Please let this guy win.
Would also be funny if, on winning, he had a business card made along the lines of "Zuckerberg is my bitch!".
So it may not be "completely frivolous" after all. A lawyer for Mark Zuckerberg has admitted he did have a contract with Paul Ceglia, a New York wood fuel salesman who claims he owns 84 per cent of Facebook as a result. "Mr Zuckerberg did have a contract with Mr Ceglia," Facebook lawyer Lisa Simpson told a federal court …
it's more than likely you'll turn up as a character in a TV show, movie, book or comic. Simpson is certainly a common surname, and while Homer and Bartholomew aren't high on the list of common forenames, Lisa and Margaret certainly are. There's likely hundreds if not thousands of Lisa and Margaret Simpsons getting around who have had to wear the connection with the iconic TV show for the past couple of decades. This is why movies and suchlike productions generally carry a disclaimer in the credits along the lines of, "This is a work of fiction and any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental."
Even my name isn't immune. Imagine my stunned surprise one day when I opened a comic book and found a strip describing my namesake as an "intrepid photographer" with a faithful sidekick named Chief Wahoo... I definitely had to do a double-take on that one!
(It does, however, confer the advantage that anyone trying to Google my name is likely to stumble across pages of comic strips and fan art before getting to anything I might be responsible for, an advantage I'm sure that Lisa Simpson, Facebook lawyer, also considers adequate compensation for sharing a name with a famous character!)
Posit 1) Mark Zuckerberg has taken liberties with people his entire life on his way to Social Network domination.
Posit 2) People with a passing relationship have become envious of his success and 'want a piece'.
On the one hand he doesn't seem like a particularly pleasant individual but on the the other the media love to find those 'feet of clay'.
One the one hand he paid $65 million to make a nuisance claim go away on the other this guy has a 'written contract'.
Oh wait, posiit 3) I don't give a sh*t!!
Oh sweet poetic justice! Just as Facebook screws you up by never letting you forget your past, Zuckerberg get's a taste of the medicine too. No matter what you do on the internet, no matter if you only leave a single typed in character, you leave something. That something, could be used against you later on. Much later on!
If this document is pukka, reminds me of the scene from the Simpsons where Mr Burn's lawyers all state in unison, "That's it, the old guy's screwed! Let's get out of here!"
Now give him the 84% like you promised.
Otherwise what precedent are we setting... that it's perfectly okay to get rich by breaking a whole lot of promises, stealing, lying, exploiting your business partners & your customers and generally being a complete sociopath?
Oh wait... didn't this already happen with Microsoft? Looks like the only freedom America actually cares about is the freedom to commit as much white collar crime as you like.
Apart from the fact that the lawyers are currently disputing the authenticity of the contract that this suit is based on, what does the contract actually say?
Based on the story, it was to create an electronic year book, which was supposedly delivered.
Unless the contract lays claim to any derivative works, then it does rather look like the contract was fulfilled and the guy may not have a claim, maybe not even for trademark infringement.
So what if Zuckerberg happens to be a lying weasel who got lucky and ended up as a multi-millionaire? Does that make it right for another weasel to wander along with a possibly spurious claim and take it all without any dispute?
I you think so, then I have a contract signed by you that grants me 84% of all of your current assets and earnings. Pay up.
The other contract was for the delivered product... the SECOND $1000.00 which was "invested" (and supposedly has this contract with) was for the site that became facebook.com.
Now, if the contract was for the original site, and does not specify anything about the "invested" site, then this guy is SOL. If it *is*... cha-ching.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if the claim is true. The gigs section on craigslist is overflowing with "we need a web site fast" ads, but the developer has to have the right "entrepreneurial" spirit. Translation: we don't intend to pay you with anything other than vague promises about sharing in the wealth when the site hits the big time.
I find it intriguing that the lawyer said she was not sure if the document was authentic. You mean he was not sure whether he took the guys money and signed a contract.
So you are sure the document is not authentic but "Whether [Zuckerberg] signed this piece of paper, we're unsure at this moment,"
Ok maybe he signed the same contract with a few hundred people and only one person was sensible to keep a copy or reproduce a copy.
So what if this was a standard teaser on al the contracting gigs he did? I can see scores of employers furiously rummaging through old files to see if they've also got a golden ticket to the (other) chocolate factory. The there's the prospect of these scores of employers lining up to claim their own 84% of Facebook.
That's not a gravy splotch in the shape of a helicopter, it's Mark's signature.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021