Facebook twins appeal settlement ruling

The Winklevoss twins want more money.

San Francisco - The twins who claim that Marc Zuckerberg stole their idea for Facebook lodged an appeal Monday against a court ruling enforcing the terms of their 65-million-dollar settlement with the social networking billionaire.

Lawyers for the Winklevoss brothers, who were portrayed heavily in the movie The Social Network, asked the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to hear their case with a full 11-judge panel, after the court's three-judge panel ruled last week that the original settlement should stand.

Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss had claimed that Zuckerberg lied about the value of Facebook when they reached the 2008 settlement over their claims that Zuckerberg stole the idea for Facebook from them while all were students at Harvard University. Their shares are now worth more than 160 million dollars.

Judge Alex Kozinski ruled last week that the brothers had no right to renegotiate that settlement.

'The Winklevosses are not the first parties bested by a competitor who then seek to gain through litigation what they were unable to achieve in the marketplace,' Chief Judge Alex Kozinski wrote for the three-judge panel. 'At some point, litigation must come to an end. That point has now been reached.'

But their lawyer, Jerome Falk Jr, insisted that the decision was flawed.

'Courts have wisely refused to enforce a settlement obtained by fraudulent means,' he claimed in the new petition. 'The panel's decision shut the courthouse door to a solid claim that Facebook obtained this settlement by committing securities fraud. Our petition asks the full Ninth Circuit to reopen that door.'

Read More

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/business/news/article_1633835.php/Facebook-twins-appeal-settlement-ruling

WikiLeaks, free speech and Twitter come together in Va. court case

An odd confluence of important issues came together in a federal courtroom in Alexandria on Tuesday: the criminal investigation of WikiLeaks, free speech and social networking.

It all stemmed from the government's attempts to get personal information from the Twitter accounts of three people linked to the WikiLeaks probe. Their lawyers argued that the data - screen names, mailing addresses, telephone numbers, credit card and bank account information, and Internet protocol addresses - are protected by the First Amendment. Prosecutors said the request is a routine part of their criminal probe.

It was the opening salvo in what experts expect to be a long and difficult investigation of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and others suspected of disclosing thousands of classified documents on the anti-secrecy Web site.

Tuesday's arguments went to the heart of a larger debate about WikiLeaks - whether the posting of the documents was free speech or a violation of national security. They also provided a high-profile test of outdated rules about what data the government can seize in the new world of social networking.

In the courtroom, John Keker, a lawyer representing one of the Twitter clients, said the users' data would give the government a map of people tied to WikiLeaks and essentially halt free speech online. He noted how social networking sites have been used in Egypt and Tunisia, where citizens have pushed for government changes, and suggested that such a broad request by the U.S. government in this case would put a stop to that.

John Palfrey, a Harvard law professor not associated with the case, said the government is using 18th-century arguments with 21st-century technology.

"These are not new arguments, but they're being used in a really interesting and important way that has a twist to them in light of social media," he said.

New details of probe

Until now, there has been little public evidence of the government's criminal investigation of WikiLeaks, a probe Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced in late November.

Information began to come out last week after U.S. Magistrate Judge Theresa Carroll Buchanan granted a motion from the three Twitter clients to unseal some filings in the case. Tuesday's hearing was the first public debate in the criminal investigation of Assange and others.

Read More

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/15/AR2011021506483.html