The Winklevoss twins are still after Facebook. 

Earlier today, many thought it was all over because they decided on Wednesday to not appeal their defeated California case at the Supreme Court.  A Facebook spokesperson even issued the following statement: We've considered this case closed for a long time and we're pleased to see the other party now agrees.

However, a filing on Thursday showed that the Winklevoss twins aren't giving up yet.  In abandoning their California case, they've resumed a case filed in Boston courts. 

This case also has alternate legal grounds, although the goal is the same, namely to get more than their original 2008 $65 million settlement (in cash and private shares) from Facebook.

In the California case, the Winklevoss twins' legal argument was that Facebook allegedly misrepresented the value of their private shares in the 2008 settlement process, leading the twins to receive a payment that was actually worth less than $65 million.

In the Boston case, the Winklevoss twins' legal argument is that during the 2008 settlement process, Facebook failed to disclose a series of private conversations Mark Zuckerberg had with his associates back in 2003 and 2004 regarding the Winklevoss twins and their social networking site.  These conversations are now publicly available on the Internet because they were leaked in 2010.

Zuckerberg was originally hired by the twins to code their social networking website.  Zuckerberg's leaked conversations revealed that he intended to deliberately delay his coding work on the website in order to launch his own social networking website (Facebook) first.

Below are some of the leaked conversations Zuckerberg had with his associates back in 2003 and 2004 (via Business Insider):


Check this site out: and then go to Someone is already trying to make a dating site. But they made a mistake haha. They asked me to make it for them. So I'm like delaying it so it won't be ready until after the facebook thing comes out.


Zuck: So you know how I'm making that dating site

Zuck: I wonder how similar that is to the Facebook thing

Zuck: Because they're probably going to be released around the same time

Zuck: Unless I fuck the dating site people over and quit on them right before I told them I'd have it done.

D'Angelo: haha

Zuck: Like I don't think people would sign up for the facebook thing if they knew it was for dating

Zuck: and I think people are skeptical about joining dating things too.

Zuck: But the guy doing the dating thing is going to promote it pretty well.

Zuck: I wonder what the ideal solution is.

Zuck: I think the Facebook thing by itself would draw many people, unless it were released at the same time as the dating thing.

Zuck: In which case both things would cancel each other out and nothing would win. Any ideas? Like is there a good way to consolidate the two.

D'Angelo: We could make it into a whole network like a friendster. haha. Stanford has something like that internally

Zuck: Well I was thinking of doing that for the facebook. The only thing that's different about theirs is that you like request dates with people or connections with the facebook you don't do that via the system.

D'Angelo: Yeah

Zuck: I also hate the fact that I'm doing it for other people haha. Like I hate working under other people. I feel like the right thing to do is finish the facebook and wait until the last day before I'm supposed to have their thing ready and then be like look yours isn't as good as this so if you want to join mine you can...otherwise I can help you with yours later. Or do you think that's too dick?

D'Angelo: I think you should just ditch them

Zuck: The thing is they have a programmer who could finish their thing and they have money to pour into advertising and stuff. Oh wait I have money too. My friend who wants to sponsor this is head of the investment society. Apparently insider trading isn't illegal in Brazil so he's rich lol.

D'Angelo: lol


Friend: So have you decided what you're going to do about the websites?

Zuck: Yeah, I'm going to fuck them

Zuck: Probably in the year

Zuck: *ear