Kudos to Julie Watts of CBS-TV-KPIX San Francisco for her opening coverage of Leader v. Facebook. Take special note of two items. First, Mark Zuckerberg claimed to have developed in two weeks while studying for finals what took Leader Technologies 145,000 man-hours. Yeah, right.
Facebook is overplaying the “invalidity” word; “invalidity” means many things in patent law and cannot be sustained without “clear and convincing” evidence
Second, Patent lawyer William Gallagher’s statement “the patent’s invalid.” This use of the word “invalid” threw me when I first heard it. It sounds so ominous; so unequivocally final. What gives? If it is invalid, then why are we still talking about it? It’s because “invalidity” is one of those hopelessly complicated LEGAL terms used to throw us laymen off the track!!! Forget about what you think “invalid” means. “Invalidity” has many layers of meaning related to a patent. What I have concluded is that Facebook is overplaying the word “invalid” because they know us laymen THINK invalid means illegitimate. It appears to be the same tactic they used at trial to baffle the lay jury with confusing legal concepts. That’s not what it means in Leader v. Facebook. “Invalid” in this case simply means Facebook succeeded in getting the jury to believe a “smoke and mirrors” story better suited for a juicy episode of Boston Legal. 
“On sale bar” is a hopelessly confusing legal concept; heck, it took me two weeks of practice just to say it right; no wonder Facebook chose it as their “Hail Mary” defense (“in confusion there is profit”)
Facebook tricked the jury with fragmented ‘evidence’ (Interrogatory #9) regarding the “on sale bar invalidity defense.” See what I mean? I used the official legal language surrounding this issue and you have no idea what I just said!!! Ha! See “How Facebook tricked the jury” below. Please be sure to write Julie Watts at CBS-TV San Francisco and thank her for her efforts. Julie’s Email is jawatts@kpix.cbs.com.
Word has it that Julie’s report will be replayed nationally on CBS this weekend and/or on CBS This Morning on Monday. This video starts with an advertisement. And by the way, Facebook did not respond to Julie’s inquiries either. So much for S-1 public accountability.
Speaking of the S-1. I finally found someone at the SEC willing to explore the Leader v Facebook case in detail. Now we have the SEC tuned in to this blog! Yay team!
This is a Flash video, so Apple Mac, iPad, iPhone and iPod users will need use a PC and go directly to this link: Federal Appeals Court to hear Leader v. Facebook Case.
* * *
{ 2 } Comments
Molly Woods of CNET in the CBS-5 KPIX video touched on one important, overlooked, fact about this case, Leader Technologies, Inc. v. Facebook Technologies, Inc., 08-CV-862-LPS (D.Del. 2008), that gets little attention, is that there is a “fundamental concern about the morals” of Mark Zuckerberg in addition to a certain dislike for “software engineers”. Remember his quote from Wired magazine, April 10, 2010, ”one good hacker can be as good as 10 to 20 engineers”!
“Definition of HACKER, according to Merriam-Webster”
1: one that hacks
2: a person who is inexperienced or unskilled at a particular activity
3: an expert at programming and solving problems with a computer
4: a person who illegally gains access to and sometimes tampers with information in a computer system
Definition #3 seems to describe a software engineer.
Definition #4 seems to apply to Mark Zuckerberg.
An article in the Harvard Crimson, November 19, 2003, talks about the “infamous” hacking date, October 28, 2003. After which Mark Zuckerberg’s site, Facemash, was soon closed down by Harvard because Mark Zuckerberg was facing accusations for violating individual privacy, by stealing pictures of students to post on his site, breach of security and violating copyrights! He was also facing expulsion from Harvard. He reached an agreement with Harvard and the charges were dropped.
Remember Facebook v. Connect U deposition, on April 25, 2006, when asked how much time he devoted to writing code before the February 4th, 2004 launch date. He states,” I don’t know exactly. I had problem sets and other stuff going on then. My finals. So I mean the amount of time that I had would have been capped by that. I think it was somewhere between a week and two weeks or so.”
Mark Zuckerberg was hired by the Winklevoss brothers to finish development on the HarvardConnection site for them. In six weeks’ time he was unable to produce a working copy of the software they had hired him to help with. Remember, their software had already been started in the spring of 2003. Facebook in 1 or 2 weeks???
Again, looking at the character of Mark Zuckerberg, an article by, Business Insider, March 5, 2010, titled, “In 2004, Mark Zuckerberg Broke Into A Facebook User’s Private Email Account”.
Besides all of the other privacy issue’s Facebook has had. You then get the FTC clamping down on Facebook this year for blatant violations of privacy, ( see, http://ftc.gov/opa/2011/11/privacysettlement.shtm)
What is Mark Zuckerberg role in all this? If you look in Leader Technologies, Inc. v. Facebook Technologies, Inc., 08-CV-862-LPS (D.Del. 2008), It states that Mark Zuckerburg doesn’t have any control over his employees or Facebook users. Even in the FTC complaint and the S-1 filing that statement is disproved! Beside the numerous articles, (See, http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/07/10341182-facebooks-mark-zuckerberg-has-too-much-control-major-investor-says ) NO CONTROL???
Now you have the, Summit 6 LLC v. Facebook, patent infringement case and the possible Yahoo threat of patent infringement cases.
How would you classify Mark Zuckerberg?
Definition #3: software engineer
.
Definition #4: “Hacker” (see. Wall Street Journal article, February 4, 2012, “For Facebook ‘Hacker Way’ is way of life”.)
All of these companies with patent infringement cases can’t be all wrong!!!!
One company is already proven correct, Leader Technologies Inc!
Keep up the good work Donna!
Hi Donna,
My report on this case (“Facebook as Fraud: The Leader Technologies Lawsuit”) is posted at http://bit.ly/xg9mrC. I’ve cited your work and tried to be objective and fair, which does lead one to see Facebook’s position and legal actions in a less than favorable light. Keep up the good work, keep digging, and keep us all posted.
Best,
Michael
Post a Comment