<![CDATA[A brief history of Mark Zuckerberg's legal woes - Valleywag Comments]]> <![CDATA[A brief history of Mark Zuckerberg's legal woes - Valleywag Comments]]> <![CDATA[A brief history of Mark Zuckerberg's legal woes]]> My sources already informed me,(Case will definately be dismissed).And as "Baretta use to say" YOU CAN TAKE THAT TO THE BANK!!!

easywider56

]]> <![CDATA[A brief history of Mark Zuckerberg's legal woes]]> Owen-
I appreciate your contrarianism, etc. But does Valleywag measure ads on a CPC basis? If you go to Gawker advertising, you'll find that your rates, at least, are CPM. Now, on my Facebook application, I can get 100 percent demographic efficiency for my CPM displays. Valleywag can display to primarily silicon valley people. But, if I want, I can only display to people in the Yahoo network. Now, which is a more effective advertising vehicle?

Nevertheless (this wouldn't fly on Gawker at all), good job digging up stories on this kinda tough beat....it's been cool to read, even if I disagree with your FB analysis.

TheTypeset

]]> <![CDATA[A brief history of Mark Zuckerberg's legal woes]]> @Ian Bell: Thanks, Ian. Must confess I'm intrigued by Facebook's virtual-goods business, though that's mostly because of the can of whoop-ass Sarah Lacy sent me.

Owen Thomas

]]> <![CDATA[A brief history of Mark Zuckerberg's legal woes]]> @rfhoward: Look above. I linked to a few of the relevant legal documents. I'll keep linking to new filings as the case progresses.

Owen Thomas

]]> <![CDATA[A brief history of Mark Zuckerberg's legal woes]]> Great job Owen, you sure know your stuff.

I agree with you regarding Facebooks advertising woes. As you point out, most advertisers are citing horrible click-through rates and overall conversions.

There is of course other value in the amount of members they have however. Companies like Microsoft probably have a good idea of how to harness that power. Or not...

Ian Bell

]]> <![CDATA[A brief history of Mark Zuckerberg's legal woes]]> Anybody have links to the actual legal filings, Smoking Gun style?

rfhoward

]]> <![CDATA[A brief history of Mark Zuckerberg's legal woes]]> If they have 1) a work-for-hire contract signed by Zuckerberg, 2) Zuckerberg did work under that contract for which he was paid, and 3) the plaintiffs can show that Facebook is based on that work-for-hire then they might have a case.

Given that this case was already dismissed once I'm guessing they lack one or more of those elements.

My guess if they didn't have 1 and 2 then the case would have been dismissed with prejudice, I bet they have a contract and Zuckerberg did work for them. 3 is much fuzzier. My guess is they can't prove Facebook was based on that work. Unless all the original code lives in CVS somewhere they never will be able to prove it.

LongAgoYahoo

]]> <![CDATA[A brief history of Mark Zuckerberg's legal woes]]> @owen thomas: ok

bengold

]]> <![CDATA[A brief history of Mark Zuckerberg's legal woes]]> @bengold: Ben, locate the caps-lock key. Over there to your left. Turn it off. Thanks.

Owen Thomas

]]> <![CDATA[A brief history of Mark Zuckerberg's legal woes]]> @TheTypeset: That's what Facebook enthusiasts with their blinders on say, but I have yet to meet an advertiser who can cite response rates or return on investment for in-feed campaigns. It's a nice theory, but until I see real numbers, I'm more convinced of the potential of Facebook's virtual-goods sales. At least those I can measure.

Owen Thomas

]]> <![CDATA[A brief history of Mark Zuckerberg's legal woes]]> WHY ISN"T MY LOCAL NEWS LIKE THIS!?

bengold

]]> <![CDATA[A brief history of Mark Zuckerberg's legal woes]]> Do you even understand that the real advertising- and ad revenue- is going on in the Newsfeed, not in those banner ads?

TheTypeset

]]>