Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Mr. Baby Man
26689 Followers
Janine Kahn
6178 Followers
beatnut2k4
4852 Followers
Sheryl Hodge
784 Followers
Back on Digg
4081 Followers
Muhammad Ihsan
541 Followers
badqatJul 23, 2010
Couldn't happen to a douchier guy than Zuckerberg.
jboitnottJul 23, 2010
karma is a bitch... or at least hopefully will be in this case. Imagine how happy everyone will be to see Zuck bend over.
6502samJul 24, 2010
Old saying:
Opportunity knocks.
Karma hunts you down.
Closed AccountJul 24, 2010
i came here to write the exact same thing.
dcjoedogv2Jul 24, 2010
C'mon, now I can't write that.
xnorwaksJul 24, 2010
But what about The Social Network guys? So what your telling me is that that movie is actually not 100% factual /s
beastofgevaudanJul 24, 2010
What about it? Unless you know something I don't, the trailers for that movie makes him seem like a dick.
v1rukJul 24, 2010
He owes me money for The Face Book!
jkalJul 24, 2010
@Zuckerberg
you dun goofed, consequences will never be the same.
gefahrJul 24, 2010
this contract backtracked him.
gators1591Jul 24, 2010
Mark f**kerberg
threonJul 24, 2010
Like
logicallygeniusJul 24, 2010
Liar must pay , sold our data, now you are on sale.
aaricusJul 24, 2010
Yep the guy has no morals as far as I can see. Scum of the earth to be violating peoples privacy like he did so many times and for so long for personal gain.
domingosantunesJul 24, 2010
His new business card will be " I was the CEO, bitch".
kufurexJul 23, 2010
When Zuckerberg saw this document, he shat bricks.
johnnyp11Jul 24, 2010
Like
gefahrJul 24, 2010
After years, I can like your comment now too.
skillelJul 24, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
jkalJul 24, 2010
nah, he took his hoddie off and said, "I'm ok, no really no problem", but inside he is dying.
kanockJul 24, 2010
Surely he has always know it has existed... he did sign it after all.
precalJul 23, 2010
I don't know if Zuckerberg actually signed that contract or not but something seems very odd here. For one, why would he need $1000? Keep in mind that according to David Kirkpatrick's book "The Facebook Effect" pg. 38, "By the end of March [2004]...Thefacebook was paying $450 per month for five servers from Manage.com. Zuckerberg and Saverin each agreed to invest another $10,000 into the company." So, what is $1000 going to do for a bill of $450/month, and not only did Eduardo Saverin have $10,000 to invest in theFacebook but so did Zuckerberg. Also, this wasn't the last time Zuckerberg invested his own money in theFacebook. So what gives? There is a whole lot to this story that people are not paying attention to. Again, Zuckerberg may have signed the contract, but it does not make logical sense that he would.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mflynn00Jul 24, 2010
rtfa
uthmanJul 24, 2010
seriously, as mflynn00 said.
besides, it doesn't matter what mark needed the g for. he could have used it to treat some harvard chicks out to dinner, for all it's worth. the real issue is the legitimacy of the contract.
crossmrJul 24, 2010
"Mark Zuckerberg signed in 2003 with upstate New York wood-pellet vendor"
He signed the contract long before March 2004. When he signed it $1000 was a big deal. The site wasn't even launched.
You and 11 other diggers are morons.
chesdougJul 24, 2010
The more important question to me is where has this guy been the past couple of years. If I had a document giving me 84% of Facebook I would have been cashing in a long time ago.
thegreat0neJul 24, 2010
He could be estimating that it's peaking right now.
mikes1Jul 24, 2010
If MZ didn't need the money, then why did he accept a $1000 contract for development of Streetfax, which would only take time away from development of The Face Book? Facebook's lawyers have already admitted to a business relationship.
youngpreproJul 23, 2010
This is so funnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!
milsorgnJul 23, 2010
The guy is a dirtbag and it's highly unlikely this contract will hold up or is even real. But hey stranger things have happened!
robdiggityJul 24, 2010
Nope, check again. Nothing quite so strange as a multi-billion dollar property changing hands over so trivial and flippant a contract has ever happened.
marx2kJul 24, 2010
Sorry, what makes this guy a dirtbag?
hopnivaranceJul 24, 2010
He might have been referring to this:
"In 2009, New York's Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo accused Mr. Ceglia of defrauding customers of his wood-pellet fuel company, according to a news release from the Attorney General's office.
