Hacker News Reader

Comment by phlux | Hacker News Reader

The only remote chance I can see DLA Piper taking a troll case like this is if they negotiated some very significant % of the settlement likely to come of this.

Thinking that they would not get 50% or 84% of zucks shares - but 50% of $XXXXX millions of dollars is significant regardless.

They must have at least enough of a case to make facebook shit cash their way.

For all us watchers - it just reinforces the unscrupulous measures zuck took in building this company. Sadly, not too many can say they would have done much different in his shoes, given that he was at the right place at the right time and got boosted by others to the point of being able to run with it himself, he then used amoral tactics to protect what he had built from those who truly did have at least partial stake in it...

View on HN

Unscrupulous? The terms are so outrageous (owning 80% for late penalty) that I can't imagine this would hold, especially when it's in the form of informal emails.

I see a lot of unscrupulous business people trying to abuse the one developer who can actually make things happen.

I am in no way defending either party. And, while that contract was made by two naive, business-savvy-lacking individuals about a site that neither had any idea how big it would become - it was clearly a lame contract. But an agreed to, signed and funded contract none-the-less.

There is nothing informal about the following and it does seem unscrupulous:

* You give me $1000 asking me to develop a site for you, in addition to the $1000 you want to split ownership 50/50.

* I agree. We sign a contract. I cash your check and start working.

* I need more money so you send me another $1000 with no strings attached.

* You whine that things are taking longer than expected. Things get a bit heated. Eventually you agree to waive a 30% ownership penalty we had agreed to for slow performance.

* When the site is done, I see it is successful.

* Wishing to cut you out I lie to you and tell you the site is not living up to expectations and offer to mail you your money back.

Certainly whether or not Mr. Zuckerberg did the above is open for debate. Can't we agree that if he did do the above, he wasn't acting honestly?

Having courts retroactively redefine contracts based on their fairness weakens contract law greatly. Besides being very subjective, things that start fair often seem unfair in time. For example Microsoft's deal with IBM, or Mosaic's deal with Microsoft. It's better if the rules stay the same, the ball will be played where it lands.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com