Facebook Lawyer `Unsure' Whether Founder Mark Zuckerberg Signed Contract

<p><pre><code> Facebook claims Ceglia remained silent for more than six years and his claim is probably too old to pursue. </code></pre> Have any independent legal experts corroborated Facebook's statement that "his claim is too old to pursue"?

<p><pre><code> Facebook, which hasn’t claimed the alleged contract with Ceglia is a phony, has "serious questions" about its authenticity, Simpson said. </code></pre> I don't understand this statement. If you're questioning its authenticity, aren't you implying that you think it's a phony?

This is going to be interesting. If this guy wins, facebook is going to have a hell of a time surviving with uncertainty at the top.

According to the above Bloomberg Article: Ceglia claims his alleged contract, which refers to "<i>The Face Book</i>" was signed about nine months before Facebook was founded, the company said in court papers.<p>According to the NYT from 2007:<a href="http://nyti.ms/cC0HwJ" rel="nofollow">http://nyti.ms/cC0HwJ</a> "An e-mail message, circulated widely by Mr. Greenspan to Harvard students on Sept. 19, 2003, describes the newest feature of houseSYSTEM, as "<i>The Face Book</i>" an online system for quickly locating other students. The date was four months before Mr. Zuckerberg started his own site"<p>My question: did these two parties independently come up with an idea for "The Face Book" for Harvard and both pitched it to Zuckerberg? Seems odd at the very least on the face of things. Greenspan, if you can comment on this -- were you affiliated with Ceglia at all?

Facebook users don't own their data, and now it seems Facebook's owner may not own Facebook. That seems fitting.

I don't know anything about the case, but based on looking at the document, it looks like Mark's signature and handwriting to me. I guess it could have been copied from something else, though.

"This is not necessarily an open-and-shut case for Facebook. The fact that the judge froze Facebook's assets suggests there may be extenuating circumstances favoring Ceglia, Gendelman pointed out.<p>Also, Ceglia may be planning to argue that the statute of limitations didn't start until the contract was breached, which would have set the clock ticking in 2004, said Scott &#38; Scott partner Julie Machal-Fulks.<p>There is room for that argument in New York law, she told the E-Commerce Times.<p>As for the last-minute challenge, that too makes sense -- at least, it can be argued in court, said Jonathan Askin, associate professor of clinical law at Brooklyn Law School.<p>"Logically, these ownership challenges only occur after a company has value or is on the verge of success. Why would anyone sue a company before it has value?" he asked."<p>from <a href="http://www.ecommercetimes.com/rsstory/70403.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.ecommercetimes.com/rsstory/70403.html</a>

How much you wanna bet this is all an ad for the upcoming Facebook movie? ;)

Zuck attracts contract lawsuits like Clinton used to draw sexual harassment claims.

They should hire Lisa's brother, Bart, as co-counsel.

No suprise for me. There were already a few posts on hacker news about Facebook's and Zuckerberg's history, and this is just the creme de la creme.

"Behind every great fortune there is a crime." - Honore de Balzac<p>This is getting a bit tiresome. Tiresome to hear about, tiresome to watch, and certainly tiresome to think about. At a gut level I think this isn't the last contest for ownership of something with debatable value. 500,000,000 sets of eyeballs have quite a bit of <i>potential</i>, but what guarantee is there of revenue? Facebook, like Paris Hilton, is popular for being popular. Why is Facebook <i>valuable</i>? No one can say. This is lost on just about everyone.<p>I suppose I could have just noted that it would be nice if they'd do something worth talking about once in a while instead of getting sued at an interval.