The state claimed that he took more than $200,000 from consumers and then failed to deliver any products or refunds. The wood-pellet case is ongoing."
source: http://tinyurl.com/2d27e6m
marx2kJul 24, 2010
True, might have been a reference to that. I guess we won't ever know :(
salinungathaJul 23, 2010
I have a contract with "Paul" that he would give me 90% of any legal settlements he gets.
kantenJul 24, 2010
After turning Facebook from a student social site into a spam-ridden, application whoring stalker paradise, I'd say it's at least partially karma.
jkalJul 24, 2010
After *stealing Facebook from a student social site into a spam-ridden, application whoring stalker paradise, I'd say it's at least partially karma.
-fixedComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
araytaJul 24, 2010
That doesn't even make sense the way you worded it.
atarioJul 24, 2010
Ideal outcome: the guy doesn't settle, takes this through every court necessary, gains majority ownership, closes down Facebook, and buys his own island somewhere.
egemenborJul 24, 2010
things went south after they decided it would be best to allow anyone and everyone without a .edu address to be able to sign up for facebook..before that it was perfect..no apps no stupid tests no parents trying to add you...a nice clean layout on the front page..good times..
centranJul 24, 2010
you added your classes and saw people in them without needing a stupid third party app that no one uses.
whaaamoJul 24, 2010
I block people who use apps, thus never have to worry about them : \
Closed AccountJul 24, 2010
Why do you feel like Facebook owes you something? You don't even pay anything for it. I get fed up with people that feel that a company or someone owes them a decent product or service. If you think you can do it better, go for it. I'm sure everyone will be happy with the way you run s**t.
In my opinion, if Zuckerberg wanted to just shut down Facebook today on a whim, with no notice, he should be able to do so. The only people he owes anything to are the people who have invested money into advertising.
analjusticeJul 24, 2010
"stalker paradise" oh no that's definitely not what you were using facebook for.
polynikes8Jul 24, 2010
Poor guy, he's only left when hundreds of millions of dollars now.
tgc1Jul 24, 2010
Yeah, I can't imagine being able to live with only a few million. Must really make him stay up late at night worrying how he'll pay his bills.
/s
lewystudJul 24, 2010
he would only be left with about 5 billion rather than 10
pfhayterJul 24, 2010
Math isn't your strong suit is it, it isn't mine either but lets give it a go.
Currently FB is valued at ~$4Billion and 84% of that should be $3 360 000 000 or $3.36Billion.
Therefore, $4Billion - $3.36Billion = $640 000 000.... If hope my math is right (it probably isn't) and I hope Mark chokes on a 0.05c candy.
/sourgrapes
/mathlesson
/douchycomment
l0nerJul 24, 2010
There was a check attached to the contract. If that check was deposited in Mark's account, I'm pretty sure he has a problem.
mikes1Jul 24, 2010
Although, interestingly, the contract spells out two different deals - a $1000 one for development of Streetfax, and another $1000 for the Facebook deal. But, there's only a single $1000 check documented in the court filing. So where's the other one? How do you prove which deal that one was for? Why not a $2000 check to cover both deals?
alsazenJul 24, 2010
I guess if Streetfax was delivered, then the cheque would have to have been for that
cl1mh4224rdJul 24, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
thahmzJul 24, 2010
What would happen if he sent an invite to everyone who uses Facebook to turn around to his newly created version?
