June 23, 2011 by staff
Winklevoss Twins, Olympic Rowing twins Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss have decided not to appeal to the Supreme Court a ruling by the defense, and 65 million Facebook Inc. founder Mark Zuckerberg, signaling the possible end of the long dispute.
The 2008 agreement was intended to resolve a dispute over whether Zuckerberg stole the idea for what became the social networking site more popular Winklevoss, as he had attended Harvard University. Their battle was dramatized in the 2010 film “The Social Network”.
After accepting the agreement in cash and stock, the Winklevoss tried to undo, saying it was fraudulent because the information Facebook hid from them, and deserved more money.
The 6 feet 5 inches (1.96 meters) twins, who competed at the 2008 Beijing Olympics, had planned to appeal the April 11 ruling by a federal appeals court in San Francisco defense of the solution that court called “very favorable.”
However, in a presentation Wednesday with the court, the Winklevoss said that after “careful consideration”, he decided not to seek Supreme Court review. The filing gave no reason for the decision.
Zuckerberg created Facebook in 2004 in his Harvard University dorm.
The California case was filed by ConnectU, Inc., the Winklevoss conjunction with another Harvard student, Divya Narendra, who joined in the filing Wednesday.
Facebook said in a statement, said: “We considered this case closed for a long time and we are happy to see the other party and agrees.”
Jerome Falk, a lawyer for the Winklevoss and Narendra, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Presentation on Wednesday clears the way for Facebook to seek the dismissal of a lawsuit filed in federal court in Boston connection.
Analysts have estimated that the Palo Alto, California, Facebook and could be worth 70 billion or more if you make an initial public offering, perhaps in early 2012.
Facebook could be worth over 100 billion and an initial public offering, CNBC estimated last week.
Anyway, Inc. et al v. Facebook ConnectU Inc. et al, U.S. 9 Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 08-16745.
Please feel free to send if you have any questions regarding this post , you can contact on
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this site are that of the authors and not necessarily that of U.S.S.POST.