Winkelvi Officially Ask 9th Circuit To Rehear Their Case About How $160 Million For Not Doing Much Is Not Enough

from the how-do-you-spell-greed? dept

As was widely expected, the Winklevi have decided not to listen to Judge Alex Kozinski on the 9th Circuit appeals court, who told them that the "time is now" to end their ongoing lawsuit against Facebook, and that they should just be happy with the approximately $160 million they ended up with for totally failing to compete in the market place with Zuckerberg. Frankly, even if Zuckerberg really had "copied" their idea, $160 million seems like more than ample compensation. It wasn't the Winklevoss's idea that made Facebook successful (not by a long shot). It was the specific ways in which Zuckerberg and his team executed (combined with an element of luck). In fact, with a reward so ridiculously high for failing, all this sort of lawsuit does is encourage more silly lawsuits from other competitors who failed in the marketplace.

However, despite the court and plenty of commentators telling the Winklevi to cry all the way to the bank with their money, the twins and partner Divya Narendra, have in fact filed for an en banc hearing, asking the full slate of 9th Circuit judges to rehear the case, rather than just the standard three judge panel who heard the original. To be honest, I'd be surprised if the court agreed to the rehearing, but you never know. Typically, they'll do a rehearing where there really are serious questions of law, and significant conflict in how the judges view things with the case at hand. I just don't see the specifics of this dispute rising to that level. If that fails, the only choice left will be to appeal to the Supreme Court, who we can also hope will recognize more important issues at hand and pass on hearing the case.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Hugh Mann (profile), Apr 18th, 2011 @ 9:42pm

    Who's to say what's "enough"?

    I find it sad that so many people seem to adopt the slant that the case is about criticizing the Winklevii for wanting more than they got, rather than asking if they got what they bargained for.

    If the Winklevii were misled, then they should get whatever amount represents what accurate information would have gottn them to, regardless of whether others think it's "too much" or somehow would represent some sort of great undeserved windfall.

    That being said, the 9th Circuit ruled that, under the circumstances, it was the twins' own fault they didn't have a better understanding of the Facebook financial situation, so the court is not now going to require any recalculation. Kozinski's criticism of the greed he perceived in them was really not appropriate.

    Of course, the 9th Circuit is also the one most often overturned - by a very long shot.

    HM

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    testcore (profile), Apr 18th, 2011 @ 10:22pm

    Spending spree?

    Well, at least it's obvious what they plan to spend their money on. Lawyers!

    Seriously, they could go start ten damn companies to compete. Cry me an f'in river.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Apr 18th, 2011 @ 10:30pm

    Re: Who's to say what's "enough"?

    I find it sad that so many people seem to adopt the slant that the case is about criticizing the Winklevii for wanting more than they got, rather than asking if they got what they bargained for.

    They didn't "bargain" for anything. They failed in the marketplace and went legal against the guy who beat them.

    If the Winklevii were misled, then they should get whatever amount represents what accurate information would have gottn them to, regardless of whether others think it's "too much" or somehow would represent some sort of great undeserved windfall.

    It's not about "too much." It's about the fact that they failed. The fact that they're getting ANYTHING is too much.

    Of course, the 9th Circuit is also the one most often overturned - by a very long shot

    Indeed. 9th Circuit is wacky at times. Doesn't mean they're always wrong. In this case, they're right.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 18th, 2011 @ 11:48pm

    Re: Spending spree?

    The rumor is going around that the Facebook used some code written by/for the Winklevi which Zuckerburg was supposed to build on.

    They may be more deserving than the story we have so far.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 19th, 2011 @ 12:26am

    Winklevi, shut up. When a federal appeals court judge tells you enough is enough, it really is. Welcome to the real world where Daddy's money can buy you a lot, but not everything.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Apr 19th, 2011 @ 12:56am

    Re: Re: Spending spree?

    The rumor is going around that the Facebook used some code written by/for the Winklevi which Zuckerburg was supposed to build on.

    The code isn't what mattered. It was the overall execution of the service.

    And if there was copied code at issue here, then this would have been a copyright lawsuit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    Josef Anvil (profile), Apr 19th, 2011 @ 2:16am

    Insanity

    Zuckerberg failed to complete a contract for the Winklevi. He did not steal or copy anything as far as I can tell.

    Now while Im sure that breaking a contract has some financial consequence... $160 million????

    Zuckerberg may have copied their idea, but the only real harm it would appear that he did was to hamper his competitor's entrance into the market by a few months. ConnectU went online and just failed. Cool name though.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    Josef Anvil (profile), Apr 19th, 2011 @ 2:55am

    Re: Insanity

    I probably should wake up before I post a comment, and I should clarify that other comment.

    It doesn't appear that Zuckerberg infringed on a copyright, though it does appear that he copied an idea, that of a college social network that would spread from his campus to those all over the US.

    Having an idea and doing something with it are two entirely different things.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 19th, 2011 @ 7:07am

    Re: Re: Re: Spending spree?

    Give the Winklevi time for a copywrite lawsuit. It's bound to happen next.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Vic, Apr 19th, 2011 @ 10:31am

    Re: Spending spree?

    Exactly!
    It only shows that they have got themselves very good team of lawyers! You know, those that can perpetually suck money out of you day and night. And those lawyers managed to convince Winkiis to continue their holy fight! 8^)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    Hugh Mann (profile), Apr 19th, 2011 @ 3:16pm

    Re: Re: Who's to say what's "enough"?

    They "bargained" for a settlement in their case.

    HM

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This