Skype founders Janus Friis and Niklas Zennstrom are dropping suits against eBay, to whom they sold Skype in 2005, and against a consortium of private finance companies trying to buy Skype from eBay. The founders had accused both groups of intellectual property theft. They're dropping those lawsuits in exchange for 14 percent of Skype.

But former Wall Street Journal reporter Kara Swisher reported last night on Dow Jones' All Things D website that the founders would get not 14 percent but up to 13 percent of the company — 10 percent outright and an option to buy another 3 percent. Sacrebleu! Rob Wauters of rival TechCrunch was quick to rub Swisher's face in the minor error, writing that the founders "are getting 14 percent of Skype back for rights to the... technology their company... controls... and not 10% like previously reported by other media" (emphasis from original). Meow!

The press release issued by Skype actually confirmed Swisher's reporting that the founders had to put in money to get some of their shares. Swisher later acknowledged that the figure was 14 percent, just one percent higher than she had written. But she also engaged in a lengthy Twitter fight with Wauters and his colleague Erick Schonfeld (see below) over their public nitpicking and fact-bending. Maybe everyone involved in this fracas needs to take the next couple of days off. Oh, look at the calendar!

(Top pic via)

It's great fun. 37signals issued a fake "press release" on the company's influential and freewheeling blog yesterday mocking Twitter's reportedly imminent $1 billion valuation by way of a $100 million investment. "37SIGNALS VALUATION TOPS $100 BILLION AFTER BOLD VC INVESTMENT," read the headline. The post began:

37signals is now a $100 billion dollar company, according to a group of investors who have agreed to purchase 0.000000001% of the company in exchange for $1.

It later declared that 37signals would cease taking in actual money, so investors could fantasize about the company's potential instead of thinking about reality. It's a salient point, and one we've made ourselves. The satire also nails how the adulation and money lavished on Twitter invite disturbing comparisons to the 2000 dot-com bubble.

But as much as we enjoy and heartily encourage this sort of bitchery, we'd be remiss not to point out that Fried seems to have a chip on shoulder. Just look at the context: a series of high-profile public pronouncements in which Fried and his tight-knight crew at 37signals have set themselves up as the marked antithesis of Twitter.

To hear Fried's people tell it, Silicon Valley is filled with flaky startup dreams like Twitter; 37Signals is the level-headed Midwestern outfit. Valley companies conjure imaginary business models; 37signals actually sells things. The message 37signals pushes most energetically is that it charges users for its product, while companies like San Francisco-based Twitter give them away and hope for the best.

"The days of the traditional San Francisco startup approach are numbered," wrote 37signals' David Heinemeier Hansson, in an essay in which he relished the thought that Valley startups who fail to "charge for stuff" would be "flushed down the drain." Hansson cited earlier comments by Fried, who has said "free is not the future of business" and that the idea of dropping "an advertisement into the conversation every once in a while" is "toxic."

Fried also this month lacerated the founders of Mint.com, saying they "bent over" in selling their company to Intuit for $170 million. Presumably they should have stayed in the notoriously breakneck, personal-life-destroying world of tech startups until they reached Fried's serene plateau of self-evident emotional tranquility and nirvana. Oh, and did we mention that Twitter CEO Evan Williams himself sold a series of startups before co-founding Twitter, which is widely expected to be likewise flipped someday? Just like those sumissive Mint.com guys, hmmm.

We'll readily concede that Twitter is a 37signals customer, and Hansson to his credit wrote a post called "Hail to Twitter" a year and a half ago, albeit to make up, we presume, for the one he did a week earlier, "Bitching is the killer app for Twitter." But we still detect in Fried something of a grudging obsession with Twitter which, crazy talk aside, has accumulated an impressive 40 million or so estimated users, a massive ecosystem of related startups and the highest profile roster of users the tech world has ever known. Hey, look, we know from grudging obsessions with the microblogging service and its founders. But even a jaded observer like Valleywag can see that Twitter wasn't valued at $1 billion in a throwaway $1 investment. It took $100 million from serious-as-hell investors who very much expect to get that money back, and then some. Deep down, we bet Fried knows the difference too — even if he can't admit it.

