A few thoughts: 1. When Ceglia first filed his claims, I called it a "lawsuit full of holes [that was] built up by sensationalist reporting into a supposed maj

A few thoughts: 1. When Ceglia first filed his claims, I called it a "lawsuit full of holes [that was] built up by sensationalist reporting into a supposed major threat to Facebook and to Mr. Zuckerberg" and concluded that, "in the courts, this thing is going nowhere." (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1537158 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1537158) My sense of this had nothing to do with any fraudulent tampering with evidence as alleged now in the criminal prosecution but instead with the whole smell of the thing: a flaky 2-page contract with basically incoherent terms used as a basis for a lawsuit brought by a backwater lawyer who drafted a complaint that would have been an embarrassment to a first-year law student. It looked like a joke on the face of it, notwithstanding that a small-town judge had initially entered a TRO based on the filing. 2. Then, in April, 2011, this case looked like it had taken a major turn: Ceglia had dumped his original lawyer and retained the prestigious firm of DLA Piper; he also produced a mountain of emails "documenting" that he and Mr. Zuckerberg had, in effect, entered into a legal partnership giving him a major ownership piece in the FB venture; he also (via the lawyers) put together a compelling story in his complaint making it appear that FB and Mr. Zuckerberg were in deep legal trouble concerning his claims. (Here is my comment at the time: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2438063 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2438063) Once again, there was a sensationalist wave of reporting across the web rejoicing about how Mark Zuckerberg was about to get his comeuppance. 3. Since that time, through the work of very able lawyers for Facebook, the Ceglia case has been progressively torn to shreds in the federal court to which it had been removed and, as the case has disintegrated, it has drawn progressively less interest (the DLA firm withdrew at the first sign of serious trouble). Indeed, without the dramatic turn of a federal criminal indictment, I doubt that it would done more than draw a few yawns as it eventually headed to the judicial graveyard where most flaky cases ultimately find their rest. 4. The lesson here is how prejudice and crowd-think can dramatically affect and distort perceptions. When someone takes on the role of villain (as Mr. Zuckerberg has in some circles), there are those who so desperately want to see him torn down that they will suspend their better judgment just to see it happen, whether he was right or wrong in what he had done. This is not to excuse him in things he may have done wrong in other contexts, but he had done nothing wrong here and it is just amazing to me how many people were willing to take it as a given that he had even with little or no evidence to back it up. 5. The other (major) lesson here is that there are serious limits to playing fast and loose with the courts. It is true that there is much abusive litigation but there is obviously a line that cannot be crossed without inviting horrific consequences. It doesn't happen often enough that abusive litigants get what they deserve but, when it does occasionally happen, it is very nice to see. At least it sets an outer bound on what people can do to abuse one another in the courts.