Log In | Register
I followed the first part of the suit when it was happening a few years ago. My thoughts:
Due to the settlement nature of the first suit, I thought it was abundantly clear Mark Zuckerberg did more than just steal the idea. He did, in fact, take source code he was working on for the Winklevoss Brothers for their site and use it for Facebook.
It was proprietary under contract. And, to top it off, I don't think he would have made Facebook if he wasn't working on the Winklevoss Brothers network.
_______—
On the business side...why investors are salivating at the opportunity to "invest" in this company continues to confound me. No one thus far has been able to truly make social networking into a profitable business.
Examples:
Myspace and Youtube. Both absorbed. Both not really doing anything for the people who bought them.
Not only that, but it's actually been investment that has sustained Facebook since the very beginning. They finally turned profitable, but the numbers are astronomical in terms of valuing the company.
Investors value the company at 35-40 billion dollars (market cap). It's revenue is not yet 2 billion, and the profit margin isn't even 20%. We're talking a P/E somewhere around 100-200. Something not seen since the .com bubble days.
Apple, who continues to churn profits and move forward like an unstoppable giant only garners a 25-30 P/E. And they've proven themselves over 10 years of profit growth.
