The brief was actually filed back in June, and I found a better, watermark-free copy of it here on the Web site of the Winklevoss lawyers. Last night I took the time to read it in full, and it was surprisingly not boring.

Perhaps the most revelatory thing in the Facebook filing is that Facebook’s lawyers seem to be having fun with the case. Their writing is laden with imagery and over-the-top exasperation with the Winklevii’s allegedly poorly formed legal arguments. Here’s the dramatic intro to the brief:

This appeal arises from the settlement of rancorous litigation on two coasts. On one side were Appellees Facebook, Inc. and its founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg. On the other side were the Appellants, who founded a failing competitor of Facebook’s called ConnectU. The CU Founders claimed that they had the idea for Facebook first, and Facebook stole their idea. Facebook denied those claims and, for its part, accused ConnectU and its Founders of unlawfully infiltrating its systems, stealing millions of email addresses, and then spamming them. During a global mediation, the parties signed a “Term Sheet and Settlement Agreement.” In the interest of achieving litigation peace, Facebook agreed to purchase ConnectU for [redacted] dollars and [redacted] shares of Facebook stock, one of the hottest startups in the world. Surrounded by a bevy of lawyers, the CU Founders signed the deal. Then they suffered a bout of settlers’ remorse. They ask this Court to relieve them of the deal they struck to plunge back into scorched-earth litigation.

Besides the writing, the other thing that’s interesting is the information about the terms of the relationship between Facebook and ConnectU. While the story has been simplified into a Hollywood-style betrayal as portrayed in “The Social Network,” the outcome of Zuckerberg and the Winklevii’s legal mediation is much less widely reported.

As part of its settlement with the Winklevoss twins, Facebook agreed to acquire their social network ConnectU (which they eventually did find someone to build), and has been “operating” it since Dec. 2008, the filing says (the site itself is offline).

Facebook contends that this earlier agreement to buy ConnectU was final, while the Winklevii are calling it a draft (their co-founder Divya Narendra has publicly said he’s moved past the Zuckerberg vendetta, though he’s mentioned in the filings as well).

The settlement came after closed-door professional mediation in February 2008. Facebook says it’s outraged that the Winklevii and their lawyers are bringing conversations from mediation back into the appeal, because all involved were sworn to confidentiality.

(You can also read the ConnectU appeal brief for the case to which Facebook was responding. However the bits from the mediation that were supposed to be confidential have been blacked out.)

But after the settlement, ConnectU came back to the table asking for its share to be revalued. It had originally negotiated using a publicly reported valuation from when Microsoft invested in Facebook, rather than an internal valuation from around the same time that would have priced the shares much lower ($8.88 versus $35.90). A revaluation of the shares to a smaller amount would give the twins a larger stake in the company.

And also, the Winklevii wanted the transaction to be labeled a merger instead of an acquisition so they could avoid paying some taxes on it.

Facebook replied in the June brief, again in remarkably florid fashion:

“First, the CU Founders try to leave this Court with the impression that the only valuation figure they knew was the $15 billion figure from the Microsoft press release, and that they, therefore, had reason to enshrine it as gospel. They also portray the one 409A valuation on which they rely here as some seismic event in the life of the company, as if an unexpected bolt of lightning from on high emblazoned $8.88 onto a couple of tablets. Both the impressions are false.”

Facebook, by the way, to add insult to injury, says the internal valuation of its shares at the time of the Microsoft investment was actually even lower than the Winklevoss lawyers are arguing: Six days before the Microsoft transaction, Facebook had filed a document valuing employee stock options at just $6.61.

The attorney who signed the Facebook brief is Monte Cooper of Orrick, an intellectual property specialist. I hope he also writes novels in his spare time.

Please see the disclosure about Facebook in my ethics statement.

The firm’s clients include several prominent Internet companies, including Yahoo, social gaming giant Zynga, Myspace (a unit of News Corp., parent of this Web site) and Cablevision.

