Thursday, March 3, 2011

Ethical and Legal Issues: Is Mark Zuckerberg a Thief? An Analysis of Copyright Infringement in the Fight for Facebook

Many have called Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg a genius. Forbes has recently called him “The World’s Youngest Billionare”; However, Tyler and Cameron Winkelvoss call him a thief.  Here’s why…

In 2003, The Winklevosses (along with business partner/ Harvard classmate, Divya Narenda) approached Mark Zuckerberg about possibly becoming the programmer for their new website, Harvard Connection. Zuckerberg agreed to work on the project; however, this was not his intention. Instead, Zuckeberg ended up building upon the Winklevosses idea and creating While in the process of creating Facebook, Zuckerberg still kept in contact with the Winkelvosses via email and led them to believe that he was still working on their project. Upon finding out this information, and seeing how successful Facebook had become, Harvard Connection sued Zuckerberg for copyright infringement on intellectual property.  

Harvard Connection’s lawsuit against Facebook dealt with an issue of digital property. Digital Property refers to the idea that the law protects intangible or intellectual property. Intellectual property is about seeing who owns an idea. Digital Property protects intellectual property and intangible property through three basic mechanisms. The first is patent law, which is centered on inventions. The second mechanism is copyright, which addresses issues of expression, and the third is Trademark, which is concerned with the words or images used in the market.  The Winkelvosses case is an example of an issue of copyright infringement.

The 1976 Copyright Act states the owner of the copyright has exclusive rights to reproduction, to prepare derivate works, to perform the work publicly, and to distribution.  This act also states that copyright becomes property of the author as soon as the work is finished. The case between Harvard Connection and Facebook is difficult because it deals with stealing an idea. The work was not created already and there was no kind of protection put on the Winklevosses original idea.  The lawsuit would have most likely gone in favor of the Harvard Connection team if they had initially engaged in some kind of intellectual property protection method.

One of the most common methods of intellectual property protection is to take out a license on the idea. Licensing allows the buyer to use the product but restrict duplication or distribution. Since there was no actual product or buyer in this situation, licensing wouldn’t have been a possible intellectual property protection method for the Harvard Connection team. Instead, a more ideal protection method would have been to take a out a patent on the idea. A patent is issued to people who invent things and gives the inventor the right to stop anyone else from making, using or selling whatever is patented.  

Zuckerberg was smarter then the Harvard Connection team. He knew he had to make sure everyone knew Facebook was his idea. Upon creating Facebook he registered the domain name –, and creates a patent for the website. One of my favorite scenes from the film, The Social Network is when the Harvard Connection team sees up and running AND sees that Zuckerberg has essentially licensed the whole website.

Divya: What is that on the bottom of the page?
Cameron: A Mark Zuckerberg Production.

Divya: On the homepage?

Cameron: On every page.
Divya: Shit, I need a second to let the classiness waft over me.

In the end, Zuckerberg had to pay off the Winklevosses; however, I believe it was just to shut them up. The Harvard Connection team didn’t have the best case for copyright infringement. Marketing on the Internet has taught me that there are various things they initially should have done to prevent Zuckerberg from running with their idea and creating Facebook.  If they had put a patent on their idea, or actually created a prototype of the idea, the case for the origin on Facebook would have been much stronger and the Harvard Connection team might have now been the founders of Facebook.

the actual mark zuckerberg standing outside his billion dollar company, FACEBOOK 


  1. Great post, Mariel. I wasn't aware of this copyright claim. You did a nice job of explaining how to protect intellectual content and I think you are right that it would have been difficult for Harvard Connection to win this case because they did not have a finished product that Zuckerberg ripped off. He basically took their idea and expanded and refined it.
    Grade - 5/5

  2. If I remember correctly, Mark (and the film) claim he and the twins had the same idea at the same time, and he took the job to slow them down so that he could finish it. Such a claim would be (essentially) statistically impossible-- it would not only mean two different groups had the same idea at the same time (a 2 in 7 billion chance), but that they also happened to live in the same country, the same state, the same town AND the same school. If that's not improbable enough, he also happened to be HIRED by them to develop the same idea. That coincidence takes the potential probability off the charts. Saying the twins were not as "smart" as Zuckerberg is misleading. There is no genius in stealing someone else's ideas, even if they get away with it. The twin's mistake was trusting a fellow Harvard student, and honest people rarely think the same way as thieves do. What is amazing is that anyone with a brain can do the math and quickly determine who really deserves the credit for Facebook--- and yet, the vast majority still worship at the alter of America's greatest intellectual property thief. Genius? Perhaps, but only if you add the "criminal" part before it.

  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

  4. He is a thief. I bought scripts from a company named CHUPA mobile. I bought server space from network solutions LLC. This man was the spokesperson and not the founder. I have evidence of where the server is located and the account associated with it. Do not trust him he has stolen my information and broke into my web server that I purchased. The servers located in California are only profile servers. The orginating hyperlink is .