Sorry Jason, but you have no idea what you're talking about here. Having been in the real-life version of that movie for the past six years I have a pretty good notion of what can and cannot be taken away by another, and it's a lot more than what your post would lead people to believe.
I think your experience ILLUSTRATES Jason's points.
(note to others: thinkcomp lays claim to the idea of Facebook: http://nyti.ms/cC0HwJ )
Jason's point boils down to "effort, passion, ambition, execution". While he didn't overtly say it, the point is that ideas are fairly cheap and certainly easy to steal.
IANAL, but I don't think there's much/any INVENTION in Facebook-- And clearly the ideas there are stolen pretty liberally by dozens of companies every day. Hell, Twitter swiped the status update, right?
In a world where many ideas can't (and shouldn't) really be protected (social web software), what determines who wins? Execution, market sense, effort, guts, timing, and vision. Near as I can tell, you lost on all of those fronts. Nothin' bad about that (other than your ongoing focus on it).
I understand where you're coming from since it's strikes a very personal chord with you+facebook (it might only do that for a few other people in the world.) The facebook examples in the post are meant to be small examples within the context there. There's certainly more than meets the eye and I certainly don't have any idea about the details/final arrangements between you and Mark. You could replace the facebook example with other similar examples in business. If you want to refute the arguments with your own personal first hand experiences in the Facebook situation that would be useful.
Here's why I have an issue with your post. Intellectual property theft has a number of effects that directly follow, all of which are serious. You lose:
- Credibility and trust. There's always that hint of distrust when people meet you because they have heard that you have made a claim on person X who "stole" Y from you. They may not know anything about the details, but (they worry) maybe you'll make that same claim again...on them! Worse, if they don't know anything about it but only find out later through rumors, you will probably never hear anything from that person again. Whether or not you are right and whether or not you have evidence, you will always be referred to in the media as the person "who claims that he" _____, not the person "who" _____.
- Credit. If something really was taken from you that you created, chances are you aren't going to be recognized for it.
- Money. If you decide to stand up for yourself it costs a lot of money, typically in the six figures, but certainly no less than five. For the Winklevosses in the movie of course it cost low eight figures (though I'm not making a statement about their claims).
- Health. Anyone who has fought any major legal proceeding knows that it's pretty much guaranteed to have an effect on your health.
- Legal rights. If the person who took the intellectual property later uses a catalyst (like venture capital) to get ahead, you can be left not only minus your work, but also minus legal protections associated with it that are now attributed to the person who took it.
- Social relationships. There are three separate ways social relationships are impaired. If a large number of people become associated with the person who took the intellectual property (likely once again with venture capital), then you will automatically be isolated from those people no matter how decent they themselves may be. Dating is harder (see credibility and trust). Hiring, getting hired, or finding co-founders is harder, too (also see credibility and trust).
- Rebound potential. The only way to negate all of the above, which apply whether you are right or wrong, and whether the facts are available or not, is to become richer than the other person. Otherwise you are basically stuck.
As for the points in your article:
- Long term vision. Irrelevant, it can be supplanted with a different one, for better or for worse.
- Analytical insights. Irrelevant.
- Domain expertise. No, they can't steal it, but it can usually be replicated to some degree.
- Talent. No, they can't steal it, but it can definitely be replicated through other hires.
- Passion for great service? Sorry, but give me a break. What American consumer expects great service these days and will immediately turn away from a company due to a lack of it? Irrelevant.
- Luck. As I've described above, luck is a lot harder to come by in this position.
Anyway, that's my two cents. Sorry, but I just couldn't let this one go.
Credit/Credibility- It's all you frame the situation, but you're right. People will often see you as the one making a claim. The media has a shitty way of framing things, but does that matter? If ConnectU was at least somewhat close to facebook in traffic it would just be more press.
Money- This part sucks. I'm sure you spent a lot of money to defend your claims.
Health- Mental health wise I probably could not go through what you went through.
Legal rights- You can't patent or sue in court for traction. Original FB was probably a mess of code. Would you have wanted that anyway? As for the patents on social networks Pincus and Reid Hoffman owned those anyway. I think the whole notion of legally owning "social networking" is ridiculous.
Social relationships- This part sucks. I've never had to deal with this personally, so it's hard to empathize, but having friends in the middle of the situation sucks. Acquaintances who don't even know the situation must be far worse.
