I'm on page 73, and I don't think this guy has said one positive thing about a single person so far (except his parents, who always take his side). What an anger-filled rant.
Malka Weil, Dianne Derrick, Joseph Kocian, Robert Morgan, Carl Sjogreen...positive things are said about all of them in that range of the book. (None are relatives.)
"Ms. Derrick" lied to the other teachers about asking him to install software on her computer. She apologized to him, but she's still portrayed in a bad light and used as an example throughout the book as the proof that "all adults lie." I don't remember the others except for Carl, but they certainly don't stand out.
(I wrote the book.) I think you exaggerate my criticism in your comments.
I tried very hard to portray my teachers accurately. Many of them gave me what I believe to be legitimate reasons to be upset, and in some cases, angry.
In this case, on page 60 I wrote, "Mrs. Derrick had been no aberration. Teachers lied, even when they told students not to." I didn't say (as you state), "all adults lie." Her name actually doesn't come up again until page 334, which is "Acknowledgments," where I praise her and other teachers by stating, "May the world’s teachers aspire to your example."
Perhaps I'm too critical, but on the other hand, none of these stories were embellished. I think a teacher lying in a disciplinary context is justifiable cause for a student to be at least temporarily unhappy.
The method of having the user prove they own the book makes me nostalgic for the Microprose games of the early 1990's. It's easily defeated, though, by going to the appropriate page in the e-book.
I might put one up eventually, but I'll probably charge for it the way some other authors have. In the meantime there's a version on the Kindle (which apparently you'll be able to also read on the iPad as of tomorrow).
First those brothers start working on their Facebook in 2002, get nothing done for 2 years. Go up to Zuckerberg, and say, "hey, you wanna code this thing for us that's like a Myspace but for like colleges and stuff?" He agrees, but then is like "wait, why am I working for these clowns? I'm gonna make my own Facbeook". The brothers then claim the code was really meant for them and later win millions just for knowing Zuckerberg.
Now, you claim that because Mark talked about Facebook with you and (gasp) went to your website to look at it, that you somehow deserve credit for Facebook even though, as you admit, your own website didn't have any traction. So if you ever discuss ideas with someone, and they go on to turn that idea into a success, you will then claim credit for their execution.
The work is irrelevant it should just be the ideas that matter. The judge should have been asking himself two things 'did these two brothers come up with the majority of the ideas and designs that make facebook what it is?' and 'did Zuckerberg maliciously take these ideas?'
If I came up with the vehicle designs for a new low-mpg hatchback and show it to a few people at Ford and then magically Ford has a car being released that fits my designs to a T then yes I'm fully entitled to compensation for it regardless of my ability to implement it. Someone else is always better posed to implement an idea, if we reinforced that attitude then we wouldn't have anti-monopoly laws and anti-trust cases going.
Copyright doesn't protect ideas, so obviously these two brothers had design documents and other corroborating evidence otherwise a judge would have never heard their case. Obviously the judge thought that beyond a doubt that Zuckerberg's relationship with these two brothers suggests beyond doubt that he took their ideas and plans for implementation to form his own website.
Essentially the judge looked at it like "If Zuckerberg hadn't defrauded these two gentlemen, they would have been the founders of Facebook." This is why they were awarded not only money but a minority stake in the company (I believe they have to go back to court to agree upon how much their stake is worth, which will be their ability to implement vs Zuckerberg's).
When you look at cases like this you have to realise that a million crackpots claim to have come up with the great idea before someone else did. These two brothers likely not only have documents proving it, but their relation to Zuckerberg and the fact they allegedly hired him eliminate the majority of the crackpot criteria. Judge's rarely waste their time on cases like this, so the brothers must have had a really good initial case to begin with to even get the Judge to look.
Let's start with a December 7th (IM) exchange Mark Zuckerberg had with his Harvard classmate and Facebook cofounder, Eduardo Saverin.
"They made a mistake haha. They asked me to make it for them."
He therefore had a choice to make: Tell Cameron, Tyler and Divya that he wanted out of their project, or string them along until he was ready to launch thefacebook.com.
Friend: So have you decided what you're going to do about the websites?
