Paul Ceglia has been fined $5,000 for failing to produce the evidence that he is the owner of half - or 84 per cent as he first claimed - of Facebook. US Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio ordered Ceglia to pay the fine, and a proportion of Facebook’s hefty legal costs, as a punishment for prevarication over producing the email …
"wood pellet salesman and convicted felon"
There's something about that phrase that gets a laugh out of me. Don't ask me why.
Lacking a scintilla of proof
He may be a convicted felon, and a fraud, but the court evidence is quite compelling - if it's not found to be fake, and apparently a law firm has investigated it's origin and testified that it is genuine, then he's going to be a very rich man. Alternatively, he'll be doing a very, very long stretch in chokey.
Chances are the evidence *is* all faked, but given the past duplicitous behaviour of Zuckerberg I would NOT put it past him to have actually pulled the strokes outlined in the evidence. I would laugh if he loses this case and is once and for all proven to be one of the shadiest businessmen in technology.
Is that slightly more than a smidgen, but a little less than an iota?
A scintilla is just a very shiny iota. Likewise a smidgen is an iota that has been crushed and rubbed into something rather hard.
Paris, because she's shiny and, er, ...
Your eight month old article appears to be talking about the same evidence that has failed to turn up in court.
The law firm that has "investigated the evidence" is the very same one that first decided to no longer represent Ceglia.
Are you sure you have read and understood both articles and the timeline?
At this stage, I'd guess he's not going to be a very rich man.
"Failing to produce the evidence"?
I must have missed something. He clearly HAS the evidence, so why hasn't he produced it? Or is this some kind of disingenuous legal mumbo-jumbo?
Anyway, I hope he wins. Nobody deserves to fail more than Zuckerberg.
"He clearly HAS the evidence..."
What makes you say that? I'd have thought that actually having nothing but bullshit would be a pretty bloody good reason for not producing actual evidence when legally required to.
re: Failing to produce the evidence
"Anyway, I hope he wins. Nobody deserves to fail more than Zuckerberg."
I have to agree; this Ceglia guy is obviously a skeezebucket, but Zuckerberg's skeeziness makes Ceglia look like Francis Of Assisi.
He clearly doesn't have the evidence...
...or he would have produced it!
"Boatload Of New Evidence"
So how come Business Insider has it, but the courts don't?
The article also describes this as "filed", which means the court DOES have it.
So is Business Insider lying?
I don't even see anything here that suggests the court rejected evidence, it merely states it didn't get any.
Colour me confused.
Considering some of the hackers Facebook employees (i.e. some of the best, headhunted from various top string tech firms), would it be entirely unreasonable to suggest that he *HAD* the evidence and now *doesn't*?
How long will this farce continue?
Well, SCO has been going since 2003 with no evidence either, so I submit that the smart money says "quite a lot longer".
America has a legal system, not a justice system so any case is almost only limited by money and not time...
Does this set a precedent?
So a person or entity with personhood asserts IP rights over a work that someone else has produced; provides no evidence to back up the claim and has been fined $5000.
I for one would like to see this rare outbreak of good judgement applied to similar cases in an automated fashion.
Hmmm, does the name Darl McBride ring a bell?
Sounds like another one of these snake-oil merchants
Isn't there something called "contempt of court" ?
And if you string the courts through hundreds of hours for nothing, aren't the two related in some way ?
Frankly, as a judge in a civil case (there is no murder here, so no last-minute revelations are admissible if I'm not mistaken), if the accusation (Ceglia is accusing Zuckerberg of owing him money, right ?) does not give proof of its claims within the first two hours of court arguments, I'd call it off until proof is on the table.
IANAL, obviously, but I do seem to remember some vague notion about civil cases being based on putting everything on the table first, then letting both parties discuss over what thing has what importance. If the accusation comes to the table without proof, then there is nothing to discuss.