April 7 - Facebook announced today it agreed to settle a lawsuit with Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, creators of ConnectU over origins of the idea of the social networking site.
One year ago, the ConnectU creators filed a suit in a district court in Boston against Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook, alleging that Zuckerberg stole the website social network concept from them in 2003. Facebook did not voluntarily acknowledge its agreement on its press page and would not comment on legal issues. Both parties acknowledged that motions to dismiss the lawsuit would be filed in the next few weeks.
One year ago, Zuckerberg and ConnectU creators battled back and forth in the courtroom over the merits to this lawsuit. The Winklevoss brothers provided the New York Times, 02138 magazine, and eventually with court with documents describing discussions and even Zuckerberg’s online journal describing the development of Facebook. The settlement remains disclosed from the public record. Many speculate that Facebook is attempting to discard and challenges to its independent existence prior to a possible initial public offering (IPO) sometime next year.
This is not the first of claims that Zuckerberg stole the online social network website idea. According to a chronological account, which Zuckerberg does not deny, Aaron J. Greenspan started a website called “houseSYSTEM,” a campus dating and social networking program several months before Facebook and ConnectU went online. Zuckerberg was one of the early participants. One email, which Greenspan circulated widely to fellow Harvard students, introduced houseSYSTEM’s newest feature, called “the Face Book.” It served as a quick way for students to locate each other online. This site had many similar features, including birthday reminders, event calendars, RSVP’s, photo albums, and “how you know a friend” features.
Zuckerberg certainly deserves credit for the work he has completed. The determination to move to Palo Alto, raise capital, and grow the company to have over 37 million users is something Internet pioneers dream of and a handful may come close to achieving. Derivative concepts happen all of the time in business and many people become incredibly successful at adapting ideas and then marketing them.
The main issue with this lawsuit is, and it may be due to the immaturity of Zuckerberg in giving credit where credit is due, there is very clear evidence that many of these ideas are not just derivative but exact copies. It seems less like Facebook and Zuckerberg are willing to give overdue credit by settling and more like, “What can we do to get rid of this?” In isolation, this does not seem like a major issue. Companies live and die by public relations problems.
Where does this fit in the bigger picture? Facebook has had enough blunders to put their public reputation in question. Their frequency and magnitude make them look less like isolated incidents and more like a company that needs to focus on its mission, on its reputation, and on its users.
Mini-feed: When the “mini-feed” function first came out in 2006, it took all users by complete surprise. It broadcast often personal information including new friends, events attended, pictures, and name changes. At first, users did not even know how to turn off (or if they could) this function. An enormous backlash from users forced the creators to quickly revamp privacy settings to minimize the amount of information Facebook published.
Beacon: The integrated advertising program that broadcast what products users were buying on the mini-feed without many people knowing. Sure it was in the user agreement’s fine print; in reality, few people paid attention and had spending habits quickly plastered over hundred’s of users’ “home” pages on facebook. This blunder was so great, Moveon.org launched a nationwide petition to change Facebook’s position, which it originally refused to do. It since has removed this feature.
Searchability: Facebook opened up user profiles for searching on search engines such as Google and Yahoo. The default at the outset was for searchability to remain open, where the user had to affirmatively change privacy settings and make their profile hidden to search engines. Had users not made this affirmative step, anyone searching could find their name and realize they had a Facebook account.
Deleting Accounts: Recently users realized that if they wanted to remove themselves and their personal information from Facebook, it was not possible. The site instead “deactivated accounts” for users to retrieve if they later wanted to rejoin. Facebook now allows for users to permanently remove themselves from the site servers.
Applications: The third party developer applications started initially as a way to personalize the Facebook profile. Now, every conceivable interest has a group with the option to invite entire lists of Facebook friends at one time. Without thinking, users email hundreds of people, flooding inboxes without considering inconveniences.
Facebook recently has tightened privacy controls and given the user more control over the information on their profile. The site also has many useful functions in connecting professional and social contacts. On a larger scale, what the company lacks is foresight in protecting the interests of its users in an attempt to expand and maintain an image of professionalism in a business world. The company many times has had to apologize to its user base and save face for the sake of PR.
How many times will users give Facebook a pass? Have other companies had similar missteps and equal attempts to self-correct?
Spread the Word: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
Posted by thechritic 
