"Half Owner" OF Facebook Has Five More Lawyers

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
This guy better hope he gets some money out of this deal because this many lawyers can't be cheap.

Ceglia is suing Facebook and founder Mark Zuckerberg in federal court in Buffalo. Ceglia says a contract he signed with the then-Harvard University freshman in 2003 entitles him to half of the multibillion-dollar social networking site.
 
Wasn't the contract that this was based on shown to be fraudulent, or am I thinking of someone else trying to screw over ol' Zuck?
 
Wasn't the contract that this was based on shown to be fraudulent, or am I thinking of someone else trying to screw over ol' Zuck?

The last thing on this case was Facebook saying it was fake (not the courts) and his lawyer quitting (he's on at least his third set lawyers).
 
"Paul Ceglia's lead attorney, Dean Boland, said Monday that the addition of the lawyers should be seen as an indication of the case's strength." This statement is just hilarious and ludicrous at the same time. Are they now down to the number of lawyers he can hire for the case? If that is, Paul Ceglia cannot match Facebook's strength on the case.
 
You know.... Zuck certainly was shady in the beginning and probably does owe the people he scammed some sort of money.

But how on Earth are there people trying to stake claim to what HE made that company into?
 
But how on Earth are there people trying to stake claim to what HE made that company into?

Without reading through much of the details, if he claimed to be a silent financial partner that put up 50% of the cash needed to start the venture then it would be logical that he is entitled to 50% of the company. Obviously that share would be diluted over time given the ~500 investors that have a stake in Facebook now. But he would have some sort of share, if the contract turned out to be real.

The only way that contract is real is if (1) Zuckerburg signed it and that can be proven by handwriting analysis and/or (2) the agreement was notarized by a registered notary and/or (3) the contract was signed then copied then stored in a USPS stamped sealed letter that proves the time of signing. This should be easy to prove in court and the fact that it hasn't been proven already says a lot about the case. Verbal agreements don't hold up in court from what I understand (not sure if this was a verbal agreement or not) so I cannot really see that sort of claim working either.
 
"Paul Ceglia's lead attorney, Dean Boland, said Monday that the addition of the lawyers should be seen as an indication of the case's strength." This statement is just hilarious and ludicrous at the same time. Are they now down to the number of lawyers he can hire for the case? If that is, Paul Ceglia cannot match Facebook's strength on the case.

Or a sign they are really struggling to make a good case.
 
Why does he have to had signed it? Apparently we are bound by law when we just click OK on EULAs and we don't even read them. I would love to see Zuckerberg lose but he probably won't because he is now part of the 1% of douchebags.
 
I'm lost... why do you want him to lose? I haven't really been following facebook news, mainly because I don't really care, but from the small amount of news I've heard. It's basically people claiming they started the idea. It was Zuck that made that idea into a company and expanded it to what it is.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.
 
All Zuck did was to prove that to make it big time you do need to be shady! So shady he did.
 
because he is now part of the 1% of douchebags.

To be fair he, at age 26, agreed to the "Giving Pledge" with Gates and Buffett. Which agrees to give atleast 50% of his worth away to charities.
 
Without reading through much of the details, if he claimed to be a silent financial partner that put up 50% of the cash needed to start the venture then it would be logical that he is entitled to 50% of the company. Obviously that share would be diluted over time given the ~500 investors that have a stake in Facebook now. But he would have some sort of share, if the contract turned out to be real.

The only way that contract is real is if (1) Zuckerburg signed it and that can be proven by handwriting analysis and/or (2) the agreement was notarized by a registered notary and/or (3) the contract was signed then copied then stored in a USPS stamped sealed letter that proves the time of signing. This should be easy to prove in court and the fact that it hasn't been proven already says a lot about the case. Verbal agreements don't hold up in court from what I understand (not sure if this was a verbal agreement or not) so I cannot really see that sort of claim working either.
God bless our legal system. :rolleyes:
 
This ahs either got to be greenmail, or the other shareholders in facebook want a chunk of Zuck's voting shares so they can actually steer the ship.
 
If the facebook movie is even half accurate then he already got what he deserved. (undisclosed sum of money in the 10's of millions)

And now he's back for more? go to hell.
 
Back
Top