(Pic by Sean O'Shaughnessy)

Maneesh Agrawala was just awarded a $500,000 MacArthur Foundation award, widely known as a "Genius Grant." But when the distinguished computer scientist and graphics expert was a mere Stanford undergrad, asking about rock music and videogames on the Usenet discussion system, he was once considered a pest.

A moronic "asshole," to be precise, who spoiled movies because he was ignorant of the etiquette on rec.arts.movies:

Well, who's the asshole now, snarler@pine.circa.ufl.edu?? The MacArthur Foundation Genius Grant: it's the ultimate internet comeback. Even better than a Golden Globes speech!



(Full version of the posts below, WITH SPOILERS.)

(We're warning you, dear reader/commenter, as a hedge, just in case we don't get a MacArthur Foundation Genius Grant and are thus left defenseless against your heckling.)

(Top pic via MacArthur Foundation on YouTube)

Calacanis had proclaimed on Twitter and in a YouTube interview the end of the TechCrunch 50, the Web startup conference the Mahalo founder hosts with Arrington. Calacanis had told others at this year's conference about a fight with TechCrunch.com publisher Arrington, VentureBeat reported. Arrington played the blasé diva when we called him for comment, saying, "I'm not going to say I didn't have words with him because I have words with people all the time... life will go on without Jason Calacanis."

Now, Calacanis tells VentureBeat, the conference is back on. The short celebrity gladhander has a vested interest in reprising his odd couple conference routine with Arrington, the tall, beefy self-styled don of the Valley's hopelessly geeky startup scene: In an economic environment where other conferences are struggling, TechCrunch 50 remains a financial success for Calacanis and Arrington and, more to the point, a fantastically powerful vehicle for publicity and influence. And, besides, with the name tied to Arrington's trademark, what's to keep him from doing it without Calacanis?

It must be a bit embarrassing for Calacanis to crawl back to Arrington after so loudly storming off. To salvage his dignity, he's now claiming, to VentureBeat, that he was only kidding around, in part because the YouTube interview was conducted by a puppet:

[16:05] jasoncalacanis: I'm just shocked folks are taking this seriously. I mean… a puppet. It was in fact, a puppet.

[16:05] jasoncalacanis: then again, i guess if you hear mike and i fighting it isn't pleasant.

[16:06] paulboutin@mac.com: You were all too convincing. I think you really were Done With This Baloney when you talked to the puppet.

[16:06] paulboutin@mac.com: The makeup video is cute. I'm running it with your quotes.

[16:06] jasoncalacanis: Truth = we fight like rabid dogs and neither of us have to compromise in any other parts of our business.

[16:07] jasoncalacanis: False = we would throw an amazing event like this out the window.

(Top pic: Andrew Mager)

Skype founders Janus Friis and Niklas Zennstrom (pictured) appeared to have it made before the computer wizardly was allegedly stolen. They had eBay, to whom they sold their internet phone-call service in 2005, on the ropes. The online auction company was trying to sell Skype, but Friis and Zennstrom's barrage of software-licensing and copyright lawsuits against eBay scared off potential buyers like Google. eBay, it seemed, would be forced to accept Friis and Zennstrom's own lowball offer to buy back Skype.

Then a consortium of private finance companies swooped in with an offer — ultimately accepted — valued at a cool $2.8 billion. It just so happened that one of the buyers, Index Ventures, employs a guy named Mike Volpi, who used to work for the Skype founders. One of Volpi's tasks for Friis and Zennstrom, according to their suit (embedded below), was to learn how to replace the "Global Index" software code at the heart of their various internet communications software, including Skype. Being able to remove this software would potentially moot many of Friis and Zennstrom's Skype lawsuits, thus making Skype much more valuable to its owner — the company Volpi now works for.