Granick gained a reputation as a lawyer willing to defend accused computer hackers. Her clients have included the hacker-turned-journalist Kevin Poulsen. I wrote this profile of her for Forbes.com in 2000, describing her as the person you might call if your day begins with an FBI raid.

About the same time, she gave a heavily attended talk on “Hacking and the Law” at the DEF CON 8 hacker conference in Las Vegas. She went on to become executive director at Stanford University’s Center for Internet and Society. She also taught at Stanford.

I caught up with her yesterday, and she said part of her role will be to help establish ZwillGen’s office in San Francisco. The firm has been adding legal talent at a rapid clip. In June it added three lawyers: Elizabeth Banker, a former associate general counsel at Yahoo; Bart Huff, a former assistant United States attorney in Chicago with a history of prosecuting computer crime; and Leota Bates, a former associate at Perkins Coie in Washington, D.C. Granick is the firm’s eighth attorney.

Will she still have time to take calls from hackers staring down FBI agents? “I think I’ll still be able to do that,” she said. “They wanted me because of my experience and because of who I’ve represented.”

He’s in Japan. Or at least he was a few days ago, when he gave an interview to Nikkei BP while in Tokyo. Of course that doesn’t mean he’s still there now–unless he’s shooting whisky ads on the side or has struck up an unlikely friendship with a neglected newlywed.

HP continues to refuse to divulge his location and, to be fair, that’s company policy and were you to put the same question to Oracle about one of its execs you’d likely get a similar answer. Said an HP spokesperson, “We don’t discuss the schedules or specific whereabouts of our executives.”

PREVIOUSLY:

• Ellison to Self: Damn, Damn. I Knew I Should Have Said $4.5 Billion
• SAP Attorney: Board Knew TomorrowNow Was Infringing at Time of Acquisition
• Oracle Co-President on SAP’s Damages Offer: “It’s Crazy”
• Oracle Enlists Process Servers, Not PIs, to Find HP CEO
• Oracle-SAP Trial: Ellison Swaps Katana for Poison Darts
• Objection: Mr. Ellison Is Referring to the Defendant as “Choleric of Temper” Again
• Oracle Lands Early Shots in SAP Trial
• Your Honor, We Object to Mr. Ellison’s Repeated Use of the Term “Slimy Weasels”
• Oracle to HP CEO: Chicken!
• Oracle Vs. SAP: We Got a Right to Pick a Little Fight–Bonanza!
• SAP’s Tab in Oracle Case: $120 Million and Counting
• Gag Order Denied in Oracle, SAP Trial
• Ellison Taunts HP CEO a Second Time
• SAP to Ellison: Save the Drama for Your Mama
• Ellison to HP CEO: “Warrior, Come Out to Plaaeeay!
• SAP: Please Gag Oracle
• HP Scandal Sucks in New York Times Columnist Over Conflict of Interest
• Welch to HP Board: You Don’t Know Jack!
• Insiders Criticize Ellison For HP CEO Slam
• Was Apotheker HP’s First Choice of CEO?
• HP Names Ex-SAP Chief Apotheker as CEO

So when Oracle’s damage expert, Paul Meyer, offered his estimate of what SAP should pay Oracle it ended up being $1.66 billion, which is obviously a substantial sum, but less than the one Oracle has been seeking and significantly less than the $4 billion figure Oracle CEO Larry Ellison was tossing around on Monday.

Good news for SAP–particularly after yesterday–and one that the company hopes is the beginning of a trend. “The ruling of the Court has an immediate and demonstrable impact on Oracle’s damages presentation, reducing the total by $500 million, from $2.2 billion down to $1.6 billion,” an SAP spokesperson told me. “This is the second such reduction by the Court and we are confident that, when the jury hears our case presentation, the outcome of the case will reflect the actual damages the limited actions of TommorowNow had upon Oracle.”

Oracle declined to comment on the matter.

