Well, I’m not sure about the title, but I definitely have the tagline: “The Winklevoss twins weren’t the only ones who got Zucked.”

Paul Ceglia, who filed suit against Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg last July with the claim he owned half of the social network, has refiled with a bigger law firm and a lot more evidence.

Considering that he waited seven years to file suit and had been convicted criminal fraud, Ceglia initially seemed like a scam artist who picked way too big a target — it was pretty easy for Facebook to laugh him off, even with Zuck’s history of double-crossing partners.

However, international law firm DLA Piper, which specializes in tech, is in Ceglia’s corner this time and the case suddenly seems a lot sturdier.

On the evidence, Henry Blodgett comments on Business Insider: “We think that, if the emails and contract Ceglia produced are indeed fake, the fraud should be easy to expose (so easy, in fact, that we imagine DLA Piper’s investigators would already have exposed it–which leads us to question whether the emails and contract really are fake). We also think that, if the emails are fake, Paul Ceglia will be going to jail for a long, long time–a consequence that we assume was not lost on him.”

It’s a drag for Zuck’s past bad behavior to return to the spotlight. Arguably the guy has undergone a complete image makeover in the last nine months, topped off by the award-winning movie that threatened to skewer him. Instead “The Social Network” made Zuck look like a really smart kid who got in over his head and suffered the consequences — mostly personal and emotional ones, but some financial ones as well.

Not that you should feel all that bad for him as he cries himself to sleep atop a mattress made of solid gold and pillows stuffed with $100 bills.

Just like Steve Jobs is Apple (hence why investors and fanboys/girls freak out every time he has an illness scare), Mark Zuckerberg is Facebook. Last year, Zuck’s image problems arguably exacerbated user ire over Facebook privacy policy changes, but the social network seems to be sailing calmer seas now. Have you heard any media reports about an upcoming “Quit Facebook Day“?

Remember when Google seemed like the only force that could stem Facebook’s evil social tide? Now I’m cheerleading for Facebook’s search function.

Don’t be surprised if Zuck and crew quickly write Ceglia a giant check — likely larger than the one Facebook cut the Winklevosses — and tell him to crawl back under that rock. Facebook currently has a clean rep and doesn’t need Ceglia trudging around with his old muddy boots.

Speaking of the most eligible twin rowing bachelors, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss cannot get out of the $65 million settlement they reached with Facebook in 2008. Wait… Why would you want to get out of being paid a whopping sum like that? So you can sue Facebook for even more — the Winklevosses claimed that Zuck and crew undervalued the company and they, along with partner Divya Narendra, were owed $160 million.

However, Oracle is on the attack again, amending its complaint to add exhibits that demonstrate Google took chunks of American Oracle code line for line.

Here’s one such example:

Google has yet to comment on the new development. CEO Eric Schmidt led Sun’s Java development efforts and served as chief technology officer before bouncing to Big G in 2001. Perhaps he grabbed too many office supplies on his way out the door?

It’s gets a little more complicated because, like a lot of software out there, the Android stack uses Java apps that run on a Java-based framework. While Sun, a proponent of open-source programming, did issue licensing deals for Java, the company also offered free open-source licensed versions.

Matthew Lynley at VentureBeat says it’s likely another case of patent trolling, which seems to be all the rage this season (did you know online affiliate marketing is patented?). Still, a commenter on ZDNet named “Loverock Davidson” cracks: “Why do you think they have so many toys in the office? To keep the employees occupied until some other company comes out with something innovative, then Google copies it.” ZING!

Oracle cast the first punch by filing suit against Google claiming that the Android infringes on seven Java patents that came into the company’s possession with the Sun acquisition. How? The Android stack, like a lot of software out there, uses Java apps that run on a Java-based framework.

“In developing Android, Google knowingly, directly and repeatedly infringed Oracle’s Java-related intellectual property,” said Oracle spokesperson Karen Tillman. “This lawsuit seeks appropriate remedies for their infringement.”

Google hadn’t responded at press time, saying it hadn’t received the blow — I mean, the lawsuit.

