Arrington Responds To the JooJoo, Files Suit 91
itwbennett writes "Not normally 'one to enjoy a casual read of a lawsuit,' blogger Peter Smith admits to finding the suit Michael Arrington is filing against Fusion Garage over the JooJoo (nee CrunchPad) fascinating. 'Skip to page 4, starting with item 11,' says Smith. 'At this point I don't know what to think, Every time I get close to pretty much accepting Arrington's story at face value, he pulls something that makes me stop and reexamine his arguments.' For example, says Smith, in one bullet point in Arrington's latest salvo, he calls out the press, saying 'it is irresponsible for press to link to the pre-sale site.' 'This attempt to directly sway the press away from Fusion Garage really spikes my suspicion meter' says Smith. 'After all, Arrington is the press. If I started writing screeds advising him on what he should or should not say about a product, what would he think?'"
Shareholder and Chiropractor Bruce Lee?! (Score:5, Funny)
Fusion Garage is, and always has been, a company on the edge of going out of business. Their main shareholder, the guy who wrote the now infamous email telling us that we were no longer part of the project, is a chiropractor named Bruce Lee. The company was constantly raising debt from unsavory investors, borderline loansharks ...
... and zombie martial artists infecting people under the guise of 'chiropracty.' Arrington is requesting chainsaws, shotguns and three volunteers from the straggling group of survivors ...
Re:Shareholder and Chiropractor Bruce Lee?! (Score:4, Funny)
Hmmm, and the man who took the place of Bela Lagosi in plan 9 from outer space was... a chiropractor! Coincidence?
Re:Shareholder and Chiropractor Bruce Lee?! (Score:4, Funny)
Of course. Raised from the dead by an evil magician's bad juju [wikipedia.org], then clad in armor -- evidently to evade the normal zombie killing methods. Arrington is apparently bravely jumping them and attempting to get through the armor's weak point with a metal rasp ("Arrington files suit").
Re: (Score:2)
+1 internets
Re: (Score:2)
looool! That’s the best punchline I read here, for a looong time. XD
Re: (Score:2)
Next thing you know we weill hear about an Asian engineer that then died...
Does Not Look Good for Arrington (Score:5, Insightful)
So, I'm not saying what they've done is right or moral, but if Fusion Garage steers clear of using 'Crunchpad' and only calls it JooJoo, then what kind of case does Arrington have? False advertising for the news articles calling JooJoo the 'reborn Crunchpad'? I'm a bit confused as to how this is going to work and I think Arrington just got hustled. Or was never doing anything at all but wanted to be a part of it. I guess we'll never know the unadulterated truth. Anyone close to this have more details/proof?
Re: (Score:2)
It all hinges on what intellectual property Arrington has. I mean, a web tablet... is that innovative? Really? Web only devices have been around for some time. Making an oversized PDA that only does web browsing does not equal innovation.
So if all the IP he has is trademarks that Fusion Garage is not using, well, game over. Take it as a life lesson and move on.
Re:Does Not Look Good for Arrington (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Does Not Look Good for Arrington (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Trade secrets are only protected if they are held secret. In order to hold something secret when shared with a third party, they must sign a non-disclosure agreement.
Thus, if they are trade secrets, he should be suing for contract violations. If they are copyrights, such as on source code or one a printed circuit board, he should be suing for copyright violations.
In neither case will a trademark suit help, and if he's released the source code as open source, and the vendor takes the time to respin the PCB
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Under trademark law? Probably nothing. But he'd have been grossly negligent to be this far along in the development cycle without some sort of contract in place between himself (or TC) and Fusion Garage (I've heard that there were mostly verbal agreements in place, which wouldn't hold up in court, but Arrington is/was a lawyer and should know better). Presumably, something happened that would have been in breach of that contract and would constitute a valid lawsuit.
Re:Does Not Look Good for Arrington (Score:4, Insightful)
Oral contacts are, in general, just as valid as written ones, assuming you can prove their existence. I agree that it'd be silly if it turns out there's no clearly outlined and dually signed written agreement, but depending on the exact nature of it, an oral contract may be all he needs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An IP lawyer once told me: A contract is only worth about as much as the paper it's written on.
Re:Does Not Look Good for Arrington (Score:5, Informative)
First, Under Lahnam he's suing theme for false advertising that damaged TechCrunch
Second, Under California law he's suing them for "breach of fiduciary duty" claiming they violated an implicit partnership which is formed automatically under CA law (according to the lawsuit)
Third (I assume also under the California partnership theory) he's suing for "misappropriate of business ideas" and claiming that Fusion Garage doesn't own the IP but rather that the partnership does.
