Greetings!
The news recently carried a story about Ceglia v.
Zukerberg and Facebook, a case where Paul Ceglia claims that he owns 84% of
Facebook based on a 2004 contract.
According to Mr. Ceglia, he contracted with Mr. Zukerberg to
produce the software and website known as "thefacebook.com" that eventually
became the social networking giant Facebook.
The news contained some strange statements about the
contract. So, I took a look at the
complaint and the contract.
When I saw the contract I immediately thought of other
contracts that I'd seen early stage entrepreneurs sign and that they later came
to regret.
According to the "work for hire" contract it was Mr. Ceglia
who hired Mr. Zuckerberg to perform work for two projects. The first project was for a database.
The second project was to develop software and to "purchase
and design" a website to provide "a live functioning yearbook with the working
title of 'The Face Book.'" The design
was to be based on a project Zuckerberg had already started.
Regardless of the merits (or lack of them) of Mr. Ceglia's
claims, the lawsuit is a lesson about two mistakes that early stage
entrepreneurs often make.
Giving Away Equity Before Getting the Benefit of the
Services.
If, as the contract states, Mr. Zuckerberg had already
initiated the website development, why did he agree to give Ceglia a one-half
interest in the Facebook intellectual property and the business?
The contract doesn't really state anything that Mr. Ceglia is
to do to help build the Facebook business.
He wasn't required to make an investment or even provide advice. He was only required pay Zuckerberg $1,000
for the database development.
I have a theory about how this happened to Zuckerberg because
I've seen it happen to other entrepreneurs.
In 2003, Zuckerberg was a struggling entrepreneur looking to
launch Facebook and apparently taking programming and website development work
to pay the bills.
He, like most entrepreneurs at this stage, was most vulnerable. The choice is between letting the dream die
or doing anything to keep it alive.
Struggling entrepreneurs looking for funding, a team or just
trying to keep the venture alive will often encounter a consultant, investor or
other 'advisor' who claims to be their savoir.
This advisor knows how to get this thing off the ground, knows investors
who will invest and knows how to grow the venture into a multi-million dollar
enterprise and agrees to help the entrepreneur in exchange for an equity stake. Sometimes it's a 20% or 33%. Occasionally, it's 50%.
The struggling entrepreneur sees light at the end of the
long tunnel. He figures: "What the
heck. It isn't worth anything now. I may as well give up worthless equity to get
the help and contacts of this seasoned advisor."
So the entrepreneur agrees and the 'advisor' shows up with
contract in hand. The contract is long
on obligations of the entrepreneur and his company and short on obligations for
the 'advisor.'
Having no money, the entrepreneur can't afford to get legal advice,
so he signs the contract as-is.
Then, there's a flurry of activity. It may last a couple of weeks or a couple of
months, but rarely does anything develop and eventually the 'advisor' is on to
another promising venture.
The 'advisor' fades into the background having done little
or nothing of what was verbally promised to the entrepreneur. The entrepreneur moves on to continue to
build the business, usually entirely forgetting about the 'advisor' contract or
naively thinking that, since the 'advisor' didn't come through, the contract
was a non-issue.
If the venture ultimately dies, the contract isn't an issue.
But, if the venture becomes successful, the 'advisor' finds
the contract and makes his claim.
Again, I'm not saying that Mr. Ceglia's allegations have
merit or not. Mr. Ceglia may have been
instrumental in the development of Facebook and be entitled to his interest in
the company.
But on its face this looks a lot like one of these 'advisor'
deals.
The key to avoiding this problem is tying the equity to
clear and objective milestones to be provided by the advisor. If the milestone isn't met, the equity does
not vest.
Of course, the devil is in the details. This approach requires a well defined scope of
work for the advisor with specific completion dates. You won't find these provisions in contracts
provided by the advisor, though.
Intellectual Property Ownership and Protection.
Next is another common mistake - not clearly defining
ownership and protecting intellectual property rights.
As a technology based venture, the software and related
intellectual property is one of the key assets of Facebook. The contract transfers 'a half interest (50%)
in the software' to Mr. Ceglia.
Unfortunately, I see this very often with software and web development
companies in particular. Their contracts
will transfer rights to customers that the developer should keep. When the developer sells (rather than
licenses) its software, it's only because the customer doesn't enforce its
contract rights that the developer can continue to operate its business. But, if they ran into the likes of Mr.
Ceglia, the game could be over.
In the case of the Ceglia - Zuckerberg "work for hire" contract,
giving Ceglia an interest in the business entity would have been sufficient and
should be the only interest transferred.
The dual transfer of both an interest in the business and an
interest in the intellectual property is like giving stockholders ownership of
the company truck. Why does a
stockholder also need to own part of the company truck? He doesn't.
The real problem here is that the transfer of rights to the
software gives Ceglia the right to use the software outside of The Face Book
business enterprise.
In other words, he could use the software to legitimately
create a competitor to the company!
It'll be interesting to see how this lawsuit proceeds. So far, its been moved to Federal Court. I'm
sure the lawyers that Mr. Zuckerberg has hired (with his billions of dollars)
will give Mr. Ceglia and his attorney a run for their money.
Til Next Week,
Ed