Coincidentally, Google CEO Eric Schmidt led the Java development efforts at Sun and eventually rose to the ranks of chief technology officer before he boarded the Google train in 2001.

And The Wall Street Journal Law Blog points out that “Sun, though it amassed thousands of patents, was one of the biggest backers of freely sharing programming technologies. Though Sun cut licensing deals to sell Java, it offered free versions under what the industry calls open-source licenses.”

In fact, years ago former Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz responded to Microsoft legal threats over open-source software by saying Sun was too busy innovating to worry about litigating.

But Schwartz is the former CEO for a reason and Sun was suffering before Oracle scooped it up. WSJ notes that Sun received an earful from investors for not making more money off of Java, which could easily be a cash cow. Oracle CEO Larry Ellison, on the other hand, apparently won’t make the same mistake. He couldn’t have picked a bigger target.

HTC is one of the largest manufacturers of handsets powered by Google’s Android OS, as well as the hardware-maker of Google’s Nexus One. The company debuted three souped-up phones at the Mobile Web Conference in Barcelona last month.

Apple is also in a patent-related legal brush-up with Nokia. Steve Jobs, never one to mince words, told the press: “We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it. We’ve decided to do something about it. We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours.

But the suit seems to be a backdoor way to punch Google in the gut. The impetus of the suit seems to be Google enabling multi-touch support Android devices, the handy-dandy pinch and zoom toggle that Apple could once boast as exclusive to the iPhone. Apparently HTC smartphones have had the juice for multi-touch for a while, but it wasn’t till Google turned on the switch that Apple started grumbling.

Google will be sitting in HTC’s corner of the ring with a towel and a spit cup for blood (and there will be blood). “We are not a party to this lawsuit,” a company spokesperson emailed TechCrunch. “However, we stand behind our Android operating system and the partners who have helped us to develop it.”

Then Google whispered in HTC’s ear, “You’re gonna eat lightnin’ and you’re gonna crap thunder!”

But the beating HTC takes could have drastic long-term consequences for the company as carriers get the upper hand in negotiations because of HTC’s lawsuit risk.

Craigslist dropped off four suits in the clerk’s office in Northern California against Red Trumpet — which runs the website Craigsup.com — web marketer Eddie Temple and several individuals, some of which were anonymous. The charges include infringing on copyright and trademark and violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

“Defendants develop, offer, market and distribute illegal tools and services designed to greatly facilitate and amplify unauthorized and illegal uses of Craigslist’s classified services — at the expense of Craigslist and legitimate Craigslist users,” the complaint against Red Trumpet reads.

The company’s legal docket is getting pretty heavy — in addition to several lawsuits against various spammers filed this year, Craigslist also has two suits filed against shareholder eBay.

This news, too, involved continuity, but has been summed up in one letter “O”, as in Oprah and Dr. Mehmet Oz, or better just “Oh Crap.” For those not following the world of flogs and/or the percentage who do not have an account at a CPA Network (or work at a CPA Network), the “O” will look like an “L” to more than a few, as in lawsuit. As we first learned from an email sent to Azoogle Publishers, two lawsuits were filed, one by Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and another by Oprah and Oz in New York City against 50 companies thus far (none of them publicly named).

The suit has received a fair amount of press, all of it saying about the same, and that is very little. But almost anything with Oprah’s name in it, makes it newsworthy, even a lawsuit (or perhaps, especially a lawsuit). Were one to try and make sense of the situation from what exists publicly, they probably couldn’t. The pieces can’t seems to figure out just how many companies the pair has sued – some say 40, others 50, a few claim 500, or even how to spell Dr. Oz’s first name -Mehmet or Memhet.

This is certainly one of the only times I can recall when CBSNews.com, USAToday.com, MSNBC.com, even TMZ , not to mention almost every major metropolitan publication, carried a story that involved performance-based / affiliate marketing. Granted, it isn’t the notoriety that we wanted. That it has happened, couldn’t have come as a surprise. The real question in the back of people’s minds was when would it happen, and what would it look like. We’re beginning to find out.

