This one is a fun little piece of pseudo-software litigation. The basic facts are that Facebook and its majority stockholder Mark Zuckerberg have been sued by Paul D. Ceglia, who claims 84% ownership in the website juggernaut. The part of this story that has been clogging the Net is that a state court judge in New York actually issued a temporary restraining order ("TRO") prohibiting Zuckerberg and Facebook, Inc. from disposing or selling any of its assets. This has produced the viral "Facebook assets frozen". Interestingly, Ceglia has produced a written contract, making this suit slightly more interesting than prior software litigation involving Facebook ownership in which former students at Harvard claimed Zuckerberg stole the idea from them (which a court ultimately found to be "dorm room chit-chat").
One aspect that the technology legal counsel in me finds interesting is that the Court granted the TRO. Generally speaking a TRO is an injunctive mechanism that can be used to stop someone from doing something. In order to get a TRO, you generally have to show that you have a basis for your claim and that you have a likelihood of success on the merits. I don't know for sure that New York is the same standard as Indiana, but I suspect that it is. That means that a court looked at the documents and found that there might be something here. I find that very intriguing. I will note, however, that Facebook's attorneys filed a motion to dissolve the TRO and noted that it was ex parte, meaning that it was entered without Zuckerberg or Facebook being given the opportunity to respond. It also sets forth that the only evidence presented to support the TRO was a "scant" affidavit. But, one must conclude that the Court nevertheless did the appropriate analysis.
Also, having read the documents filed, there might be something to discuss. However, the biggest issue that I see at the outset is that the contract allegedly happened in April, 2003. It would seem to me that there are is a statute of limitations issue, which may kill this lawsuit before it gets into really fun electronic discovery.
Facebook has removed this case to Federal court, which I think is a smart move. We'll see what develops. But I would urge everyone to consider the reality that this case poses to the software developer or web-designer. From the "Zuckerberg" side, be extremely careful what terms you put in your contracts because you may have to rely on or defend them later (after you are a famous success). In this software litigation, Cegila is claiming 84% ownership in the company based on a damages provision that stated that he would get 1% ownership for each month after January 1, 2004 that the contract was fulfilled. And, if the case survives the statute of limitations issue, this may become hotly contested.
Thus, be careful that you hold tightly to your equity in your company. Don't give it away willy-nilly. And, above all else, get good technology legal counsel; specifically ones that understand what should be in a well-drafted contract and that have available the expertise to determine how that contract language will play out in court.
One aspect that the technology legal counsel in me finds interesting is that the Court granted the TRO. Generally speaking a TRO is an injunctive mechanism that can be used to stop someone from doing something. In order to get a TRO, you generally have to show that you have a basis for your claim and that you have a likelihood of success on the merits. I don't know for sure that New York is the same standard as Indiana, but I suspect that it is. That means that a court looked at the documents and found that there might be something here. I find that very intriguing. I will note, however, that Facebook's attorneys filed a motion to dissolve the TRO and noted that it was ex parte, meaning that it was entered without Zuckerberg or Facebook being given the opportunity to respond. It also sets forth that the only evidence presented to support the TRO was a "scant" affidavit. But, one must conclude that the Court nevertheless did the appropriate analysis.
Also, having read the documents filed, there might be something to discuss. However, the biggest issue that I see at the outset is that the contract allegedly happened in April, 2003. It would seem to me that there are is a statute of limitations issue, which may kill this lawsuit before it gets into really fun electronic discovery.
Facebook has removed this case to Federal court, which I think is a smart move. We'll see what develops. But I would urge everyone to consider the reality that this case poses to the software developer or web-designer. From the "Zuckerberg" side, be extremely careful what terms you put in your contracts because you may have to rely on or defend them later (after you are a famous success). In this software litigation, Cegila is claiming 84% ownership in the company based on a damages provision that stated that he would get 1% ownership for each month after January 1, 2004 that the contract was fulfilled. And, if the case survives the statute of limitations issue, this may become hotly contested.
Thus, be careful that you hold tightly to your equity in your company. Don't give it away willy-nilly. And, above all else, get good technology legal counsel; specifically ones that understand what should be in a well-drafted contract and that have available the expertise to determine how that contract language will play out in court.
Powered by Compendium
Comments for Facebook ownership lawsuit results in asset-freezing TRO