Friis and Zennstrom are alleging that ex-employee Volpi stole secrets from them, and breached his fiduciary duty as chairman of one of their companies, online video company Joost. In so doing, they are not only kicking off an epic, $2 billion nerdfight, they are also cementing their reputations as among the most litigious entrepreneurs in tech. In addition to suing eBay in both U.S. and British courts, and Volpi, they've also filed three separate lawsuits against the investment banker who represented them in their sale of Skype, according to the New York Times.

For a couple of guys whose product is revolutionizing global communication, Friis and Zennstrom have a distinctly old-fashioned way of sending a message.

Joost lawsuit

Coverage elsewhere: VentureBeat, TechCrunch

(Top pic by Steve Jurvetson)

No one is saying precisely what happened. But Calacanis, a Hollywood internet entrepreneur who tools around in a Tesla Roadster and is buddy-buddy with Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher, has tweeted that TechCrunch 50, which the men co-host, is over after its third iteration. He also "openly talked about a fight" with Arrington to others at the conference, Paul Boutin reports on VentureBeat.com.

Calacanis seemed to confirm all this to, of all people, a puppet controlled by New York humorist Loren Feldman (see left).

And Arrington, who publishes the influential Silicon Valley blog TechCrunch, isn't quite denying it either. Arrington cautioned in a phone interview that he wasn't familiar with all of Calacanis' public statements today. But he added, "I'm not going to say I didn't have words with him because I have words with people all the time." Besides, he added, things are crazy at the end of a long conference.

He wouldn't get into details, but did point us, in response to questions about the incident, to a blog post he recently wrote called Let's Not Let Silicon Valley Become Just Like Hollywood, in which he argues that the powers-that-be in the Northern California tech scene should avoid becoming as pompous and hierarchical as the folks in Hollywood, i.e. the people Calacanis likes to hang out with. Cryptic. But Arrington wouldn't be much more specific: "I'm not too concerned Jason is telling people he doesnt want to talk to me. I'm sure life will go on without Jason Calacanis and the drama he creates by talking to puppets."

Sure, life will go on, and in the meantime the rest of us have another tech feud to keep us entertained. It's been too long since one of these flared up.

(Speaking of which, we've logged several emails and instant messages to Calacanis and have yet to hear back. If you have any insights into what happened, please email us.)

(Top pic: Calacanis, left, and Arrington in happier days, by Frank Gruber.)

The federation last weekend voted to eject two board members, sometime women's chess champion Susan Polgar and her husband, Paul Truong, according to an overview of the fracas in the New York Times. Polgar's lawyer has promised to try and block the decision, via the same court hearings where his client stands accused by the federation of stealing board members' email messages.

Those messages, in turn, concerned another court case alleging computer fraud by Polgar, in which she and her husband allegedly impersonated former board member Samuel Sloan on internet chess newsgroups. The federation has also sued to remove Polgar and Truong from its board; the couple in turn has sued the federation for libel, slander and business disparagement.

Sloan has presented evidence in his New York suit that Polgar and Truong created messages in his name and in the names of others, designed to undermine his bid to get re-elected to the federation board. Their purported motive was to consolidate their power over the federation and its $3.3 million annual budget.

Low stakes indeed, but the online campaign was ruthless. Again, Sam Sloan has said he did not write these posts, drawn from his lawsuit in New York and the federation suit in Illinois:

Polgar and Truong are also accused of posting under the names of other federation members:

`

(Top pic via Cayusa on Flickr, not involved in any of this)

Like Mullenweg, Karp was a Web entrepreneur as a teenager and is now in his early 20s, creating software through which other people can make money. But while Texas-born Mullenweb has started a series of fights with his tech-industry colleagues, former Bronx Science student Karp has been cuddling his way around Manhattan and Brooklyn.