PREVIOUSLY:

• SAP Attorney: Board Knew TomorrowNow Was Infringing at Time of Acquisition
• Oracle Co-President on SAP’s Damages Offer: “It’s Crazy”
• Oracle Enlists Process Servers, Not PIs, to Find HP CEO
• Oracle-SAP Trial: Ellison Swaps Katana for Poison Darts
• Objection: Mr. Ellison Is Referring to the Defendant as “Choleric of Temper” Again
• Oracle Lands Early Shots in SAP Trial
• Your Honor, We Object to Mr. Ellison’s Repeated Use of the Term “Slimy Weasels”
• Oracle to HP CEO: Chicken!
• Oracle Vs. SAP: We Got a Right to Pick a Little Fight–Bonanza!
• SAP’s Tab in Oracle Case: $120 Million and Counting
• Gag Order Denied in Oracle, SAP Trial
• Ellison Taunts HP CEO a Second Time
• SAP to Ellison: Save the Drama for Your Mama
• Ellison to HP CEO: “Warrior, Come Out to Plaaeeay!
• SAP: Please Gag Oracle
• HP Scandal Sucks in New York Times Columnist Over Conflict of Interest
• Welch to HP Board: You Don’t Know Jack!
• Insiders Criticize Ellison For HP CEO Slam
• Was Apotheker HP’s First Choice of CEO?
• HP Names Ex-SAP Chief Apotheker as CEO

While discussing instructions to be given to the jury before it begins deliberations, SAP attorney Greg Lanier remarked that “at time of acquisition, the board was aware of [infringing] software on TomorrowNow’s computers.”

The jury wasn’t present to hear Lanier’s admission, but still it seems a rather bold one to make in open court, considering SAPs’ stance up until today–even when it decided in October not to contest Oracle’s claim for contributory infringement–has been that its executives didn’t know its TomorrowNow unit was illegally pillaging Oracle’s IP.

SAP declined comment on Lanier’s remarks.

PREVIOUSLY:

• Oracle Co-President on SAP’s Damages Offer: “It’s Crazy”
• Oracle Enlists Process Servers, Not PIs, to Find HP CEO
• Oracle-SAP Trial: Ellison Swaps Katana for Poison Darts
• Objection: Mr. Ellison Is Referring to the Defendant as “Choleric of Temper” Again
• Oracle Lands Early Shots in SAP Trial
• Your Honor, We Object to Mr. Ellison’s Repeated Use of the Term “Slimy Weasels”
• Oracle to HP CEO: Chicken!
• Oracle Vs. SAP: We Got a Right to Pick a Little Fight–Bonanza!
• SAP’s Tab in Oracle Case: $120 Million and Counting
• Gag Order Denied in Oracle, SAP Trial
• Ellison Taunts HP CEO a Second Time
• SAP to Ellison: Save the Drama for Your Mama
• Ellison to HP CEO: “Warrior, Come Out to Plaaeeay!
• SAP: Please Gag Oracle
• HP Scandal Sucks in New York Times Columnist Over Conflict of Interest
• Welch to HP Board: You Don’t Know Jack!
• Insiders Criticize Ellison For HP CEO Slam
• Was Apotheker HP’s First Choice of CEO?
• HP Names Ex-SAP Chief Apotheker as CEO

Called as a witness for Oracle, Catz reiterated an earlier point made by Oracle CEO Larry Ellison, saying that had SAP licensed the materials that its TomorrowNow subsidiary ultimately pilfered, it would have cost “billions.” She also reminded SAP’s legal team that her email on SAP/TomorrowNow as a competitive threat was written without knowing about TomorrowNow’s copyright infringement.

Worse, she dismissed SAP’s offer of $40 million in damages as laughable. “SAP paying us damages of $40 million would be a reward for their bad behavior. “It’s like taking someone’s $2,000 watch and hocking it for $20, and then offering to give us $20. It’s crazy. It completely undervalues the entire basis for our industry.”

A powerful jab, and one that’s making the rounds in media reports on the trial today.