rudegarJul 24, 2010
nothing
darkphenoxJul 24, 2010
Zuckerburg is not what adds value to facebook what makes everyone stay is most of their friends are on it.
pw378Jul 24, 2010
I thought it was Farmville.
darkphenoxJul 24, 2010
Farmville lost a lot of its players one month its not as strong as it once was.
l0nerJul 24, 2010
This dirtbag's best bet is to take a cash settlement. I would bet that young, naive zuckerburg took the cash and signed the contract, but this guy did nothing to make facebook what it is. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hipmanJul 24, 2010
That's not really the point.
tsothaJul 24, 2010
Doesn't matter. This is why you read the things you sign. There's an entire venture capital business model built on this concept.
My guess is Zuckerberg will try to claim "the face book" referenced in the contract is some business venture distinct from Facebook. That's gonna be a hard sell in court, though.
marx2kJul 24, 2010
What makes him a dirtbag?
jasoncoxJul 24, 2010
Here's how it's going to work out, Facebook and Zuckerberg is going to pay this dude a couple million and he's going to go away. That simple. Yeah, Zuckerberg aint that nice of a guy but think about it, we at least know what Zuck wants to do with our data, just imagine what might happen to our data if this guys takes control of the company or what may happen during the transition process as security gets lax and employees who are looking at losing millions in stock options start possibly pulling data to sell on the shady back alleys of the Internet.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jdexJul 24, 2010
If by 'couple' you mean 'many', and by 'aint that nice of a guy' you mean 'is an epic prick', and by 'start possibly pulling data to sell' you mean 'increases the volume of data sold'... you're sooo right.
deathfiredJul 24, 2010
I'm pretty sure Mark would bat s**t crazy and "accidentally" delete the database along with the backups. There's no way a guy that's invested so much money and time into a project is just going to hand over his baby to someone that contributed just a grand.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jkalJul 24, 2010
What happens to "our data" has nothing to do with this contract, the guy could be a very nice person or a complete assh**e it does not change the fact that he is (if contract is real) entitled to hi percentage.
omnirusaJul 24, 2010
Yeaaaa... because a case of this magnitude, clearly all that shady s**t would go down without anyone noticing. Considering all of facebook's assets are already frozen.
Employee's will just grab data... you have no idea how anything works do you?
thefirewireJul 24, 2010
thefirewire likes this
shaggy6sterJul 24, 2010
f**k Facebook.
1b2aJul 24, 2010
Facef**k Book.
thvkJul 24, 2010
As James Taylor once said, "f**k Facebook in the Face!"
enantiodromiaJul 24, 2010
he did say that. +1
jon02129Jul 24, 2010
f**k-face book.
themachine1Jul 24, 2010
I'm not sure which of these douchebag crooks I should route for.
bloodwineJul 24, 2010
I'm rooting for Paul Ceglia. It is not as if he could do any more damage to our privacy and data than Zuckerberg, and we get to see Zuckerberg crash and burn in the process.
docholiday22Jul 24, 2010
The only thing to be concerned of right now is that Paul wimps out and settles for an out of court settlement and we don't get to see a fight.
mojohacker2010Jul 24, 2010
It doesn't matter if the contract is real or not...that guy isn't going to get any where near 84%...he would be lucky to get a few million from it...which would be enough for him I guess. The Facebook today is not the one that existed when they signed the contract. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hipmanJul 24, 2010
Ya that's a meaningless point that has no bearing on the contracts validity.
majorisJul 24, 2010
Forgery or not, the statute of limitations on contracts in New York is 6 years. The Face Book was 'due' in January of 2004, whatever that means. This guy only filed recently. I think he's boned.
@hipman: I mean, it's certainly relevant if Mark worked on two versions of 'The Face Book', one that is worth billions and another that is worth nothing, with the contract covering the latter. Probably not what happened here though.
bloodwineJul 24, 2010
"Unless Facebook can easily prove that this contract is a forgery or get the lawsuit dismissed on a technicality, it will likely lead to a settlement that will make Paul Ceglia a very rich man."