This sociability has helped Karp exploit Gotham's chattering classes: Tumblr has an estimated one-fifteenth the users of Wordpress.com, but generates about five time as much content, thanks to social networking tools that let its Brooklyn-centric userbase easily quote and snark upon one another's posts. This edge shows up in the sites' public daily posting statistics (Tumblr, then Wordpress):

Meanwhile, Karp, in full bragging mode today, tells us Tumblr averages "five interactions (answers, likes, reblogs, etc.) with each post on average versus 1.5 for Wordpress." That doesn't mean Tumblr is worth $15 million — it has yet to launch its "really sexy" plan to generate actual revenue — but it is an interesting stat, and a testament to the social networking features the snuggly young entrepreneur has built into his site. It's also a pretty solid indication Karp will soon have some additional "interactions" fairly soon, with surly young Mullenweg.

(Top pic: Mullenweg, right, by Jared Greeno; Karp by Zadi Diaz)

One of the real founders of Tesla, ousted CEO Martin Eberhard, argues that Musk didn't actually start the company. Reasonable! But no barrier to Musk: He has argued he should be called co-founder of PayPal for contributing to PayPal's "viral growth mechanism" and "business model." What really happened: Musk talked his way into a merger with payments company Confinity several months after Confinity launched a product called "PayPal."

Musk's arguments about Tesla are much the same; he just told the Associated Press "we had to basically rebuild the company," and thus he has claim on the title "co-founder." Of course, if cleaning up someone else's mess makes one a co-founder, every taxpayer in America can rightfully say he helped start Tesla, along with GM, Goldman Sachs and other corporation bailed out by the government. Be sure to thank Musk when you update your resumé.

The new "Google Chrome OS" is a nifty instance of branding, we'll give it that. But stripped of the marketing talk, here's what Google just introduced: A distribution of the Linux operating system, plus a "new windowing system" and a copy of Google's Web browser.

In geek parlance, Google built a "shell," not an OS. The kernel and, almost certainly, a large chunk of the "userland" programs that make up an OS come from elsewhere.

But it's in Google's interests to puff up its new technology. The press loves a nice, simple fight between tech industry giants; Google's branding is thus sure to generate loads of free buzz for Google's "operating system," as programmer and longtime tech pundit Dave Winer has pointed out. Winer:

Let's be dispassionate. Before yesterday's announcement: 1. Chrome ran on Linux. 2. Linux was an operating system. 3. Linux ran on netbooks. However, most people want [Windows] XP on their netbook, not Linux. That was true yesterday and it's still true today.

Maybe Google will eventually develop its new system into something truly revolutionary. Or maybe it will fall by the wayside like Google Base, Google Notepad — or the version of its last operating system, "Android," which was to run on the netbooks now targeted by Google Chrome OS.

No matter what happens, at least one group of users will be thrilled: The press. (Talk amongst yourselves!)

Gladwell begins with a recitation from the May U.S. Senate hearing on the newspaper industry, the one where David Simon spouted nonsense, and the one that has apparently become a sort of media Woodstock, dividing generations in the big ongoing publishing upheaval. Gladwell places himself firmly on the side of the oldies, and draws a tenuous parallel between the hearings and Anderson's book. Both apparently illustrate the stupidity of West Coast reefer hippies like Jeff Bezos and Arianna Huffington, who just hate selling content, or something.

In Gladwell's review, Anderson is constantly making imaginary pronouncements, which make him look like an idiot. He wants to turn the New York Times into Meals on Wheels, run entirely by volunteers! What a jerk. He says a free price is like "magic!" What?? And Anderson said nice things about YouTube, noted spectacular failure:

When you let people upload and download as many videos as they want, lots of them will take you up on the offer... Although the magic of Free technology means that the cost of serving up each video is "close enough to free to round down" [according to Anderson,] ...a recent report by Credit Suisse estimates that YouTube's bandwidth costs in 2009 will be three hundred and sixty million dollars.

Of course, Credit Suisse numbers may well be grossly overstated, and Gladwell doesn't mention that YouTube is expected to take in $241 million in revenue this year, twice one estimate of last year's sales.

Which isn't to say he's necessarily wrong about Anderson's book, or about Google's user-generated content being "crap." But it does show that, if you're looking for a long-term investment, a Free poster child like Google is probably a better place to park your cash than the magazine group where the two money-losingest titles have big fights over who has less of a grip on the future.