PREVIOUSLY:

• Oracle Enlists Process Servers, Not PIs, to Find HP CEO
• Oracle-SAP Trial: Ellison Swaps Katana for Poison Darts
• Objection: Mr. Ellison Is Referring to the Defendant as “Choleric of Temper” Again
• Oracle Lands Early Shots in SAP Trial
• Your Honor, We Object to Mr. Ellison’s Repeated Use of the Term “Slimy Weasels”
• Oracle to HP CEO: Chicken!
• Oracle Vs. SAP: We Got a Right to Pick a Little Fight–Bonanza!
• SAP’s Tab in Oracle Case: $120 Million and Counting
• Gag Order Denied in Oracle, SAP Trial
• Ellison Taunts HP CEO a Second Time
• SAP to Ellison: Save the Drama for Your Mama
• Ellison to HP CEO: “Warrior, Come Out to Plaaeeay!
• SAP: Please Gag Oracle
• HP Scandal Sucks in New York Times Columnist Over Conflict of Interest
• Welch to HP Board: You Don’t Know Jack!
• Insiders Criticize Ellison For HP CEO Slam
• Was Apotheker HP’s First Choice of CEO?
• HP Names Ex-SAP Chief Apotheker as CEO

Sources in a position to know tell me that the PIs rumored to be searching for Apotheker are actually PSs–process servers, agents charged with delivering subpoenas to their intended recipient. And, as federal law dictates, their search extends no farther than 100 miles from the location of the trial, because if Apotheker is outside that 100-mile radius, they can’t serve him. And Oracle can’t compel him to testify. Which means it’s not really worth the company’s time or effort to hire Dog the Bounty Hunter to track him down in some Schwarzwald hideout.

As Oracle attorney David Boies said during a press conference after Monday’s proceedings, “Because of his role, we think it’s important for the jury to be able to see him live. But evidently, the embarrassment of avoiding trial is less than the embarrassment of testifying. We are trying to serve him. Still.”

PREVIOUSLY:

• Oracle-SAP Trial: Ellison Swaps Katana for Poison Darts
• Objection: Mr. Ellison Is Referring to the Defendant as “Choleric of Temper” Again
• Oracle Lands Early Shots in SAP Trial
• Your Honor, We Object to Mr. Ellison’s Repeated Use of the Term “Slimy Weasels”
• Oracle to HP CEO: Chicken!
• Oracle Vs. SAP: We Got a Right to Pick a Little Fight–Bonanza!
• SAP’s Tab in Oracle Case: $120 Million and Counting
• Gag Order Denied in Oracle, SAP Trial
• Ellison Taunts HP CEO a Second Time
• SAP to Ellison: Save the Drama for Your Mama
• Ellison to HP CEO: “Warrior, Come Out to Plaaeeay!
• SAP: Please Gag Oracle
• HP Scandal Sucks in New York Times Columnist Over Conflict of Interest
• Welch to HP Board: You Don’t Know Jack!
• Insiders Criticize Ellison For HP CEO Slam
• Was Apotheker HP’s First Choice of CEO?
• HP Names Ex-SAP Chief Apotheker as CEO

On the stand in an Oakland, Calif., courtroom today, Ellison was such a picture of moderation and restraint that you almost wondered if his handlers had shot him up before his appearance–like sedating a dog for air travel. As one SAP rep told me, Ellison “was anti-climatic given his vituperative statements of the last weeks.”

Which is true. But his testimony was still quite damning–to my ears anyway. For one thing, he said that Oracle could have charged SAP $4 billion to license the programs that its TomorrowNow subsidiary wrongfully downloaded. For another, he said Oracle would have had trouble paying its employees if it allowed its rivals unfettered access to the software and support libraries at issue in this case.

“I’m not sure we would go out of business but pretty close to going out of business,” Ellison said during questioning by attorney David Boies. “If they could get that software for nothing, we’d have a hard time paying 100,000 employees.”

If that was the case, then why didn’t Oracle make a bigger stink over SAP’s acquisition of TomorrowNow when it was first announced? SAP’s legal team was quick to pick up on this and hammered Ellison, claiming there’s “not a shred of documented evidence” demonstrating Oracle’s concerns. But they didn’t get much of anywhere with that because it turned out there is some.

