[Hawkeye_a]

For those of you have seen The Social Network, i'd like to draw your attention to the Zuckerberg vs Winklevoss story, as portrayed in the movie.

Assuming what was portrayed in the movie:
-Winklevoss' (and a third dude) share an idea, a concept, with Zuckerberg, hoping he will implement it for them. They suggest an "exclusive" dating site/social network for their house at Harvard.
-Zuckerberg takes the idea of an exclusive social network and implements facebook for the entire campus and expands...and the rest is history.

The Winklevoss' sue Zuckerberg. Do they have a case ?

I watched this movie with a friend, who is in "IT" but has no clue/desire to actually write applications that are nearly as sophisticated, and instead thinks his ideas are just as important. I on the other hand, am a software engineer and do this stuff for a living, and argues in Zuckerberg's favor.

He argued that the Winklevoss' definitely had a case morally and ethically. I argued that just having an idea, and no real "implementation"/"invention" to demonstrate how that idea can reach fruition is not IP and there is no case.

His rebuttal was that just because the Winklevoss' did not know how to program(which according to him anyone can do) or implement their idea, they tried to recruit Zuckerberg, and that was their attempt at implementing their idea. He says the idea of combining exclusivity to online social networks is just as important(if not more) than actually doing it.

It's a bit of an ethical conundrum, and was wondering what you guys think about it ? (if you wish, feel free to state your occupation/field-of-work)

Cheers

[Doofy]

I've not seen the film, but if Zuckerberg got his idea (or any part of that idea) from someone else then they should get a cut.

We already know that Zuckerberg is a sh*thead, so no surprise that he stole other people's ideas.

[SSharon]

With some exceptions I don't think an idea on its own has much value. Also, Facebook succeeded because it isn't exclusive, not because it is. When I joined Facebook there were fewer than a million users, but it was only as more people joined and more schools/networks opened up that it gave me any real utility.

Because of my occupation I'll stay away from the ethical/moral issues

[osiris]

I believe in doing the right thing - I would've given Winklevoss a cut for the idea - ideas - at least good ones, are worth money. That's why people register ideas & concepts with the appropriate agencies or guilds - at least that's what people do in the entertainment industry.

[SpaceMonkey]

The problem is that determining what Winklevoss' idea is worth is only obvious is retrospect. At the time, it was worth virtually nothing. Assigning worth today is similarly arbitrary: presumably Facebook might be worth even more in the future.

[osiris]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

The problem is that determining what Winklevoss' idea is worth is only obvious is retrospect. At the time, it was worth virtually nothing. Assigning worth today is similarly arbitrary: presumably Facebook might be worth even more in the future.

It is arbitrary to use hindsight. Winklevoss shoulda coulda woulda....

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by osiris 

It is arbitrary to use hindsight. Winklevoss shoulda coulda woulda....

Patent troll companies do that specifically. They file a patent (or acquire a company's patents) and don't actually produce anything. They then sue companies that sell a product that uses something that resembles their patent (regardless if the company developed the idea independently.)

Often the patent is simply a process, it's not even an actual product.

[mduell]

Ideas have little value, implementations are worth something.

[osiris]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Patent troll companies do that specifically. They file a patent (or acquire a company's patents) and don't actually produce anything. They then sue companies that sell a product that uses something that resembles their patent (regardless if the company developed the idea independently.)

Often the patent is simply a process, it's not even an actual product.

Look at all the patents that Apple files - I don't have a number, but every little idea is secured.

[Jawbone54]

Heh heh... "Winklevoss."

[ort888]

Zucky should give him a sizable chunk of change just to do the right thing, but ultimately the idea itself isn't really worth squat. Not in this instance anyway.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Inevitable conclusion:

It's not worth paying the lawyers to argue this in court, so let's just settle.

/thread

[CharlesS]

Did this Winklevoss person actually contract Zuckerberg to develop the site for him, or did Zuckerberg develop it on his own dime and by his own initiative?