Rebound potential- You're an insanely bright guy, and I'm sure it's taken your toll on you, but you'll continue to succeed regardless.
Points in my article:
-Long term vision: If Mark's goal was to just be thefacebook.com and focus on colleges, it wouldn't be what it is today. Long term vision can come later, but you can't steal it with an idea. Most people steal a snapshot with an idea, not the whole picture.
-Analytical insights: The data points FB had early on (which colleges wanted to be let in the most) were without a doubt valuable. It told them where to open up next.
Domain expertise: Depending on how in depth the problem is there may only be a few experts in the area. If it's a broad thing such as Facebook, you could probably get equal talent. I don't know you well, but I've read a lot of what you put out there. I'd back you technically/logically against the original founders.
Talent: Founding talent is the real DNA of the company. You can replicate it afterwards in hires due to money or being a hot startup.
Passion for great service: It may not make you lose customers, but you will certainly keep them around a whole lot longer. Zappos may have done well even if it were a slimy operation, but I doubt it would have done as well.
Luck: Can't refute that argument.
It's great insight and we disagree on a lot of points, but I didn't go through the same experience you did. I don't write to have people agree or stay silent. I write for people to bring up thought, especially someone I respect like yourself who has deep understanding of the topic at hand.
Aaron! Hello again. We seem to cross paths on Hacker News once every six months, with you writing about Zuckerberg sucking and me writing that I'd like for you to forgo those feelings a tiny bit so you can be more successful in life. We usually both make good points and nothing changes.
"Locus of control in social psychology refers to the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events that affect them. Understanding of the concept was developed by Julian B. Rotter in 1954, and has since become an important aspect of personality studies.
Individuals with a high internal locus of control believe that events result primarily from their own behavior and actions. Those with a high external locus of control believe that powerful others, fate, or chance primarily determine events."
Now, a theme of your postings is that your credit, money, health, social relationships, and rebound potential have been hosed.
This may be true - however, it might also be disempowering and not serving your goals. How often do you think about this? I'm guessing - rather a lot more than is optimal for you to thrive in life on your terms.
Anyone would be pissed in your situation. Anyone. But everyone successful gets a significant betrayal or two along the way. I'd recommend you assert more control over your life and shrug off the Facebook thing as much as possible. Reliving it, commenting on it, writing about it in newspapers, writing a book about it - does that really serve your goals? Really? Your most important goals?
I said it before and I'll say it again - you're a talented dude. That talent could almost certainly be deployed in better ways than anti-Facebooking, you could be making yourself more wealthy, successful, happy, prosperous - and you could be doing that for your family, friends, and loved ones. Something to consider.
Hi. Since you always seem to give me unsolicited advice, allow me to give you some:
I've never met you and you clearly don't know me. Strongly consider the limits of your actual knowledge concerning my actual position, versus what I choose to share in a public forum in generic terms, before telling me what I should do to change my actual life. Also consider that your rather personal criticisms, however well-intentioned, may be construed by others to imply that you actually do know me, when you don't.
I'm using my talent to build my company (http://www.thinkcomputer.com) if that's not already clear. As I've also made clear before, I can do that and comment on things about which I'm uniquely knowledgeable at the same time. And if you don't like it, tough.
The thing about idea theft is all too often the person it was stolen from wouldn't have been able to make it work in the first place. And here, it seems, is a shining case in point.
Fortunately by the rules you apparently play by, I need not provide any evidence or explanation to such a declaration, just the smug empty statement itself.
Edit: the original parent said (from memory, maybe not 100% accurate): "Sorry Jason, you don't know what you are talking about here." I wouldn't be so snarky about the edited parent.
You made the edit while I was posting. The edited post is different, like I have mentioned. My reply was to the original.
It's a classic concurrency problem.
A = thinkcomp, B = me:
A posts
A starts editing (1)
B starts replying (2)
A finishes editing (and sees no reply)
B finishes replying (and sees edit)
B edits his post
* (1) and (2) can be reversed for this point to be the same
Based on this sequence, there it is reasonable for you to think I was replying to your edited post. It is not the case tho, please take my word for it. HN provides no way for me to know that you are editing as I write.
As for profile etc, you are the one making the claim, it is your responsibility to present qualifying references if you want me to think your statements are valid, not my job to chase down the source of every 2 sentence comment on HN.