Call me a cynic, but it will make Paul Ceglia's lawyer a very rich man and Paul will receive the modest leftovers.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJul 24, 2010
you're thinking of a class action lawsuit, where the lawyer gets a piece of the entire settlement
1ofmanyJul 24, 2010
I think Zuckerberg should turn around and sue anyone who helped program that God awful site.
nullcodesJul 24, 2010
The statute of limitations on contracts has expired in NY so Zuckerberg is safe. Why did that guy wait so long to come forward?
davefromcampJul 24, 2010
I agree he waited so long why the long wait did he just find this contract in his file cabnet? 5 years ago would have been a better option especially when talks of buying Z out. I have seen a copy of the check with marks signature... this is strange
snafflepaffleJul 24, 2010
WTF? There's a status of imitations on a contract? You can't make a contract that lasts for more then 7 years in NY?
rolfJul 24, 2010
The statute of limitations clock starts running when the breach is discovered. Not when the contract is signed. Otherwise, you could sign a 15-30 year mortgage and sat screw it after 7 or whatever years. That makes no sense.
It has not run out.
hakujinJul 24, 2010
it's usually 'discovered' OR 'discoverable', the latter presumably exceeding the statute. That is likely what Zuckerberg's team will argue, if they don't settle.
majorisJul 24, 2010
The Face Book software was due January in 2004. The statute of limitations is 6 years in NY. It is now July of 2010. What part of the math is confusing?
deweyhewsonJul 24, 2010
Wrong. Everyone is getting this wrong.
The statute of limitations on business contracts does not begin running when the contract is SIGNED, it begins running when the contract is BROKEN! Meaning if Zuckerberg broke the contract today, let's say, the statute of limitations would begin running today.
*Edit: rolf above beat me to it.
yensedJul 24, 2010
They should have waited another year to make the movie. Its actually getting interesting now.
jetx29Jul 24, 2010
It's of particular note, that the suit against Zuckerberg was commenced in New York on June 30th, 2010: http://www.scribd.com/doc/34239119/Ceglia-v-Zuckerberg-complaint
The contract is dated April 28, 2003: http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerbergs-facebook-contract-with-paul-ceglia
That's a difference of over seven years, and a little research on the New York statute of limitations shows a statute of limitations of six years on most contracts:
"N. Y. Civil Practice Law and Rules: Chapter Eight of the Consolidated Laws, Article 2 - Limitations of Time:
...
213. Actions to be commenced within six years: where not otherwise provided for; **on contract**; on sealed instrument; on bond or note...".
-------
Looks to me like Zuckerberg's probably going to win this one on the technicality.
jetx29Jul 24, 2010
Have to correct myself. The statute of limitations would have probably begin to run when the website was released, which was in February of 2004. Still doesn't change the outcome, though.
tsothaJul 24, 2010
Why wouldn't that change the outcome? The lawsuit would be filed within statute of limitations if only six years have elapsed.
uthmanJul 24, 2010
curses. i was throughly looking forward to the end of that which is the face book
beachtraderJul 24, 2010
Well, it looks like the contract transfers ownership. So, if the questions becomes when does/did Mark have to transfer ownership? If it was already transferred then the SOL may be moot because the contract is already fulfilled. Therefore you are really discussing legally the terms of the contract and not whether the contract has been fulfilled. This is a much more complex issue than looking at the date on the contract and adding six years. I think you can by the SOL fairly easily because the contract is the start of the work, not the ending point of the work.
jetx29Jul 24, 2010
Thanks for the input. You're definitely correct. This is a more difficult inquiry than I first thought. I was going off the mistaken assumption that facebook was incorporated when it launched. I thought that a unilateral incorporation and self-appointment to CEO of a joint business venture that you don't have a majority share in would probably be invalid and a breach of their contract. If the articles of incorporation were filed within six years of the suit, it definitely gets a lot sticker and probably hinges on when Zuckerberg was making material business decisions or taking profits from the site for himself since they were a general partnership if incorporation didn't happen right away.
