Yeah, but his actual claim is that he hired Zuckerberg to develop it. He paid $1,000 up front on the understanding that once it was done on time, they'd have a 50/50 ownership interest, or more in proportion to how long overdue the project went.
According to this guy, it got done, but late, and as a result he owns 84% and Zuckerberg 16%, and Z. then went on and transformed the business several times into today's Facebook Inc., as if he owned it 100%. But he never asserted his claim until now, so unless he's been in a coma or something, his failure to act was an implicit waiver of rights. It's more like a trademark than a copyright situation; undefended trademark infringements are construed as abandonment after a while.
Comments
Yeah, but his actual claim is that he hired Zuckerberg to develop it. He paid $1,000 up front on the understanding that once it was done on time, they'd have a 50/50 ownership interest, or more in proportion to how long overdue the project went.
According to this guy, it got done, but late, and as a result he owns 84% and Zuckerberg 16%, and Z. then went on and transformed the business several times into today's Facebook Inc., as if he owned it 100%. But he never asserted his claim until now, so unless he's been in a coma or something, his failure to act was an implicit waiver of rights. It's more like a trademark than a copyright situation; undefended trademark infringements are construed as abandonment after a while.
Implicit waiver of rights is a difficult concept. I bet that if Facebook cratered, the 84% ownership would come back to bite him.
84% ownership... of a limited-liability corporation? Yes. What an albatross.