“When SAP announced the TomorrowNow acquisition,” Ellison said, “I made a public statement….I thought they might cheat around the edges in terms of our copyrights…and I publicly warned them that while they have every right to support our software, they have to respect our intellectual property–[they] can’t just redistribute it without paying for it.”

And, indeed, Ellison did do this during the company’s 2005 analyst day. “SAP has every right to provide support for PeopleSoft applications as long as they don’t violate our intellectual and contractual property rights,” he said. “It might make it awkward for them. That’s our intellectual property, and they should be cautious.”

Driving those remarks was Ellison’s fear at the time that with TomorrowNow, SAP might do Oracle real harm. “I thought this was a major program with a huge potential to do severe damage to Oracle,” Ellison said today, adding that his vision of how SAP planned to go about it wasn’t quite how things played out. “It was a brilliant idea to take our customers, but to execute it properly they had to go out and hire hundreds, if not thousands, of engineers to maintain PeopleSoft and JD Edwards and Siebel. That was going to be expensive. I certainly didn’t think they would simply take our intellectual property and then resell it to their own customers. I never thought that could happen.”

SAP’s attorney, Tharan Lanier, challenged Ellison on these points as well, suggesting Oracle is exaggerating when it claims that TomorrowNow’s infringement jeopardized as much as 20 to 30 percent of Oracle’s customers from its acquisition of PeopleSoft and 10 percent of those from the later acquisition of Siebel Systems. And in the end, Ellison conceded that only about 350 customers were lost as a result of TomorrowNow’s infringement. But he also managed to again suggest that potential losses were far, far greater.

“I think taking our intellectual property is a two-edged sword,” he said. “For [SAP] it means they have access to all our engineering output. They have regulatory updates at the same moment we have them. They have new versions of our software at the same time we have them. They have bug fixes at the same time we have them. So they should be able to provide the same quality of support that we’re providing except that they’re doing it at a very low cost, while Oracle bears the cost of all that engineering.”

The other side of that sword is running an irrational risk by taking our software. That’s a risk I certainly would never, ever undertake.”

PREVIOUSLY:

• Objection: Mr. Ellison Is Referring to the Defendant as “Choleric of Temper” Again
• Oracle Lands Early Shots in SAP Trial
• Your Honor, We Object to Mr. Ellison’s Repeated Use of the Term “Slimy Weasels”
• Oracle to HP CEO: Chicken!
• Oracle Vs. SAP: We Got a Right to Pick a Little Fight–Bonanza!
• SAP’s Tab in Oracle Case: $120 Million and Counting
• Gag Order Denied in Oracle, SAP Trial
• Ellison Taunts HP CEO a Second Time
• SAP to Ellison: Save the Drama for Your Mama
• Ellison to HP CEO: “Warrior, Come Out to Plaaeeay!
• SAP: Please Gag Oracle
• HP Scandal Sucks in New York Times Columnist Over Conflict of Interest
• Welch to HP Board: You Don’t Know Jack!
• Insiders Criticize Ellison For HP CEO Slam
• Was Apotheker HP’s First Choice of CEO?
• HP Names Ex-SAP Chief Apotheker as CEO

[Image credit: Pre-Ellison Samurai image by Artem Mirolevioch]

BoomTown finally got to meet Silicon Valley lawyer Ted Wang today, which was kind of a thrill since most tight-lipped attorneys run in the other direction when they see me coming.

But Wang–who works for Fenwick & West and is a popular legal adviser to a spate of digital start-ups, such as Facebook, Aardvark and Twitter–has a lot to talk about with the launch of a new Web site called Series Seed Documents earlier this week.

It’s a laudable effort at simplifying the complex–especially since most lawyers mostly like to complexify the simple.

Instead, Wang has made templated but flexible legal documents available for free for entrepreneurs to use in seed-stage deals, and his effort is getting support from the top venture and angel investors in the arena, such as Andreessen Horowitz.

The point: So new companies don’t waste time and money negotiating often unnecessarily complicated–but usually standard–legal papers.

