Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Tomorrow morning, ConnectU founders Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss will have another go at trying to convince a court to allow them to wriggle out of their reported $65 million settlement with Facebook Inc. And despite the brothers’ attempts to keep portions of their Facebook litigation under wraps, cameras will be rolling as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit hears their case. On Monday, the appellate court issued an order granting a request by the ABC affiliate KGO-TV to videotape oral arguments for later broadcast, with KGO-TV acting as a pool-fee for all media organizations. Moreover, according to a letter filed Thursday by Facebook’s lawyers at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, both have sides agreed that previously sealed documents, “including the specific financial terms” of the confidential settlement agreement between ConnectU and Facebook, can be publicly referenced during oral argument. The Winklevosses, who co-founded the Harvard-based social networking company ConnectU, accused Facebook wunderkind Mark Zuckerberg of stealing the idea for the social network behemoth while writing computer code for their site. (The controversy is recounted in the acclaimed 2010 film The Social Network.) In 2008, to resolve the Winklevosses’ suit, Facebook agreed to buy ConnectU for a reported $65 million in cash and Facebook stock. But the ConnectU founders came to believe the Facebook stock they were to receive in the settlement was worth less than they originally thought. They sought to rescind the deal, but Facebook convinced San Jose federal district court judge James Ware to enforce the agreement. The ConnectU folk then appealed Judge Ware’s ruling. The decision to allow KGO-TV to videotape the proceeding is a milestone in the Facebook litigation–the 2008 proceeding before Judge Ware took place behind closed doors–but it’s not unusual for Ninth Circuit arguments to be videotaped. David Madden, the court’s public information officer said the Ninth Circuit has received roughly 300 taping requests since it began permitting cameras in 1991, and has approved two-thirds of them. “It’s fairly common,” Madden said. The Winklevoss’s lawyer, Jerome Falk of Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin told us it “doesn’t make any difference to me” whether the proceedings are televised. Falk, who said he came into the case about 18 months ago, noted that the public interest is not surprising, given Facebook’s cultural hegemony and the popularity of The Social Network. “The movie has probably had an impact on press interest,” Falk said. Facebook’s lawyer, E. Joshua Rosenkranz of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, was traveling and unavailable for comment.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.