose counsel doesn't have billions floating around, though.

ujjvala 15y ago

I think they are actually like the movie.

michaelpinto 15y ago
I'm wondering now if the film toned them down a bit to make them more believable...
juiceandjuice 15y ago
Yeah, Sorkin got that part right.
tlrobinson 15y ago
I've talked to a few people who have encountered them and they confirm this.

oldstrangers 15y ago

At some point you'd think these guys would just want to move on with their lives and enjoy their millions of dollars. But no, perpetual court dates are some how more appealing. I wish someone would sue them for wasting everyone's times.

gvnonor 15y ago
Exactly. They have a Harvard education, more riches than they could spend in a lifetime and still all they want to do with their lives is act like money-grubbing losers.
- getsat 15y ago
  > more riches than they could spend in a lifetime I don't think this is true of anyone, even Warren Buffett or Bill Gates. It's really difficult to let someone get away with stealing from you. The Winkelvoss twins may feel they've been legitimately slighted, since it would seem they're not just in it for the cash.
  - gvnonor 15y ago
    > I don't think this is true of anyone, even Warren Buffett or Bill Gates. I meant that as a figure of speech of course :) > It's really difficult to let someone get away with stealing from you. The Winkelvoss twins may feel they've been legitimately slighted, since it would seem they're not just in it for the cash Yes it must hurt, but they received adequate compensation. The point however is that they could be doing something more productive with their time. They'll go nowhere trying to bring Zuckerberg or Facebook down. After The Social Network portrayed them in a good light and Zuckerberg as a thief, you'd think they'd feel vindicated. But that hasn't stopped them from throwing more lawsuits demanding money.
  - bradleyland 15y ago
    "It's really difficult to let someone get away with stealing from you." While that is true, "feeling" slighted is no excuse for the colossal waste of time they're afflicting upon our court system and Facebook as a company. I have personal experience sitting across the table from a plaintiff who refuses to come to grips with reality. They "believe" they were wronged, despite the evidence, despite the rulings, and despite common sense. Litigation expenses have become a tax that we have to pay in order to conduct business. It's maddeningly frustrating to write checks to lawyers for tens of thousands of dollars, knowing that the time, energy, and money could have gone in to your product. What I'm getting at is, it is equally, if not more, frustrating to sit where Mark Zuckerberg's is. The Winkelvoss twins don't get a pass from me for being complete douchebags, just because they "feel" wronged.

daimyoyo 15y ago

Once this is rejected by the supreme court, I hope Facebook takes every dime they have to cover it's legal fees from this nearly decade long waste of court resources. Don't get me wrong, I truly believe that Mark screwed them over while he was building Facebook but they got a decent settlement out of it(odds are much more than they would have if they'd actually ran Harvard Connection) and yet their greed won't let them enjoy the tens of millions they have. Sometimes it's better to just take the deal and move on with your life.

blhack 15y ago

I wonder if they realize how foolish they look. In my social circle, Winklevoss has become a verb. It means to take more than your fair share of something, or to try to screw somebody over. "dude you said you'd help move on saturday; don't Winklevoss me on this" Or "Stop Winklevossing all of the beer."

fungi 15y ago
i've heard the opposite about how great they are for doing nothing and making god knows how much from it.
Bootvis 15y ago
On the other hand: it looks they have been done wrong by Zuckerberg and are seeking justice. Although I would be on a beach if I was one of them...
- JasonMoyMN79 15y ago
  no, they're just retards
- keane 15y ago
  I'm not sure it does look that way. As Sorkin writes "MARK: The 'Winklevii' aren't suing me for intellectual property theft. They're suing me because for the first time in their lives, things didn't go exactly the way they were supposed to for them." They were incredibly lucky to get the settlement they did and for them to consider risking that, or at minimum legal fees, seems very foolish. Also Sorkin: MARK: Did I use any of your code? DIVYA: You stole our whole goddam idea! […] MARK: Match-dot-com for Harvard guys? […] MARK: You know you really don’t need a forensic team to get to the bottom of this. If you guys were the inventors of Facebook you’d have invented Facebook.
  - starpilot 15y ago
    Why are you quoting invented dialogue?