Wrote Wang in a blog post on the Series Seed site, titled “For the Faithful”:

Up until now, various smart people have talked or blogged about reducing the transaction costs associated with seed stage investment without rallying around a particular attack. Of course both entrepreneurs and investors would rather see their investment dollars used toward developing a new product and bringing it to market than toward what are usually routine transaction costs. The problem has been crafting a set of documents that provide adequate protections without being unduly burdensome. While traditional financing documents give broader rights and protections to investors, for a seed stage investment the benefits of simplification in the Series Seed documents outweigh the value of these additional rights and protections…

This endeavor will only be successful if the Documents gain widespread adoption–and that will require lawyers to get out of their comfort zones and think about the trade-offs suggested in the Documents. It will not be easy, but once a practitioner takes the plunge and makes the effort to think through the changes, I am convinced that a well thought-through standard set of seed documents will emerge. Moreover, if folks in our line of business do not come up with a set of documents that enable seed financings at a reasonable cost, the market is going to solve this problem in another way. To quote Gen Shinseki “[i]f you don’t like change, you are going to like irrelevance even less.”

Andreessen Horowitz, which was the first to agree to use Series Seed Documents, has been joined by a spate of high-profile angel and early-stage venture investors.

The group includes SV Angel’s Ron Conway, First Round Capital, “micro-cap” investor Mike Maples, SoftTechVC’s Jeff Clavier, True Ventures, Polaris Ventures, Charles River Ventures and Harrison Metal.

For a legal look-see, I embedded the four documents from Seed Series Documents below, which include: A Restated Certificate of Incorporation, an Investors’ Rights Agreement, a Series Seed Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement, and a Terms for Private Placement of Series Seed Preferred Stock of [Insert Company Name], Inc.

And here’s Wang talking about the effort–which he has been blogging about since 2007, actually–at Fenwick’s Mountain View, Calif., offices, with an impressive range of legal tomes behind him:

SeriesSeedFormCOI

SeriesSeedIRA

SeriesSeedFormSPA

SeriesSeedTermSheet-1

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20100304/series-seed-documents-legal-guru-ted-wang-speaks-plus-get-your-free-term-sheet-here/feed/ 3 http://allthingsd.com/20100301/series-seed-documents-with-a-big-assist-from-andreessen-horowitz-set-to-launch-to-help-entrepreneurs-with-legal-hairballs/ http://allthingsd.com/20100301/series-seed-documents-with-a-big-assist-from-andreessen-horowitz-set-to-launch-to-help-entrepreneurs-with-legal-hairballs/#comments Mon, 01 Mar 2010 17:03:48 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/?p=24896 Series Seed Documents, templated documents for entrepreneurs to use for seed-stage deals, will be launched today, part of an effort by Silicon Valley lawyer Ted Wang and pushed by venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz.

The point: So new entrepreneurs don’t waste time and money negotiating often unnecessarily complex legal papers.

Series Seed Documents was planning its announcement tonight, after briefing reporters. But BoomTown was alerted to the move by a tweet last week from Fenwick & West lawyer Wang that read: “Excited about launching Series Seed documents next week.”

Oops!

The Twitter post has since been taken down (but here is an image of it, below, natch!).

“Who even knew that a corporate attorney would have a Twitter account?” joked Marc Andreessen of Andreessen Horowitz in an interview this morning.

Actually, Wang (pictured here) is Twitter’s lawyer!

His practice, which focuses on representation of “emerging companies,” as noted on his Fenwick & West Web site, also includes Aardvark, Billshrink, Clicker, Facebook, Flixster and Widgetbox.

Andreessen Horowitz, which was the first to agree to use Series Seed Documents, will be joined by a spate of high-profile angel and early-stage investors.

The group includes SV Angel’s Ron Conway, First Round Capital, “micro-cap” investor Mike Maples, SoftTechVC’s Jeff Clavier, True Ventures, Polaris Ventures, Charles River Ventures and Harrison Metal.

“We want to make the process as transparent as possible, which is to say, we want to take all the mystery out it,” said Andreessen. “And it is online for everyone to understand.”

