

Winklevoss Twins Will Appeal Facebook Case to Supreme Court - ssclafani
http://networkeffect.allthingsd.com/20110516/winklevii-go-for-gold-say-theyll-take-facebook-case-to-the-supreme-court/

======
blhack
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."

~~~
Bootvis
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...

~~~
tlrobinson
It's probably true Zuckerberg broke some contracts and maybe stole some IP,
but the Winklevi seem to think that if Mark Zuckerberg never existed _they_
would have been able to build Facebook into the company it currently is
therefore they're entitled to X% of Facebook's current value, which is
completely ridiculous.

So far the only thing proved is they had an idea similar to Facebook (as did
probably dozens or hundreds of other people at the time) and they're [kind of]
good at filing lawsuits. If they want to be known for anything except "those
guys who almost-but-not-really created Facebook" they should move on and build
their own great company with their $100M+ from the settlement.

But they won't, because they know they can't.

~~~
Bootvis
You're probably right about that but the fact remains: Zuckerberg did them
wrong, we don't know what would have happenend and someone in a similar
position made billions with their idea and strategy. How they hypthetically
would have executed if they had hired someone trusthworthy should hardly
matter in a court.

------
oldstrangers
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
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
> 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
> 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.

------
daimyoyo
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.

------
adrianwaj
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.

------
vessenes
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.

------
adrianwaj
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.

------
ary
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
"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.

~~~
ary
First off, I never said the _entire_ value, but meant to point out that their
potential stake could be worth far more than $65 million. According to the
linked article they're claiming Facebook lied about its value at the time of
the settlement, and they they're entitled to an amount promised based on its
true valuation.

Your point about _what_ they hired him to do is closer to what I was getting
at, but I suppose that point seems clear enough given that they came to a
settlement.

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

~~~
ramanujan
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
I might have to see the movie just to see emacs mentioned and giggle like a
schoolgirl.

------
thinkcomp
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
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...

------
stretchwithme
you took the deal. suck it up.

------
ujjvala
I think they are actually like the movie.

~~~
michaelpinto
I'm wondering now if the film toned them down a bit to make them more
believable...

------
marcin
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>

~~~
rimantas

      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>

~~~
marcin
yeah, already got that under another post - sorry :)