Forth, he's suing them for fraud under CA law claiming they were basically liars and thieves.
Fifth, he's claiming "unlawful business practices and false advertising" under CA law. (which I assume is similar to the first cause for action but under the CA state laws that are relevant rather than the Lanham Act)
It then goes on to say what should be done to make things right, demand a jury trial, and file some "exhibits". I'm not pro or con one way or the other but it's not as simple as he's filing suit under a trademark law so he doesn't have a chance and again, IANAL.
The only people who will get rich... (Score:4, Insightful)
Are the lawyers. The Crunchpad/JooJoo was doomed from the start: too expensive given the current technology...
So all that will happen out of this is entertaining lawsuits where the laywers make their money and everyone else just laughs.
Re:The only people who will get rich... (Score:4, Funny)
So all that will happen out of this is entertaining lawsuits where the laywers make their money and everyone else just laughs.
...or cries.
Re:This will not end well for Arrington (Score:5, Insightful)
Pompous ass or not, I don't see how Arrington;
1) coming up with a nifty idea for a device that he personally would find useful
2) Creating a prototype of that device, and deciding that it would be cool to produce and sell on the open market
3) Finding a manufacturer and working closely with them to get that prototype worked into a production form
4) Buying a share in that manufacturer with his own money when it looks like the manufacturer is in trouble
5) Defending himself when it looks like the manufacturer has gotten into bed with some unscrupulous characters and is attempting to steal his idea out from under him.
Constitutes being lazy, dishonest, and litigious.
He may still be a pompous ass, but until I hear the full story from BOTH sides and/or there is a decision on the case, I see no reason NOT to believe him, or at least give him the benefit of the doubt.
Incidentally, I DID RTFPDF (Read the F-ing PDF) and I found nothing in it that made me suspect shenanigans on Arrington's part. Of course, IANAL, and most of the accompanying legalese was opaque to me, to say the least. But the rest of it seemed above-board.
Perhaps, since this case relates to IP law, NYCL can comment? (assuming he hasn't already and I just missed it.) I would be interested to hear his take on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Your other points may be valid but 1) isn't really. The idea of a web tablet was not revolutionary or new. The _only_ reason Arrington got the press he did was his claim that the end product could be sold at $200. That has turned out to have been as ridiculous as many of us originally predicted.
Re: (Score:2)
What if this is all a marketing campaign? They've got multiple front-page /. articles, it's up all over the "geek" news sites, and tens of thousands of people in their market segment now know about a product that, up until a month ago, was completely unknown.
It's being timed with the type of elegant precision normally reserved for Swiss watchmakers.* With these last three articles, they've kept themselves in the forefront for the last three weeks WITH NO COST TO THEM.
I'll wager that the next "press release"
Support? (Score:2, Insightful)
Even with TechCrunch behind it and at $200 the stuff seemed dubious, now without, with all this litigation and at $500... I think I'm gonna pass.
Is it just me, or... (Score:2)
...is Arrington laying it on a bit thick, firing every bit of ammo he can muster?
I mean, sure the guy has an understandable grievance and all, but seriously - why not stick to the points that aren't nearly as easy to drag off to the philosophical
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
...is Arrington laying it on a bit thick, firing every bit of ammo he can muster?
That's what you're supposed to do in a lawsuit. You throw whatever you can and see what sticks.
Re:Is it just me, or... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's what you're supposed to do in a lawsuit. You throw whatever you can and see what sticks.
That may be what you're supposed to do within the confines of legal proceedings, but as far as I know it's generally not advisable to make such public (and fairly inflammatory) statements about your opponents in ongoing legal proceedings.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
On other news, with Android and Chrome OS on the market, who would like to get on a sinking boat of a losing OS???
TFA not credible (Score:4, Insightful)
TFA starts with a promise but quickly loses the plot. Smith fights Arrington's ambiguity with ambiguity. Alright - so Arrington hates this guy and calls press out. Big deal. Where are the facts?
Re:TFA not credible (Score:5, Informative)
Talk about contradictions... (Score:4, Insightful)
If he things Apple is going to release "an affordable tablet" he needs a reality check.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
If he things Apple is going to release "an affordable tablet" he needs a reality check.
Year 20XX:
Apple releases the very expensive iTablet and creates the market for tablet PCs (yes, some exist now, as do netbooks, but they all suck)
Year 20XX+5:
Generic clones of the iTablet are finally released that are remotely comparable to the iTablet's features and ease of use. And they cost 50% as much.