Of course, noted Andreessen, the price for the round is still open to negotiation, but wrangling over typically standard legal issues often hurts deals.

“The big reason we are doing it is that we think for these early stage round, bashing over these terms does damage only brings mistrust,” he said.

Andreessen noted that this template approach is only appropriate for small, early rounds of about $500,000 to $1 million.

“VCs who do angel rounds should be acting like a VC in a VC round and acting like an angel in an angel round,” he said. “The problems come when VCs act like VCs in angel rounds.”

Andreessen said using Series Seed Documents would cost start-ups about $7,000 compared with a low of $15,000 and up to $100,000 in many similar deals.

“It helps streamline the process and makes starting a company easier and more efficient,” said Conway of SV Angel, who is a well-known angel investor. “And cheaper–all in all, it is a benefit to both the entrepreneur and the investor.”

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20100301/series-seed-documents-with-a-big-assist-from-andreessen-horowitz-set-to-launch-to-help-entrepreneurs-with-legal-hairballs/feed/ 4 http://allthingsd.com/20090712/a-google-lawyer-waves-goodbye-lands-at-twitter/ http://allthingsd.com/20090712/a-google-lawyer-waves-goodbye-lands-at-twitter/#comments Sun, 12 Jul 2009 14:38:01 +0000 Peter Kafka http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/?p=9200 We’re used to seeing Google vets leave for Facebook. Now they’re headed to Twitter.

The buzzy microblogging service has just grabbed its highest-profile Google (GOOG) exec to date: Alexander Macgillivray, a deputy general counsel at the search firm, is coming aboard as Twitter’s top lawyer.

Macgillivray is best known as the lead Google attorney on high-profile intellectual property cases like its fights with book publishers, the Associated Press and Viacom (VIA). Twitter has yet to find itself mired in that sort of thing, but give it time.

Macgillivray is just the latest Googler to land at Twitter. Earlier this year, the start-up nabbed Doug Bowman, the search giant’s lead designer, to join the ranks of several other Googleplex veterans, including, of course, co-founders Ev Williams and Biz Stone.

There are lots of reasons to leave a big company for a scrappy start-up, but just to spell out one obvious one: If you’re into risk, there is a whole lot more upside at Twitter these days.

The company’s last funding round pegged its value at $240 million, and if it ends up being acquired in the next few years, that number could be much higher. But Google shares stalled long before last fall’s stock market collapse (click chart to enlarge):

[Image credit: Doc Searls]

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090712/a-google-lawyer-waves-goodbye-lands-at-twitter/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20090428/fellowship-of-the-pings/ http://allthingsd.com/20090428/fellowship-of-the-pings/#comments Tue, 28 Apr 2009 11:55:33 +0000 John Paczkowski http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=16492 Back in 2005, Google was represented in Washington by a lone staffer–Alan Davidson, a telecom attorney who once served as associate director of the Center for Democracy and Technology. The company’s political innocence was something of a joke among seasoned beltway players and it didn’t seem to care. Google (GOOG) was far too busy organizing the world’s information to pay much attention to Washington.

How quickly things changed. By 2007, Davidson had been joined by 11 other lobbyists, among them a former high-ranking Justice Department antitrust lawyer. And now, two years later, Google CEO Eric Schmidt has been named by President Obama to his Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. In that role he’ll work with a group of distinguished academics and executives–a group that, incidentally, includes Craig Mundie, chief research and strategy officer at Microsoft (MSFT)–to help the administration “formulate policy in the many areas where understanding of science, technology, and innovation is key to strengthening our economy and forming policy that works for the American people.”