After all, so much about Tesla is not what it appears. But a lawsuit just filed by Tesla co-founder Martin Eberhard, who says he was unjustly pushed out of the company, shows top company executives could be as jumpily obsessive about getting their hands on a company roadster as anyone else. That's a vote of confidence on the trendiness of the end product, if nothing else.

Even after he was shoved aside as CEO and left the company, Eberhard desperately wanted a promised Tesla Roadster. He was thwarted no fewer than three time according to Wired's Chuck Squatriglia, who took a deep dive into the lawsuit documents:

Eberhard claims he was to receive the first Roadster to roll off the assembly line, but [Chairman Elon] Musk allegedly insisted it was his. The suit says Eberhard agreed to take the second car - which he says would be worth far less as a collectible - and got the deal in writing, only to see Musk allegedly sell the car to a friend in February, 2008.

At about that time, Tesla allegedly told Eberhard his car was on its way but would have to undergo "endurance testing." Several months later, according to the suit, Eberhard learned an unnamed Tesla employee "had driven Eberhard's Roadster into the back of a truck, almost completely totaling the vehicle." The damage was so bad, the suit states, that the car "required the replacement of no fewer than 75 different parts."

(The crash had been previously reported.)

So far Orlean is doing the punching, and Baum is just lying back and taking it. No fair!

Both Maddow and Thiel went to Stanford. They overlapped for a couple of years in the early '90s. Thiel, who had already gotten his undergraduate degree and was enrolled in law school, had started the Stanford Review, a conservative newspaper, to campaign against the college's move away from a curriculum which favored the great works of Western literature. Maddow was a progressive activist stomping around in combat boots and a shaved head. We hear that Thiel and Maddow had some kind of noisy on-campus altercation. Through a spokeswoman, Maddow says she doesn't remember a run-in with Thiel. Any Stanford grads care to enlighten us on what the two had to say to each other?

Thiel, who has suggested America would be better off if women had never gotten the vote, now calls his views on women's suffrage a "commonplace statistical observation." We think these two school chums are overdue for a reunion. They both now live in Manhattan. Isn't it time Thiel pops over to the studio for an interview on the Rachel Maddow Show? There's so much for them to catch up on!

(Maddow photo by Frederick M. Brown/Getty Images; Thiel by davidorban)

He certainly has the motivation: revenge — and the success which is its best form.

Van Natta joined Facebook when the startup was an also-ran site, limited to college kids and run by college dropouts, and steered it through a period of hypergrowth. He was a key negotiator behind an advertising deal with Microsoft which provided Facebook with a solid financial footing as its user numbers blew up. His payback? Founder Mark Zuckerberg demoted him gracelessly in August 2007, and left in February 2008 — the first of many high-profile departures by executives who had fallings-out with Zuckerberg.

He then spent months hanging out and vacationing before joining a Palo Alto music startup he'd invested in, Project Playlist, as its CEO. Playlist's music widget for social networks had been banned by both Facebook and MySpace as it feuded with the major labels, and while he didn't manage to get it reinstated on either site, Van Natta did strike a deal with EMI.

Deals are what Van Natta built his reputation on. He spent seven years at Amazon.com, ultimately becoming its vice president of worldwide business development. Before that, his LinkedIn profile offers few details. There's a six-year gap between his 1992 graduation from the University of California at Santa Cruz with a BA in English and American literature and his 1998 arrival at Amazon.

Here's what we've reconstructed of his background: CNET editor Charlie Cooper recalls him being a sales intern at Computer Shopper in the early '90s. By 1996, he was working at Softbank Expos, a conference organizer. He then joined Zip2, a now-forgotten dotcom started by Elon Musk, now the CEO of Tesla Motors, and became its senior director of network advertising. In 1998, he joined PlanetAll, a nascent social network, as its VP of sales, shortly before it was acquired by Amazon.com.