Thanks for the mental workout. We all know they'll probably settle anyway, which is disappointing considering now I'm interested to know what will happen legally.
LosAlamosLabsJul 24, 2010
Don't know the details on the statute of limitations here, but it's hard to imagine Ceglia just pulled this out all of a sudden, he was probably just waiting in the weeds, quietly watching Facebook grow and grow over the years, maybe getting a little legal consultation, but it's hard to imagine he just realized what he had, I'm sure he probably was waiting until the last possible moment, having legal counsel knowing full well what the period of statue of limitations was.
logicallygeniusJul 24, 2010
Thats an evil intention which can be used in court.
Hence His 1000$ will be given back.
beertopia72Jul 24, 2010
Statute of limitations run from when your cause of action arises and is discoverable, in this case it would be on the date of the breach of contract, and there is no indication as to when that took place. If the contract has not been breached and is still operative than his rights under the contract are not effected by the statute of limitations. As said above, you don't just add 6 years from when it was signed, that would pretty much make a bunch of contracts useless (think 99 year leases).
omnirusaJul 24, 2010
I'm not exactly an expert in law, so correct me if I'm wrong.
Regardless of the date of contract, the % ownership that he has in facebook has always existed since that contract was made, and that shouldn't expire. To me it comes off as, once that contract was signed, he owned 50% in the project.
omnirusaJul 24, 2010
Side note: Contained in your first link, I found that it says "Jurisdiction: Delaware" for Facebook Inc. Page 8
krajan430Jul 24, 2010
Statute of limitations is from the date of the breach, not from the date of the contract, thus it probably still is valid.
coelomateJul 24, 2010
SoL runs from the moment the cause of action arises. He isn't just suing for "LOL I OWN FACEBOOK" or anything - it will be a more particular claim, very likely a breach of contract. He has ~6 years from the moment of the breach, with some principles that can extend that if there was a reasonable delay in discovery of that information depending on the jurisdiction.
In short, it's complex, but there's a good chance he's not outside the statutory window.
deweyhewsonJul 24, 2010
Wrong. Everyone is getting this wrong.
The statute of limitations on business contracts does not begin running when the contract is SIGNED, it begins running when the contract is BROKEN! Meaning if Zuckerberg broke the contract today, let's say, the statute of limitations would begin running today.
perkJul 24, 2010
IANAL, but I'd have to imagine the Doctrine of Laches would apply too. Why would you wait seven years to assert any claim while watching Facebook grow exponentially?
tokominiJul 24, 2010
I deleted my Facebook account one month ago, and it was (by far) the most liberating experience I've had on the internet to date. I've started calling people again, you know, on the phone. We all have phones right? That way I talk to the person, rather than saying to myself "well, I hope they check their Facebook page."
Leave it behind. Fads are fads for a reason.
Closed AccountJul 24, 2010
The point is to keep in touch with people you wouldn't call otherwise. People offshore for example. People met during travels, etc.
peck3277Jul 24, 2010
It's amazing for sharing photo's aswell, especially with the ability to tag photos.
tokominiJul 24, 2010
Yeah I'm not disputing, hypografik, that Facebook is an efficient means of communicating with people that are normally difficult to reach. I don't know anyone "offshore."
It's my opinion that technology of this sort has made people colder, more isolated. I like talking to people on the phone. What message do you send to your comrades, where ever they may be, that warrants sacrificing your privacy.
Please understand that I don't have any ill-will towards those who continue with this social-networking service. My point is I feel much closer to people now, and I attribute that to shedding Facebook as a means to an that end.
cheuleJul 24, 2010
My biggest complaint is that it's a broadcast medium for the most part. It's the email equivalent of CC:ing 50 of your friends. I'm just not into it. I'd rather someone send me a message directly.
bloodwineJul 24, 2010
I use Facebook to keep in touch with friends who no longer live locally. I'm not the type of guy that makes phone calls. I also use Facebook to share albums of photos with distant relatives.
