What's different from this "version" than what you've heard elsewhere?

I've searched and found no mentions of NDAs/non-competes. The only contract ever mentioned is an oral contract, which means they told him the idea, and then I he agreed to work on it. In addition, Zuck's subsequent deceiving emails to ConnectU are well-documented.

My point is not to challenge the facts about what occurred and when. My point is that the concept of "oral contract" is hugely vague: clearly Zuckerberg didn't believe he had a legal obligation to complete their website. And in this case, the ramifications ($65 million) of breaking such a vague agreement were much too high.

Your interpretation is not the only possible one, and fails to consider the significance of the fraud involved. If it was a story of two business guys who stole a pile of code and built a business I suspect you'd be demanding jail time.

Of course I would, but only because code is tangible. The legality of stealing tangible items/data is clear in everybody's minds.

However, an idea is NOT tangible, and in the absence of signed contracts it is NOT clear that using an idea told you by someone else is illegal.