Facebook lawsuit smacks of sour grape

The darling of global youngsters, Facebook, is facing a copyright-infringment law suit from the former three classmates of its founder Zuckerberg.

The case will be heard soon, so I will not make comments on the rights or wrongs of the interested parties. However, the case does nothing but remind me of another already finished case where author of best-seller Davinci Code, Brown, was sued for "stealing ideas" from another book titled Holy Blood Holy Grail.

In my point of view, both cases reminds me of the term "sour grape".

lets look at the first case first. The plaintiff was the Zuckerber's former classmates and founders of the ConnectU site.

ConnectU now has 70,000 users, while Facebook has become a worldwide success with 52 million users, 6 million of whom are based in the UK. Already the subject of a $1bn approach from Yahoo!, the company said this week it would only consider selling out for more than $10bn

There is great similarity in the case of Davinci Code. Both books, the Davinci Code and Holy Blood, Holy Grail, explore theories that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, the couple had a child and the bloodline survives, but it was Brown’s book which has won millions of fans across the world.

If the Facebook or Davinci Code were not becoming a smashing success in the market, I don't think people would bother to sue them. But when Davinci Code becomes a global blockbuster, and when Facebook is billed as the next big thing after the Youtube, there is a lot of jealousy arising from the plaintiffs in question.

I am not talking from a legal perspective, but I want to say that if you really think others steal your ideas, why could the so-called "thief", instead of the allegedly "true owners", win the day? The "thief" must have done something different or special on the basis of the original idea, and make the difference between a ordinary product and a highly popular one. That difference could do enough to justify the "thief".