I check FB a few times a day, but never spend more than 5 minutes in any given sitting.
I do not use any apps or play any games.
FB is only a hindrance if you let it be one.
tokominiJul 24, 2010
"FB is only a hindrance if you allow it to be."
Could not agree more.
tokominiJul 24, 2010
For the record, I knew I was going to be buried.
cheuleJul 24, 2010
FWIW you're +1 at the moment.
drifterJul 24, 2010
My issue is you came off as a dick that thinks everyone has the same life as you. There are people I have met at concerts, parties, through a friend. That I don't see all the time or talk to, but facebook allows a little bit of interaction and allows to set up possible events for the future.
You are pointing out the general masses, which for the most part follows what is cool and usually acts dumb.
tokominiJul 24, 2010
@drifter
You missed the point I made.
dephextwinJul 24, 2010
@tokomini
You sound like one of those people who always has to be right. As people make good counter-arguments, you act like they just misunderstood you.
Regarding Facebook, you originally said "Leave it behind. Fads are fads for a reason."
Saying "leave it behind" with no qualifiers at all implies you believe there is no net benefit. You said it is a "fad", which suggests that it won't last and has little utility -- that is what a fad is. Then you responded to people saying things like:
"Yeah I'm not disputing, hypografik, that Facebook is an efficient means of communicating with people that are normally difficult to reach."
and
"I like talking to people face to face, but there's no harm in embracing the technology."
Just admit that your original comment was a bit overexaggerated and douchy. I swear that "I don't even have a Facebook account" is becoming the new "I don't even own a TV." If you don't like it, don't use it... but get over yourself.
tokominiJul 24, 2010
@ DephexTwin
Yeah I was just saying that deleting my account was nice. You're someone who looks into things too deeply, and your results are convoluted. I'm not elitist or 'needing to get over myself'. I just deleted a f**king website. Have fun. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
loplaJul 24, 2010
back in a minute, I am going out to buy you a cookie.
tokominiJul 24, 2010
make it bacon.
marx2kJul 24, 2010
If deleting your facebook account made you feel that liberated, you really were spending way too much time on there. I go on there once every month and a half or so to read some emails and that's about it.
tokominiJul 24, 2010
I didn't spend much time there, it was just nice to let go. You go once a month? Congratulations, we both know you're lying.
shuaigexJul 24, 2010
I'm right there with you. I deleted mine last fall and it's been great since. After deleting, I can't see why/how people can spend that much time looking at all the useless information other people post. Sure you'll get the occasional interesting photo set, but overall it's a giant waste of time. Facebook is a way to stay in touch with insignificant people you wouldn't stay in touch with if not for facebook. You want to stay in touch with someone you met in your travels, or someone you met overseas? Email them, snailmail them...Hell, play COD with them on XBL!
corneljeJul 24, 2010
I've had a Facebook account for nearly 6 years, I don't think it is a fad.
doshindudeJul 24, 2010
There's nothing wrong with having and using a Facebook. I use it, but not religiously. It's great for communication, deleting it is a stupid move.
synnJul 24, 2010
Liberating? Jesus Christ dude...it's just a website. If you were on there all the time...that's your fault, not Facebook.
tokominiJul 24, 2010
I don't blame the website. Did you read what I wrote?
synnJul 24, 2010
"Leave it behind."
Sounds like you're blaming it to me. Most people can use Facebook...AND still keep in actual contact with people. They don't need any "liberating".
analjusticeJul 24, 2010
I see.. so you were liberated from facebook which gave you more time to invest into digg..
"I've started calling people again". Uh what made you think facebook was a replacement for traditional telecommunications?
tokominiJul 24, 2010
People rely on the perceived efficiency of Facebook. Are you f**king retarded?