What this alleged Internet studmuffin's resume tells us is that he's a smart opportunist. Is that what MySpace needs? It has certainly missed enough opportunities along the way. The other skill Van Natta's noted for is the ability, rare among slick suit-wearing dealmakers, to be tolerated by engineers. MySpace has never been a technology-driven company, and that flaw finally caught up with it over the past couple of years.

If Van Natta plays to his past reputation and just cuts some flashy deals, he'll solidify his reputation as a dilettante dealmaker, and doom his career. If he woos the right talent to MySpace and turns the place around, he'll prove he deserves to be a CEO — and rub his success in the face of a certain snotnosed punk in Palo Alto.

Even as Google launched its own browser, it's continued to funnel millions of dollars to Mozilla, the nonprofit maker of Firefox. Almost 90 percent of Mozilla's revenues — last reported at $75 million in 2007 — have come from a search-referral deal in which Google pays Mozilla when Firefox users perform searches in the browser's toolbar. Shortly before Google launched Chrome, Mozilla and Google renewed the deal through 2011.

But a Google-eyed tipster tells us that Google is looking for ways to cut its support of Mozilla sharply. This has top Mozilla engineers spooked, and several of them have popped by the Googleplex to interview for jobs there.

It makes sense that Google would want to support its own Chrome Web browser. And yet bullying a nonprofit would seem to clash with Google's "don't be evil" motto. Perhaps "don't lose money" has become more important.

Twitter, while much smaller than Facebook, competes with the social network in encouraging users to post short "status updates," no matter how banal and meaningless. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg loves Twitter. In fact, he loves Twitter so much he tried to marry it. After Twitter rejected a $500 million offer, he set about copying its look. That effort led to a disastrous redesign about which Facebook users (and employees) are still griping.

Hence the conspiracy theories. Facebook has a Twitter app which takes updates from the service and reposts them on users' profiles, and numerous third-party software applications post updates simultaneously to Facebook and Twitter. Some mechanism responsible for the crossposting seems to be broken, however. A tipster writes:

Rumors on Facebook that Facebook intentionally killed its Twitter application late last night, so that Twitter now doesn't show up in anyone's Profile or Home Page. Jealousy? Revenge?

How about human error? The systems behind these simple-looking sites are increasingly complicated, and at Facebook, almost any engineer can release new code to the site in as little as an hour. If Facebook is trying to displace Twitter, then it has every interest in coaxing Twitter users to share their updates on Facebook, too, rather than driving them away. Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.

Update: Actually, Twitter says it's all its fault, maybe! Aw, that's no fun.

Since assuming leadership of the consumer web team, I started attending the legendary weekly UI review meeting. I did this both as a representative of the web group, and also to help keep my team on track with what Marissa and her team expected of us. By this point in my career I had worked with her many, many times, and I had been attending the review regularly for a couple of months. She had even shaken my hand once to thank me for launching a particularly big and difficult campaign.
One of the last times I sat in that meeting, as we were dispersing, she looked right at me and asked her assistant to "cut down on the number of guests - there are too many random people here." I knew then that despite all the work I had done for her team, she didn't recognize me at all. I had earned no influence. I stopped going to the reviews after that.
A few weeks later, after thinking about my experiences and opportunities there, I decided to resign.

Halsall then calls for a change in Google's "creative leadership" — a veiled way of asking for Mayer's head on a platter.

Her tale comes after Doug Bowman, Google's top designer, criticized Google's obsession with numbers in making design decisions, a strategy advanced by Mayer. Another former designer, Kevin Fox, now at a startup called FriendFeed, doesn't wholly agree with Bowman — but notes that Google's design group has "had a glass ceiling from the very beginning." That, too, seems like a veiled reference to Mayer's iron grip on the look and feel of Google's consumer Web products. It doesn't take a degree in visual design to notice a pattern here.

The redesign is built around a new "stream" of status updates. It closely mimics the "timeline" feature of Twitter, a much smaller service which, like Facebook user, allows people to post short messages which are then broadcast to friends. But in adopting Twitter's simplified look, Facebook threw out or hid a whole host of features users have grown used to. (Try finding upcoming events, for example, or looking for updates on new friends people have made.)