[Hawkeye_a]

I'd like to sick with the story presented in the movie.

According to the movie, the winkelvoss' got in touch with zuckerberg and asked him to write type of dating site for them which was exclusive to harvard. They implied it would give him the opportunity to 'redeem' himself after a prior hacking stunt of his. No terms were offered, no specific implementation details were drawn up and no capital was invested(zuckerberg asked one of his friends for that instead).

But irrespective of the lack of paperwork, does the fact that they essentially suggested exclusivity(not how to accomplish it), mean they have a stake ?

For those of you in the fine arts the idea/concept/story is everything. In technology it's very different. U cannot copywrite/patent/own an idea. U copywrite actual code, and patent specific implementations of ideas.

An analogy would be....If someone asked(no terms offered) Leonardo to paint a portrait of a woman... Do they have any rights to the Mona Lisa ?
Cheers

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

I'd like to sick with the story presented in the movie.

According to the movie, the winkelvoss' got in touch with zuckerberg and asked him to write type of dating site for them which was exclusive to harvard. They implied it would give him the opportunity to 'redeem' himself after a prior hacking stunt of his. No terms were offered, no specific implementation details were drawn up and no capital was invested(zuckerberg asked one of his friends for that instead).

But irrespective of the lack of paperwork, does the fact that they essentially suggested exclusivity(not how to accomplish it), mean they have a stake ?

For those of you in the fine arts the idea/concept/story is everything. In technology it's very different. U cannot copywrite/patent/own an idea. U copywrite actual code, and patent specific implementations of ideas.

This is MacNN, not your BFF Jill.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by SSharon 

With some exceptions I don't think an idea on its own has much value. Also, Facebook succeeded because it isn't exclusive, not because it is.

But MySpace and Friendster weren't exclusive. Why did Facebook succeed when they had a significant head start?

[Wiskedjak]

Ideas without a patent are a dime a dozen and worth very little (and, most patented ideas are worth very little until some invests in developing the idea).

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

But MySpace and Friendster weren't exclusive. Why did Facebook succeed when they had a significant head start?

MySpace allowed too much anonymity (you can't easily find your old friends from highschool), was difficult to use because users could configure their page too much and was painful on the eyes for the same reason.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

This is MacNN, not your BFF Jill.

What?

[Laminar]

U kno wat I mean.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

But MySpace and Friendster weren't exclusive. Why did Facebook succeed when they had a significant head start?

Facebook was extremely exclusive initially, requiring a @harvard.edu to register (according to the movie anyway). It expanded by reducing it's exclusivity. I think people heard about it and wanted to get in initially solely because it was so exclusive.

I guess if the winklevai(?) had an implementation of their idea which they shared with zuckerberg and was subsequently plagurized (like with apple-Microsoft and the GUI), they would have a case , but just sharing an idea in that way doesn't. IMHO.

Thoughts?

[Hawkeye_a]

Actually they did have an incomplete implementation of their system, which he did have access to(source code, etc). So he could have plagurized the system completed it, rebranded it while misleading the winklevosses. I take it back zuckerberg is probably at fault, and seeing as how actual work was compromised/shared/stolen it isn't just a matter of using someone elses idea.

Cheers

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Facebook was extremely exclusive initially, requiring a @harvard.edu to register (according to the movie anyway). It expanded by reducing it's exclusivity. I think people heard about it and wanted to get in initially solely because it was so exclusive.

But even as it expanded, you were still limited to viewing and friending people at just your own school, so it was still very exclusive. I think that combined with the simple, functional interface is why it rocketed ahead of MySpace, which was full of annoying teens with gaudy profiles.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Actually they did have an incomplete implementation of their system, which he did have access to(source code, etc). So he could have plagurized the system completed it, rebranded it while misleading the winklevosses. I take it back zuckerberg is probably at fault, and seeing as how actual work was compromised/shared/stolen it isn't just a matter of using someone elses idea.

The movie made it clear that he didn't use any of their code.