Schmidt’s appointment isn’t all that surprising. He served as an informal adviser to Obama during his campaign and he’s a smart guy who’s got some strong opinions about network neutrality, next-generation broadband, and intellectual property–issues that figure high on the president’s tech agenda. Still, it’s one more indication–and the biggest one yet–that Google has become firmly part of the Washington establishment.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090428/fellowship-of-the-pings/feed/ 1 http://allthingsd.com/20090402/a-life-sentence-for-%e2%80%9ccraigslist-killer%e2%80%9d/ http://allthingsd.com/20090402/a-life-sentence-for-%e2%80%9ccraigslist-killer%e2%80%9d/#comments Fri, 03 Apr 2009 00:19:24 +0000 Andrew LaVallee http://voices.allthingsd.com/?p=10111 A 20-year-old Minnesota man who killed a woman he lured to his home with a fake Craigslist ad was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole yesterday.

According to news reports, in October 2007, the victim, Katherine Olson, 24 years old, responded to a help-wanted ad for a babysitter. She arrived to find Michael Anderson, who shot her in the back as she tried to leave. She was found in the trunk of her own car.

The prosecutor said that Mr. Anderson called himself “the Craigslist murderer” in conversations with other inmates.

Mr. Anderson pleaded innocent but was convicted on all counts, including first-degree murder. His attorney, Alan Margoles, argued that the shooting was accidental. He said he plans to appeal because he wasn’t allowed to use Mr. Anderson’s Asperger’s syndrome, a form of autism, as evidence in the case.

The conviction follows the late March killing of George Weber, a New York journalist whose attacker told police that they met through a Craigslist personal ad.

Read the rest of this post

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090402/a-life-sentence-for-%e2%80%9ccraigslist-killer%e2%80%9d/feed/ 1 http://allthingsd.com/20081203/googlenewmicrosoft/ http://allthingsd.com/20081203/googlenewmicrosoft/#comments Thu, 04 Dec 2008 05:18:51 +0000 John Paczkowski http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=9108

Google abandoned [its deal with Yahoo] not because pressing ahead with it ‘risked’ a protracted legal battle, but because it guaranteed one.”

I wrote that on Nov. 6, following the official dissolution of Google’s (GOOG) proposed advertising partnership with Yahoo (YHOO). Turns out the guarantee to which I referred was an ironclad one. Sanford Litvack, the attorney who would have been lead counsel in the event of a government antitrust case against Google, tells American Lawyer Daily that the Department of Justice was literally hours away from suing the company when it bailed on the deal. “We were going to file the complaint at a certain time during the day,” he explains. “We told them we were going to file the complaint at that time of day. Three hours before, they told us they were abandoning the agreement.”

Had Google not turned tail, the DOJ would have charged it with violating Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. Said Litvack, “It would have ended up also alleging that Google had a monopoly and that [the advertising pact] would have furthered their monopoly.”

As I wrote back in November, “Internet search advertising and Internet search syndication are natural monopoly businesses. And, according to the DOJ, Google is their presiding monopolist.” Truer words, eh?

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20081203/googlenewmicrosoft/feed/ 4 http://allthingsd.com/20081203/googlenewmicrosoft-2/ http://allthingsd.com/20081203/googlenewmicrosoft-2/#comments Thu, 04 Dec 2008 05:18:51 +0000 John Paczkowski http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=9108

Google abandoned [its deal with Yahoo] not because pressing ahead with it ‘risked’ a protracted legal battle, but because it guaranteed one.”

I wrote that on Nov. 6, following the official dissolution of Google’s (GOOG) proposed advertising partnership with Yahoo (YHOO). Turns out the guarantee to which I referred was an ironclad one. Sanford Litvack, the attorney who would have been lead counsel in the event of a government antitrust case against Google, tells American Lawyer Daily that the Department of Justice was literally hours away from suing the company when it bailed on the deal. “We were going to file the complaint at a certain time during the day,” he explains. “We told them we were going to file the complaint at that time of day. Three hours before, they told us they were abandoning the agreement.”

Had Google not turned tail, the DOJ would have charged it with violating Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. Said Litvack, “It would have ended up also alleging that Google had a monopoly and that [the advertising pact] would have furthered their monopoly.”

As I wrote back in November, “Internet search advertising and Internet search syndication are natural monopoly businesses. And, according to the DOJ, Google is their presiding monopolist.” Truer words, eh?

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20081203/googlenewmicrosoft-2/feed/ 0