Closed AccountJul 24, 2010
Couldn't happen to a better guy! Funny thing is this means that he wasn't authorized to accept cash from venture capitalists and thus will also be sued on that front. He won't just be left with "barely anything", he'll be in the negative very quickly...
This douchebag deserves it.
PharaohuJul 24, 2010
Facebook?
What is that?
Oh a site for you and your friends to connect with each other?
It's cool, i have no friends. I'll pass.
loplaJul 24, 2010
lmfao even if this is legit and Zberg has to fork over 84% he is still mega wealthy 15% of 3+ billion dollars is a f**kton of money. The word screwed does not come to my mind here.
tsothaJul 24, 2010
Assuming he owns 100%. Is that really true?
adcruzJul 24, 2010
I believe they've raised billions of dollars from investors, including Microsoft. I doubt Mark even owns half the company by now.
loplaJul 24, 2010
Also, this is clearly a forgery. The guy worked with zberg eons ago figured.. hey I'll fake another contract to make it look like we were working on other things at the time. The scammer figures he'll at least get a big settlement to go away.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
russ3Jul 24, 2010
if it was fake i think zuckerburgs lawyers would have torn it to bits by now
dollar0dot02Jul 24, 2010
- Mr, Ceglia, how did you get Zuck's signature on this document?
- I promised I will never use it.
- And he signed?
- Yes, He trusted me. Dumb f**k.
pw378Jul 24, 2010
for those missing the reference:
Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
Zuck: Just ask.
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuck: People just submitted it.
Zuck: I don't know why.
Zuck: They "trust me"
Zuck: Dumb f**ks.
libertarianslolJul 24, 2010
Anything that hurts facebook is fine by me.
davefromcampJul 24, 2010
Why did he wait so long why the long wait did he just find this contract in his file cabnet? In the walls of his newly remodeled house? 5 years ago would have been a better option especially when talks of buying Z out. Plus this guy was just convicted in a fertilizer scangel of over $200,000. Shady shady. I have seen a copy of the check with marks signature... this is strange.
jdexJul 24, 2010
A.) It takes time to obtain qualified, and willing lawyers to engage on such a case without any capital or financial backing (this is a David VS. Goliath type of case). The attorneys not only need to have vetted the authenticity of the evidence before offering to help (likely with no payment w/o a victory)... or be complicit in the scam if it is indeed a forgery. Then they must build a solid case for their side, and go through the CYA hoops of bringing the complaint to court (possibly going to Facebook privately to see if there's a settlement to be had before beginning proceedings).
B.) One does not simply walk in to Mordor.
hellicusJul 24, 2010
Well, it looks like
*puts on sunglasses*
It Zucks to be Mark
kofikingstonJul 24, 2010
YEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH
or
Kofikingston likes this.
naturalrhythmJul 24, 2010
YYYYYYYEEEAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
dew209Jul 24, 2010
A++++++++ WOULD DIGG AGAIN!!!
blatsekJul 24, 2010
I hope he shuts it down after he gets it :D
tokeliJul 24, 2010
Ha ha. </Nelson>
volsarJul 24, 2010
http://www.nelsonhaha.com
warpfieldJul 24, 2010
Well, this doesn't have to be a bad thing. Maybe having an extra owner will make Facebook suck less.
And if Zuckerberg really did sign that contract, it's a great opportunity to show everyone that he has real character and is man enough to accept the consequences of his actions. Most of us never get such great chances.
omnirusaJul 24, 2010
I predict he will hide behind a wall of high paid lawyers, hoping they find him a way out of his s**thole he made.
tastypastryJul 24, 2010
Going got go out on a limb here and say this is just to hype the movie.
sotoninJul 24, 2010
I bet this aint in the movie.
ryebryeJul 24, 2010
Having a legal battle to hype a movie that Facebook has no stake in seems rather stupid to me.
bewareofthecowJul 24, 2010
This would have made a lot better movie I'm sure. f**kerberg goes from being multi-billionare to having nothing over the course of a few years.
