内容摘要：“Every weekend, Rob went out there and demonstrated what the end of the road for a pursuit of excellence looks like,” Cudahy said.

“Every weekend, Rob went out there and demonstrated what the end of the road for a pursuit of excellence looks like,” Cudahy said.

“It’s something I thought about,” Zuckerberg said, noting the app’s formidable capabilities, but he added that he later learned not to be worried because the owners didn’t share the same vision or direction.He said his interest in buying it was “the usage of it.”

“I thought the app was important and valuable,” Zuckerberg said.The trial, which is slated to last weeks, will feature other Big-Tech figures. After Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook’s former chief operating officer, took the stand.The trial is one of the first big tests of President Donald Trump’s FTC’s ability to challenge Big Tech. The lawsuit was filed against Meta — then called Facebook — in 2020, during Trump’s first term. It claims the company bought Instagram and WhatsApp to squash competition and establish an illegal monopoly in the social media market.

Facebook bought Instagram — which was a photo-sharing app with no ads — for $1 billion in 2012.Instagram was the first company Facebook bought and kept running as a separate app. Until then, Facebook was known for smaller “acqui-hires” — a popular Silicon Valley deal in which a company purchases a startup as a way to hire its talented workers, then shuts the acquired company down. Two years later, it did it again with the messaging app WhatsApp, which it purchased for $22 billion.

WhatsApp and Instagram helped Facebook move its business from desktop computers to mobile devices, and to remain popular with younger generations as rivals like Snapchat (which it also tried, but failed, to buy) and TikTok emerged.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg is presiding over the case. Late last year, he denied Meta’s request for a summary judgment and ruled that the case must go to trial.The case is among several making their way through the courts over Trump’s proclamation in March calling the Tren de Aragua gang a foreign terrorist organization and invoking the 1798 law to

The high court case centers on the opportunity people must have to contest their removal from the United States — without determining whether Trump’s invocation of the law was appropriate.“We recognize the significance of the Government’s national security interests as well as the necessity that such interests be pursued in a manner consistent with the Constitution,” the justices said in an unsigned opinion.

the AEA to speed deportations of people the administration says are Venezuelan gang members. On Tuesday, a judge in Pennsylvania signed off on the use of the law.The court-by-court approach to deportations under the AEA flows from another Supreme Court order that took a case away from a judge in Washington, D.C., and ruled detainees seeking to challenge their deportations must do so where they are held.