A Facebook application built to poll users on the design is running 94 percent against the new design, with some 716,000 "no" votes against 44,000 "yes" votes.

One might argue that Zuckerberg didn't do the design to please the lowest common denominator of users, but instead was trying to win over the cognoscenti of Silicon Valley, who have been buzzing nonstop about Twitter. If so, he missed that target badly, too.

Facebook has a special program called "Great Apps" to recognize the best third-party add-ons to the social-networking sites. The favored few include iLike, a music app, and Causes, an app built by a startup called Project Agape which helps people rally their friends to various social issues.

Both have close ties to Facebook: Marc Bodnick, an influential Valley investor who sits on iLike's board, is the brother-in-law of Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg. Project Agape is backed by former Facebook president Sean Parker, who still owns an estimated 5 percent stake in the company.

But guess who's been dissing Facebook's redesign on Facebook? iLike CEO Ali Partovi and Project Agape's Joe Green. Green recently wrote:

The stream does not out-Twitter Twitter and under-Facebooks Facebook.

Partovi snarkily noted that the new design inspired him to join Twitter — and employees at Slide, another Facebook-app maker, applauded his wit:

And mind you, these are people who make a living off Facebook. If they hate it, what friends will Zuckerberg have left?

Poor Williams! He's just the latest target of Winer's wrath. The irascible Internet fussbudget has gotten mad at Jason Calacanis for being self-promotional, mad at Internet commenters who do not acknowledge his contributions to the Internet, mad at Twitter for not doing what he says, and mad at Hillary Clinton for being alive. (We've also long suspected that he is secretly mad at the New York Times because they will not hire him as a columnist and run his verbal spew unedited.)

But Winer's latest rant is hilariously hypocritical.

Williams's sin, according to Winer, is playing favorites with Twitter's "Suggested Users" page, a feature meant to help bewildered new Twitter users navigate the messaging service's real-time, 140-character spasms of pointless puffery. He writes:

I pour a lot of effort into Twitter, and while I wasn't in the top tier of users, I was solidly in the second tier. I wasn't doing the things you have to do to get the most followers, or I didn't have a powerful media presence like Leo or Shaq to get me up there. ... It's now approaching 20,000, which I am proud of, but it's not very much compared to the numbers of some people who did nothing other than be friends of Evan Williams to get hundreds of thousands of followers. ...

Think about it this way — do you know who wrote Apache or PHP? Do any of them have the power to deliver so much flow to an installation of their software? Imho, that's exactly the relationship Twitter should have with its users. Or the phone company and users of phones — they shouldn't jump into a conversation and say (for example) "We know someone really cool you would probably like to talk to. We're connecting you to them now.

Makes sense! Who would want the phone company to do that? Except Winer did the exact same thing himself with his own blog-software company, Userland Software, in 2003, writes former employee Rogers Cadenhead. Moreover, unlike Twitter's Williams, he actually took money to promote a blogger — former MTV veejay Adam Curry. In 2003, Curry wrote:

Time to come clean on an investment I made a year and a half ago. At the time, UserLand software had released a Mac OSX version of Radio and I was totally digging the built in news aggregator. I came up with a cunning plan: I asked Userland if I could purchase a pre-installed feed on their aggregator, which supports RSS xml feeds. I paid $10,000 for a one year license. To date I've been delighted with my purchase and although I haven't checked recently, I'm pretty sure Userland still has me in the defaults. ...

The $10k didn't 'just' give me an automatic base within the userland community, it got pasted on web pages all over the world and I've built up an audience that consists of 50% aggergator users.

Williams hasn't said anything about charging for placement on the Suggested page, but it can generated tens of thousands of new followers a day for featured Twitter accounts. Mahalo CEO Jason Calacanis — yes, the one Winer feuded with — has offered to pay $250,000 to get featured on it. Which makes us think: Winer isn't mad at Williams because he's playing favorites. Winer is jealous because Williams is far more effective at playing favorites than Winer will ever be.