chrismgtisJul 24, 2010
What is with all these people agreeing that it makes sense that he needed $1000 so badly? I could design a website and it would cost me no more than $4/month. Unless he hired people, which I'm not aware of, from the very beginning - I can't imagine why everyone is pretending that he needed $1000 to *begin* working on "Face Book". So did he hire people before he even created the website? Anyway point is I'm sure there are reasons why he needed that money, but to simply design a website and begin with simple hosting it's in no way shape or form going to cost you $1000 which a lot of people here seem to believe.
pw378Jul 24, 2010
You must have never been hosting sites in the early 00's... Also 99.9999% of "great idea for a website" projects even get off the ground - so $1000 for something extremely likely to never make a dime sounds really awesome (at that time at least)
ceriliaJul 24, 2010
I was in high school when Zuckerberg developed and launched Facebook. I remember that back then, when I needed hosting, I would just put it on my own LAMP server (Linux/Apache/MySQL/PHP). Therefore, I don't think Zuckerberg would have taken $1000 just for hosting needs.
I could only see him take the money if he didn't believe in the idea enough.
skillelJul 24, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
dvdkingJul 24, 2010
Come to think of it... I remember a young gentleman named Kevin Rose selling me 50% of his new project, "The Digg" back in the early '00s
macbookformeJul 24, 2010
OMG
nepidaeJul 24, 2010
As much as I may or may not dislike Zuckerberg, what has this other guy done to benefit society? Hell, give him a slap on the back for embarrassing someone but before we start throwing billions of dollars around maybe we should see if he has actually done anything positive in his life.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pariramiJul 24, 2010
that circumstance doesn't nullify anything if the contract is valid. It does however speak of a project at a certain time which limits it's scope.
A lawyer told me before just because it is on contract doesn't mean the law doesn't protect you. Even if it is signed and proven to be true, one can posit and attack whether the contract is valid and binding to the current situation now. It's a long battle. It doesnt even say what type of share it is etc (the amateurish language could end up being exactly how a college dude and a small investor would write a MOA)
Guy could end up with any of the ff it seems 1)settlement in millions c/o FB 2) nothing 3) 84% of FB (ftw) 4) share of FB valued at that time.
is it a forgery if it says Page Book in one page vs another?
lakeeffectJul 24, 2010
Zuckerberg Murders Paul Ceglia.
dlan4327Jul 24, 2010
dlan4327 likes this.
dowdy123Jul 24, 2010
I wish I had thought of forging documents like that.
robert99aJul 24, 2010
I also own 84% of Facebook. And 84% of IBM. And 84% of Microsoft. It's true.
mynameisdiJul 24, 2010
I'd love to see Zuckie get asked about this on a TV Show.
I mean, I do get nervous and sweaty when asked questions in public that I don't know how to answer.... but not like in a Finnish Sauna.
skillelJul 24, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
mynameisdiJul 24, 2010
You clearly haven't seen the interview I'm referring to
toddfsuJul 24, 2010
Paul is a time traveler. Brilliant plan.
Closed AccountJul 24, 2010
Any actual lawyers care to chime in?
binaryclockJul 24, 2010
For $750/hr, no problem.
white2greyJul 24, 2010
This is probably why he always is nervous and sweating bullets in interviews. He is so worried about this guy noticing Zuck and facebook in the spotlight that Zuck can't focus on the questions he's asked, so he just babbles.
mspandoraJul 24, 2010
Karma is a bitch!
moosegoose88Jul 24, 2010
To answer the question in the title: No, unfortunately not.
Secondly, I enjoy the fact that before I logged in to digg and comment there was an option to log-in using my facebook account.
I strongly dislike the trend against anonymity online, as much I enjoy having a more reputable and professional internet presence (something that sites like Gmail and Facebook make possible), I do not want my personal internet usage to become public knowledge.
ryebryeJul 24, 2010
cool story bro.