As we saw in the ringtone subscription implosion, we have a State’s Attorney General leading the charge on behalf of consumers. If this plays out similar to the ringtone, we will soon see announcements of sizable settlements by the companies involved, using the funds to go after more. Like the Florida Attorney General, Madigan’s team has seized on the opportunity first, a natural fit given that Oprah’s show films in her state. The press release from the Illinois Attorney General’s office contains the requisite pro-consumer, anti-marketer language you might expect, e.g., “We must hold these Internet scammers accountable for their role in a seedy marketing game that steers unsuspecting consumers to online schemes.”

Gossipers will find the release somewhat tantalizing because it also names names. Oprah and Oz’s joint lawsuit on the other hand focuses on alleged trademark violations by marketers, not what impact the marketers had on users. They have deep pockets, but no public office to defend or public resume to pad, so we will see how far they go.

No doubt, many in our space will come out looking villainous, greedy, and/or lacking in judgment. It doesn’t take a legal background to think it could be a tad risky using ads and landing pages with the likeness of Oprah and Oz in a manner that appears to the average user as though they have approved the product and/or the page. Even today, we saw a landing page, that speaks in the first person of Oz and we have an album’s worth of screenshots of ones talking about the Oprah Diet or Rachel Ray Diet.

In such examples, it’s pretty clear they have a rather weak case, and when dealing with billion dollar brands, claiming ignorance and promising not to do it again, might not get one far. But, what about the cases that aren’t as clear? We don’t know whether it is wrong to mention that the active ingredient in these pills was discussed on Oprah by Dr. Oz or featured in other news stories. MarketHealth, in an email to its affiliates, suggests not using any logos or imagery. Azoogle in their letter to publishers offered even more detailed advice on do’s and don’ts.

Oprah, Oz, and other celebrities play a vital role in raising the awareness. Mentions by them make businesses. By discussing Acai and Resveratrol, they are doing what countless authorities have done – adding legitimacy. The question we face as an industry is what should accountability look like. If we revert to accountability in the strictest sense it means that every advertiser and every agent of the advertiser would need to approve every creative and every landing page. That would be inefficient and not economically viable. It’s what is expected in brand campaigns. Even if we tried doing that, something would break. We’re still dealing with a subject matter where few true experts exist. And, we aren’t just dealing with trademark compliance here.

We are also dealing with the much more difficult topic of health and beauty marketing. Advertorial’s, what we might loosely categorize flogs as, have a long history in content monetization. And, some have just the briefest disclaimer. But, the flogs, even those that say “Advertisement” have (in our non-legal opinion) run afoul by telling first person narrative with no factual basis. It’s one thing for it to be an ad with a bias for a product, but another that reads as an actual account of weight loss. It’s not enough to simply say somewhere at the bottom, the equivalent of, “By the way, these results aren’t even typical. They aren’t even possible.”

Where do we stand today, and where does it go from here? Is this death to the advertorial online? That can’t be, but hopefully, it will result in better clarity not just fines which cause a rinse and repeat effect. That’s just human nature. Unfortunately, this is just the beginning. It’s a complex mess, and we haven’t even heard from the FTC yet. Diet advertising is a hot topic for them, so we know it’s only a matter of time.

Courtesy of DM Confidential editor

He apparently got into a serious feud with an unsavory character, Sam Sethi, who was a former TechCrunch UK editor. Sethi lied about sponsorship revenue possibilities, wrote some unethical posts and eventually quit. Sethi later started his own site, ran into problems with employees and escalated his feud with Arrington. He also might have lied about early investor interest and got to a point where he was threatening to kill people. All of which came out into the open on Techcrunch as well as other sites. So Sethi decided to sue Techcrunch for libel.

Sethi decided to file in the U.K. where libel lawsuits are much easier to win, because they generally force the defendants to make their case. Arrington’s U.K. lawywers said it could cost more than $700,000 to defend so Techcrunch didn’t contest it. Result? Sethi just won by default, about $43,000 for lawyer costs, and is now asking for about $70,000 in damages. Arrington said they won’t pay and has to cancel a visit to England in the remote, albeit very real, possibility that he would be arrested.

