Cancelled check produced in disputed Facebook sale affair
Summary
Topics
There's yet another episode to the oddball tale of Paul Ceglia, the New York man who says a 2003 contract with eventual Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg entitles him to an 84 percent share of the company: Ceglia's local newspaper, the Wellsville Daily Reporter, produced a canceled check allegedly proving that Ceglia did, indeed, pay $3,000 to someone named Mark Zuckerberg for...something.
"We have never disputed that Mark did some work for Ceglia," a statement from Facebook read. "Everything else asserted by the plaintiff is false, and his lawsuit is frivolous, if not outright fraudulent."
Ceglia's claim, which he filed in a legal complaint in June, asserts that a contract between him and Zuckerberg for some freelance software development work ties into something called "The Face Book," and that Ceglia would be entitled to an increasing percentage of the product that he says has now reached 84 percent. Facebook initially said it believed that the contract was a "likely" forgery. It has since become more forceful and said it consider it to be an outright fake.
For more of this story, read Check proves Ceglia paid Zuckerberg--what now? on CNET News.
Talkback Most Recent of 5 Talkback(s)
-
If Zuckerberg looses control of Facebook I will never quit laughing
Zuckerberg is a megalomaniac and the world would be a better place if he would just crawl back under his rock.
sismoc18th Aug 2010 -
I don't understand, you're condoming the fact
that this guy Ceglia might be trying to unlawfully steal something that was never his to begin with?
I would hope that Zuckerberg and Facebook win this (which I think they easilly will) as this guy Ceglia's story sounds quite fishy.
Imagine if someone who did some work for MS, Google or Apple turned around and tried this stunt? Would it be as funny?
John Zern18th Aug 2010 -
Well, it did happen to Apple.
Apple allowed MS the license to use certain interface elements in exchange for them developing Word and Excel for the Mac. MS then promptly used that license to borrow interface elements wholesale for Windows 3.0. When Apple sued, MS said: Hey, Apple gave us permission. The court found that Apple's contract was sufficiently vague in this area to rule for Microsoft.
MS tried a similar stunt later and stole a whole bunch of Quicktime code. This time the trial didn't go so well and Apple and MS settled for a $150 million purchase of non-voting Apple stock by MS and a commitment to code Office for the Mac for five years, while Apple agreed to make IE the default Mac browser.
MS pundits threw a party in the first case, and quietly revised history to MS bailing out Apple in the second.
frgough18th Aug 2010 -
??? Never (NEVA!) heard that story before...
@frgough
In fact, the story you outlined started out with Apple "copying" a GUI and mouse interface from a XEROX lab while XEROX's research languished due to their exec's not having enough vision to understand what their lab had actually invented. While Apple was busy working on their new GUI, Microsoft also got a look at that same XEROX lab, PLUS due to a mass migration of workers away from Apple (thanks to shenanigans of Steve Jobs and his temper tantrums) they came up with Windows 3.0 (Later 3.1) which had more than just a passing resemblence to Apple's Mac GUI. Apple sued, and eventually the high courts "established" what is now called the "look-and-feel" law, that is, you can't copyright or patent the look and feel of software. MS did not copy a single line of code from Apple, their intellectual property was still theirs. A few years later Apple was doing the rope-a-dope and barely hung on, mostly due to the presence of software from such notable names as Macromedia and Adobe. Which BTW, they have managed to alienate with their "your flash sucks on my iphone" tirade from ... no other than Mr. temper tantrum Steve Jobs. Let's see if Android/Google competition with MAC/Iphone will eventually lead to a repeat of history. Early indications of Android sales seem to point towards a repeat.... Only time will tell.
In any case, frgough... I have NEVER, in all my geeky years heard that version of the MS vs. Apple told. Not until now. Questionable sources? FUD? Or just a lame conspiracy theory lacking imagination and enough truthful facts to be even half-way believable?
rock06r19th Aug 2010 -
RE: Cancelled check produced in disputed Facebook sale affair
@John Zern
No "condom" necessary... Remember TEXACO and PENNZOIL In the 80's?
TeXACO tried to pull a fast one on PENNZOIL and ended up shelling out 10 BILLION dollars... and the charge was less provable.
What goes around comes around sometimes with Terminal Velocity!
bkmdano20th Aug 2010
Talkback - Tell Us What You Think
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Facebook Activity