thinkcomp 15y ago

My settlement was negotiated by the same mediator, so this is of interest insofar as it might shed some light on how strong his rather informal style is. I've been told that it's pretty strong. Now if only they could both lose...

phlux 15y ago
You can see in my HN comment history that I have no love for neither the twins nor MZ -- but I have to wonder if their perpetual legal battle is egged on by the lawyers who stand to gain much but lose nothing should this continue. The twins could lose (everything?) a lot should this be thrown out. I think the lawyers are pushing for this all the way...

joshu 15y ago

i've been avoiding it, but is it worth seeing the movie?

tlrobinson 15y ago
I enjoyed it. The soundtrack (composed by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) is awesome too.
ramanujan 15y ago
Absolutely, 100%. Strongest possible recommendation. It's rare that what we do here makes it to the big screen. Even emacs gets name checked, accurately.
- s1rech 15y ago
  I might have to see the movie just to see emacs mentioned and giggle like a schoolgirl.
jf 15y ago
It's good if you treat it as historical fiction.

adrianwaj 15y ago

Here's a thought for the judge: at the time Mark supposedly stole their idea, he wouldn't have thought he was stealing $50 Billion, and the Winklevii wouldn't have thought it was worth $50 Billion. Let's say they had $10 million on average in their minds. Given that the Winklevii, as far as I can see, have done squat in the meantime online, or of any achievement, had the pair worked together as they had hoped they may have been lucky to exit on $2 million, if that, and it would've been on Mark's doing. The pair should get $1 million between them, and then they should be penalized for wasting legal resources that could've been put to better use. They deserve Zilch, and their awards so far confiscated. Mark could help pay for legal costs, because it was his actions that led to the dispute.

marcin 15y ago

I'm sure there are some lawyers doing it just on a success fee basis. The stakes are def high enough. Marcin / http://linkfindr.com http://linkfindr.com

rimantas 15y ago
Please don't sign comments, especially with your url. They're already signed with your username. If other users want to learn more about you, they can click on it to see your profile. Source: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- marcin 15y ago
  yeah, already got that under another post - sorry :)

ary 15y ago

Since pointing fingers at the Winklevoss twins is a common theme in these threads I'll just post at the top. Regardless of who's side you're on in this you have to accept that the value of what's contested (who came up with / owns / started Facebook) is worth much, much more than ~$65 million (the original settlement amount). Call it greed or call it white-collar entitlement, but these guys seem serious about seeing it all the way through. Who wouldn't? No sane lawyer is going to advise them to settle for a fraction of what they might actually have a legal right to. Too much money is on the table. The crux of the argument (for me personally) is whether or not these guys hired Zuckerberg to build the original version of what became Facebook. I've not read up enough to be convinced either way, but again, lawyers will weigh the options and advise accordingly. At the end of it there will at least be some more case law around who-owns-what under similar circumstances.

edanm 15y ago
"Regardless of who's side you're on in this you have to accept that the value of what's contested (who came up with / owns / started Facebook) is worth much, much more than ~$65 million (the original settlement amount). " If you mean the value of Facebook, of course it's worth more. But nobody would give them the entire value of Facebook, not even close. They settled because, apparently, their lawyers thought it was the best deal they were going to get. Otherwise why settle in the first place? They're not trying to get the settlement undone because they didn't like the settlement itself. They're just claiming that Facebook lied about how much money exactly they were getting as part of the settlement. "No sane lawyer is going to advise them to settle for a fraction of what they might actually have a legal right to. Too much money is on the table." Well first of all they did settle, originally. And by the way, they refused to pay their first lawyers (who did the settling) for 2 years. Recently, a judge ordered them to pay their lawyers. "The crux of the argument (for me personally) is whether or not these guys hired Zuckerberg to build the original version of what became Facebook." They did hire Zuckerberg to build their site. This is not contested. I'm pretty sure it's also uncontested that Zuckerberg didn't copy any of their code or anything. How similar the two ideas are is something that's pretty hard to say, though.
- 15y ago

stretchwithme 15y ago

you took the deal. suck it up.