According to Arrington:” My response – the same thing I told him in February – write a post apologizing to the employees he lied to and cheated, and take the blame like a real adult. My advice was that the Internet tends to forgive everything over time, particularly to those who ask for it. But Sethi continues to choose his own path, and insist he did nothing wrong. It’s just a very sad situation. Someday I hope he finds peace with himself and all the people he has hurt.”

Sethi’s reputation is in tatters regardless of his default win, and Arrington puts his reputation and money behind a freedom of speech issue and gets the kudos. Which lately, he no doubt needs.

Apparently, NebuAd is being rebranded in the UK as Insight Ready. According to No DPI, NebuAd’s phone number gets answered by Insight Ready and NebuAd were branding its platform product “Insight.” After hours, NebuAd’s UK number goes to the voicemail of NebuAd’s Commercial Director, Tony Evans. During the day, the call is answered as Insight Ready. The Insight domain is also registered by Nebuad.

NebuAd, a deep packet inspection company, has been battling in court, and it appeared that it was closing down, apparently protecting itself from further litigation.  The Federal Trade Commission last year held hearings on the company which had technology that allowed it to capture consumers’ online behavior by looking at the traffic that passes through their ISP.

Depending on what they did with the assets, it’s unclear if this latest move will protect the company in an ongoing privacy lawsuit or if it plans to get back into the ISP capture game in the UK. Another question is whether investors Menlo Ventures and Sierra Ventures, which poured more than $30 million into NebuAd, knew that the company was being reborn.

UPDATE: According to ClickZ, Evans said he is working with the new company on a consultancy basis, and that NebuAd’s U.K. Managing Director, Paul Goad, is the Managing Director of Insight Ready. An Insight Ready employee said while NebuAd intended to use ISP data, the new company won’t.

UPDATE II: It will launch “in several weeks” and will “collect behavioural data in partnership with website owners. The data will be “anonymised” and sold on to ad networks, with the cash split between websites and Insight Ready.”

– Express your opinion, comment below.

While some are legitimate, you have to wonder if all are. And I guess that’s why companies like Yahoo revamped a strategy that chose settlement over court fights. But the new strategy, fighting court battles, took its first hit.

Acacia Research Corporation’s subsidiary, Creative Internet Advertising Corporation, won $6 million in a patent infringement trial against Yahoo. A federal court jury decided on a case related to Yahoo’s messenger program. The jury also said that Yahoo’s infringement was willful.

Before the trial, Yahoo was facing 25 patent infringement lawsuits, up from four in 2007. Hence, Yahoo decision to fight some cases, instead of settling.

“There has been a shift in the landscape,” Jeanine Hayes, head of Yahoo’s intellectual property department, told Law.com before the trial, “and companies are being forced to deal with this in a different way.”

Yahoo hasn’t decided whether to appeal. The new way hasn’t really started out the right way.

– Express your opinion, comment below.

According to court documents, NebuAd, a deep packet inspection company, has been winding down its affairs since last summer. NebuAd laid off nearly all of its officers and employees, it once employed over 60 people, and closed its office in Redwood, California and moved to Foster. Operating with skeleton staff, who will all shortly be fired as well, the company will soon “cease to exist as an ongoing concern,” the documents state.

The Federal Trade Commission, as part of its ever growing review of online behavorial targeting, held hearings on the practices of NebuAd, which had technology that allowed it to capture consumers’ online behavior by looking at the traffic that passes through their ISP.

A lawsuit was filed against it, alleging that the company violated a federal wiretap law, privacy laws and computer fraud law; they are requesting damages in addition to an injunction that would force NebuAd to erase any information it has about them. The suit alleged that NebuAd violated privacy by buying information on the surfing activity of subscribers to various ISPs.

According to the WSJ, funds Menlo Ventures and Sierra Ventures invested more than $30 million into NebuAd.

– Express your opinion, comment below.