[Doc HM]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

The movie made it clear that he didn't use any of their code.

And if it had claimed he did, just how long do you think it would have been tied up in legal wrangling. Having such an allegation made so publicly would be a lawyers wet dream.

It's a film not a legal testiment.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Ideas have little value, implementations are worth something.

This.

I have tons of great ideas (turning crap into Gold, a cell phone sized jet pack etc...).
So should I wait till someone makes it happen, and then claim I had the idea first ?

Ridiculous

-t

[Cold Warrior]

Some hick in southern Mississippi drunk on moonshine rocking on his porch could have an idea to connect 500 million people through a website. Execution, implementation, and processes matter. If the idea is specific enough to be immediately useful, then it is more of an invention or discovery and should be owned by the inventor. But generic, broad-stroke stuff, I'm not so sure.

If these two guys wanted a dating site, that had to have been done a thousand times even back then. Now the ability to think bigger and implement that vision is something special.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Doc HM 

And if it had claimed he did, just how long do you think it would have been tied up in legal wrangling. Having such an allegation made so publicly would be a lawyers wet dream.

It's a film not a legal testiment.

I'm not sure what the point of this post is. Do you believe that the truth was changed for the sake of the movie? Do you believe that Zuckerberg lied about not using any of their code?

[CharlesS]

I have no idea whether Zuckerberg used anyone's code or not, but I do know better than to rely on information from a movie plot.

Best to leave something like this to the courts, really.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

For those of you in the fine arts the idea/concept/story is everything. In technology it's very different. U cannot copywrite/patent/own an idea. U copywrite actual code, and patent specific implementations of ideas.

Huh? I've had lots of ideas for films and books but never got around to actually writing them and they, therefore, are just as useless as an un-produced technology. In any field ideas are cheap, implementation is the tricky bit.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

But even as it expanded, you were still limited to viewing and friending people at just your own school, so it was still very exclusive. I think that combined with the simple, functional interface is why it rocketed ahead of MySpace, which was full of annoying teens with gaudy profiles.



The movie made it clear that he didn't use any of their code.

All good points, and Zuckerberg did ask the Winkelvai in the movie "do you see any of your code on facebook?" to which the reply was "you stole our whole g-d damned idea".

I'm back on the fence here....

In the movie, Zuckerberg and Eduardo say that what the Winklevai shared with Zuckerberg was a dating site for Harvard. I've never been on a dating site, so i dont know what the similarities/differences are between them and facebook. Is it merely intent of posting a profile ?

Paco, Laminar:

I totally agree with you and the others who think that implementation and the process of accomplishing it is "the thing" that can and should be protected.
Paco, My comments regarding the fine arts... the deliverables would be a script/book/movie/music/etc....and yes i do agree with you. i guess, in my mind, the analogy would be if someone shares as idea of a story or shows you a storyboard.... do they have any rights(morally/ethically) on the final movie ? (I think my comment regarding the fine arts stemmed from the intangible nature of the final product, but looking at software one could argue the same thing so nevermind )

Cheers

[Doc HM]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I'm not sure what the point of this post is. Do you believe that the truth was changed for the sake of the movie? Do you believe that Zuckerberg lied about not using any of their code?

The point of the post is that the producer had a movie to make, which is presented as a work of entertainment. His choices: claim, on screen, the Zuckerberg lied and never ever have the movie see the light of day, or claim that he didn't, get the movie made and take the money.

If you are contending that the films account of events amounts to the absolute truth I feel you may be mistaken.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Doc HM 

The point of the post is that the producer had a movie to make, which is presented as a work of entertainment. His choices: claim, on screen, the Zuckerberg lied and never ever have the movie see the light of day, or claim that he didn't, get the movie made and take the money.

If you are contending that the films account of events amounts to the absolute truth I feel you may be mistaken.

I never made that claim. I made it clear that my conclusion was based on the film. I don't think anyone believes that the film was meant as a historical account.