Twitter Threatens to Sue Meta Over “Copycat” Threads App

Twitter has sent a letter to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg threatening the social networking company with legal action over its new rival text service Threads App.

Twitter legal representative Alex Spiro accused Meta of hiring Twitter employees to create a “copycat” text app, as well as stealing Twitter trade secrets and intellectual property, in a letter dated Wednesday and addressed to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg — a copy of which was obtained by US news outlet Semafor.

Spiro stated that Twitter “intends to strictly enforce its intellectual property rights,” and that the letter was a “formal notice” to Meta to keep all relevant records in case of legal action.

Spiro’s charges were met with a response from Meta spokesman Andy Stone, who wrote on the new app, “no one on the Threads engineering team is a former Twitter employee — that’s just not a thing.”

Twitter Gives Poop Emoji to Leftist Media

When the Associated Press reached out to Twitter for response on Thursday, it received a poop emoji. The regular automated response for journalists reflects the company’s mentality under billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk’s leadership.

Musk, who paid $44 billion (€40.4 billion) for Twitter in 2022, has not publicly commented on the subject. Twitter CEO Linda Yaccarino said simply, “We’re often imitated — but the Twitter community can never be duplicated.”

Threads, which Meta started Wednesday night, was created by Instagram staffers and has tens of millions of users in just 24 hours.

Woke Elated at Twitter Rival

Since Musk took over the firm, Twitter has struggled to retain its advertisers. Musks stance on free speech has prompted many users to look for a replacement. Since the Launch of Threads the mainstream media, which has turned away from protecting free speech, has praised the launch of the Threads app, slamming Twitter and Elon Musk.

Mark Zuckerberg Sued Over Plagiarism

In 2009, Facebook paid up to $65 million – $20 million in cash and 1.25 million shares – to settle a lawsuit in which Mark Zuckerberg, the firm’s current CEO, was accused of stealing the idea for the social networking site from a startup named ConnectU.

The case, launched by three former classmates, Divya Narendra and the Winklevoss brothers Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss, threatened to derail Facebook.

Despite both parties’ promises to keep the terms of the settlement private, the law firm representing ConnectU revealed the amount in a January newsletter. The Recorder, a legal newspaper based in San Francisco, picked up on the information.

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges then announced in its email, “WON $65 million settlement against Facebook.”

ConnectU sacked the law firm, and the two sides subsequently fought about the fees: Quinn demanded $13 million as part of a “no win, no fee” agreement.

The case was heard in court in July, and it appeared that the court judge would dismiss ConnectU’s complaint. Its proprietors claimed that Zuckerberg, who assisted in the creation of Facebook, stole the idea, technology, design, and business strategy while they were both students at Harvard.

Facebook debuted in February 2004, followed by ConnectU three months later. It has, however, struggled. In 2004, ConnectU filed a lawsuit.

The settlement was based on Facebook’s notional value following Microsoft’s purchase, which paid $240 million for a 1.6% interest in October 2007, narrowly beating out Yahoo and Google.

That valued the site at about $15 billion, but court filings show that Facebook has never considered itself to be worth that much, and instead uses the far lower number of $3.7 billion, equivalent to $8.80 per share.

Microsoft’s contribution would suggest a share value of $35.90, and the Microsoft valuation was used in the case settlement. Facebook agreed to pay ConnectU $20 million in cash and 1,253,326 shares of common stock as part of their settlement.

According to Microsoft’s assessment, the stock was worth $45 million, but just $11 million according to Facebook’s.

“$65m is a significant sum — it’s certainly more than the cost of the defence,” said Chris Scott Graham, an intellectual property litigator based in Mountain View, California, to the Recorder.

“It’s a very small percentage of [Facebook’s] valuation and thus could be argued by Facebook to be a payment based on considerations other than the merits of the claims,” he continued.