I just got around to watching Social Network on my flight back from India -- I really enjoyed it. When was the settlement, by the way? Seems to me like the Winklevii were adequately lawyered up at the time, no?
“Now that there is scrutiny, it’s important to get our story out,” says Cameron. “To be like, ‘Look, this guy is not who you think he is. He’s not the underdog, he’s not a bootstrapping kid. This is a very, very deeply amoral person.’” “He’s bordering on a sociopath,” adds Tyler.
Dude. Methinks these guys should use some of their daddy's money and purchase the services of a good PR person.
Yes--I believe they were represented by Quinn Emanuel in the original litigation, and there's related litigation because Quinn took it on a contingency fee, which the Winklevii are disputing. (John Quinn's Twitter feed is actually surprisingly good.) I think they have an awfully hard time unwinding this sort of settlement, but they seem hell-bent on trying to do so.
In the settlement negotiations, did they disclose whether or not $65M was cool? Because, I think a material omission about the coolness of a million dollars might be reason to unwind this thing.
How honorable can it be to be always yammering for a cut of the action and the spotlight?
I mean, I just don't buy that as their real motivation. And I don't think it is the money.
I think they are two VERY privleged young men who have never before been faced with a situation like this--they've never not been the net winner. It is like they've never been dumped before in their lives and still haven't figured out how to deal.
Yes, I had the reaction of being less sympathetic to the Winkelvii after the interview, but, more importantly, why should their settlement reflect any value added by Mark Zuckerberg after they were out of the company? If they settled for $65 million (poor babies) and then Zuckerberg led the company to be worth much, much more, how is that compensable injury to the twins? The thing is, the two of them can probably do better with their lives than feud with Zuckerberg.
When TSN came out, all the hoopla was that it would make Zuckerberg/Facebook look bad, and yes, Zuckerberg doesn't come off terribly well, but don't the Winklevii come off even worse in the film--as entitled snots? Sure, they're not the evil seducer that Sean Parker gets played as, but they're played as kind of petulant fools who are taken by Zuckerberg.
I kind of liked them in the movie. Not them, the one of them who was less aggro and more snooty. He was funny. But I have no illusions that the Winkelvii of the movie are the Winkelvosses of real life.
Here's what I'm wondering: Why is "Winklevii" always spelled with two "i"s? Is that the correct Greek declension or something? I'd have thought "Winklevi", but I only took Latin.
<span> No rich young white guy has ever gotten anywhere with me comparing himself to Abraham Lincoln.</span>
ReplyDeleteI just got around to watching Social Network on my flight back from India -- I really enjoyed it. When was the settlement, by the way? Seems to me like the Winklevii were adequately lawyered up at the time, no?
ReplyDelete“Now that there is scrutiny, it’s important to get our story out,” says Cameron. “To be like, ‘Look, this guy is not who you think he is. He’s not the underdog, he’s not a bootstrapping kid. This is a very, very deeply amoral person.’”
ReplyDelete“He’s bordering on a sociopath,” adds Tyler.
Dude. Methinks these guys should use some of their daddy's money and purchase the services of a good PR person.
Yes--I believe they were represented by Quinn Emanuel in the original litigation, and there's related litigation because Quinn took it on a contingency fee, which the Winklevii are disputing. (John Quinn's Twitter feed is actually surprisingly good.) I think they have an awfully hard time unwinding this sort of settlement, but they seem hell-bent on trying to do so.
ReplyDeleteIn the settlement negotiations, did they disclose whether or not $65M was cool? Because, I think a material omission about the coolness of a million dollars might be reason to unwind this thing.
ReplyDeleteIt's not about the money because they don't need the money. Which makes me not want to give them the money.
ReplyDeleteHow honorable can it be to be always yammering for a cut of the action and the spotlight?
ReplyDeleteI mean, I just don't buy that as their real motivation. And I don't think it is the money.
I think they are two VERY privleged young men who have never before been faced with a situation like this--they've never not been the net winner. It is like they've never been dumped before in their lives and still haven't figured out how to deal.
Kind of like Dan Snyder.
ReplyDeleteJust because Zuckerberg isn't the underdog doesn't mean the Winkelvii are the underdogs.
ReplyDeleteYes, I had the reaction of being less sympathetic to the Winkelvii after the interview, but, more importantly, why should their settlement reflect any value added by Mark Zuckerberg after they were out of the company? If they settled for $65 million (poor babies) and then Zuckerberg led the company to be worth much, much more, how is that compensable injury to the twins? The thing is, the two of them can probably do better with their lives than feud with Zuckerberg.
ReplyDeleteWhen TSN came out, all the hoopla was that it would make Zuckerberg/Facebook look bad, and yes, Zuckerberg doesn't come off terribly well, but don't the Winklevii come off even worse in the film--as entitled snots? Sure, they're not the evil seducer that Sean Parker gets played as, but they're played as kind of petulant fools who are taken by Zuckerberg.
ReplyDeleteI kind of liked them in the movie. Not them, the one of them who was less aggro and more snooty. He was funny. But I have no illusions that the Winkelvii of the movie are the Winkelvosses of real life.
ReplyDeleteI mean, their law school essays practically write themselves.
ReplyDeleteHere's what I'm wondering: Why is "Winklevii" always spelled with two "i"s? Is that the correct Greek declension or something? I'd have thought "Winklevi", but I only took Latin.
ReplyDeleteBecause there are two of them.
ReplyDelete