One for the Money, Two for the Show
By Thomas Gallant
As I’m sure you’ve heard by now, the Winklevoss twins have had their latest lawsuit shot down. Take a look at the headlines and you’ll be sure to see that they were not able to get a revised settlement out of Facebook. Take an even closer look and you will see the stirring angry mob in the comments section of just about every article out there (and maybe this one by the time I’m done) letting fly their spiteful agreement with the courts and providing armchair suggestions on why the Twinklevii got more than they deserved.
I get the lack of sympathy, I really do. These guys are as blue-blood pedigree as it gets: Brunswick Academy > Harvard > Olympics > Oxford, likely with a hefty trust fund to boot. From what I hear, they aren’t bad looking either. There is no reason to feel sorry for them. However, in the case against Facebook I tend to side with their view.
Everybody is going on and on about how much their settlement is worth. Originally reported at $65 million in cash and Facebook stock - stock that has apparently since tripled in value. So let’s say, for argument’s sake, they’ve gotten $100 million out of the deal. That should be enough right? Sounds more than fair for doing “nothing” as most people see it. I disagree.
This isn’t an argument about dollars, it’s an argument about justice. I’m not a Winklevoss and I don’t know what they are really thinking, but I’m pretty sure they’ve gone through all of this trouble to right a wrong. Perhaps it’s naive or outdated to think that if somebody screws you over, you have a right to correct that regardless of public opinion or whatever the path of least resistance is. Despite the haterade people want to pour over these guys for all of their good fortune, they don’t settle for the easy way out. You don’t accomplish degrees from Harvard and Oxford or a spot on the Olympic rowing team without hard work (for the latter, LOTS of hard work).
Do I think they invented Facebook? No, and they certainly are not responsible for its meteoric success since 2004. I do however, agree that their idea was stolen and their progress was stifled by a wolf in sheep’s clothing. If Zuck had taken their concept and not agreed to work for them, then there’s really no argument. But pretending to develop something for somebody while instead developing it for yourself is devious, untruthful, dishonorable, and unlawful - all characteristics that the Winklevoss brothers have been so carefully bred not to perpetuate.
I look forward to your comments.
TG