Year 20XX+10:
The clones now coast 5% as much as the iTablet, and Apple finally reduces the price of the iTablet to what is "affordable", if still twice as expensive as its competitors.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That's assuming an equivalent product. The crunchpad is, as far as I'm aware, just a browser. While everything about Apple's future product is speculative, it's safe to assume it'll fit somewhere between iPhone and desktop OS (probably more iPhone-like) in terms of capabilities.
Yes, that comes down mostly to software differences. But it works to get people paying a premium for Macs which are using standard PC hardware, so no reason it wouldn't also work with a tablet.
Along with Apple suing Nokia, Intel vs. AMD... (Score:3, Funny)
All kidding aside, if these jokers spent as much time DEVELOPING as they did LITIGATING, just imagine the cool stuff we'd have.
Re: (Score:1)
If we ignore him will he go away? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wasn't the entire point of the CrunchPad to show how Michael Arrington was smarter than the entire consumer electronics industry and to highlight how he's a brilliant, super connected Silicon Valley darling? The FusionGarage guys seem to have a pretty good point in that Arringon apparently never delivered on his promised to hook them up with VC and supplier contacts.
Techcrunch is the Drudge Report of tech blogs and Arrington is a douche who seems to piss off every person he encounters.
Re:If we ignore him will he go away? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't TechCrunch one of those 'tarded blogs that every other post is "Google did this", "Google did that", "Twitter did this", "Twitter did that", "some social web site queefed [mightly]", "some Web 2.0 startup farted [soundly]", "some [dumbass] VC invested [pissed away] $15 million for another [dumbass] Web 2.0 idea"? Or am I thinking of Mashable or ReadWriteWeb?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The FusionGarage guys seem to have a pretty good point in that Arringon apparently never delivered on his promised to hook them up with VC and supplier contacts.
I don't know - I read the e-mails attached to the lawsuit, and they pretty much say TechCrunch would acquire Fusion Garage, and FG's investors would have 35% stake in the resulting company. At least, it looks like that was the intention of FG and TC, and FG CEO was grateful for it; that is, until FG delivered a new bombshell proposition of 90/10 split favoring them, supposedly coming from the Bruce Lee dude.
We still have to wait for FG's response, and what evidence they produce of your claimed promise of "V
What did Arrington provide besides *ideas* (Score:2)
I've heard game developers are often approached by folks who say "hey, I've got a great *idea* for a video game, but I don't know how to program. How about I share my ideas with you, you program the video game, and we split the profits 50/50!".
I wonder if it was a similar sitation here. I'm leaning towards believing that Fusion Garage and Chandra Rathakrishnan have the actual ability to design and create the hardware, and Arrington is just a douchebag blogger with an inflated sense of how important his i
Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
I have no idea who any of the people involved are, or what their products (or websites maybe?) are supposed to do. For the sake of us who aren't familiar with every current lawsuit, could you please add a little context to the story summaries? This isn't exactly like mentioning a new salvo in IBM v. SCO where you can assume a majority of Slashdotters will have a clue WTF you're talking about.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That helps tremendously. Thanks!
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Informative)
Arrington: tech blogger/commentator/etc.
TechCrunch: his site:
CrunchPad: Arrington's idea for a cheap, tablet device that used a browser OS to do basic web stuff. He wanted it to cost ~ $200.
FusionGarage: The company Arrington's group partnered with to develop the OS & do some of the hardware integration work.
JooJoo: the name that FusionGarage released the CrunchPad under when they tried to go solo, ditching Arrington.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea who any of the people involved are, or what their products (or websites maybe?) are supposed to do. For the sake of us who aren't familiar with every current lawsuit, could you please add a little context to the story summaries? This isn't exactly like mentioning a new salvo in IBM v. SCO where you can assume a majority of Slashdotters will have a clue WTF you're talking about.
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=crunchpad+joo+joo [lmgtfy.com]
Fascinating, isn't it?
Love and chemicals (Score:5, Funny)
The more I learn about this, the more it looks like one of those failed relationships where the guy thought things were getting serious and the girl was never looking for a long-term attachment.
Neither one can be blamed or absolved completely; they both were under the illusion that the other shared their view. Of course, the couple should have talked a little more about what they both wanted out of the relationship, as should Arrington and Fusion Garage have.
Love, or that dizzying sense that you're going to change an industry. Both serotonin.
Re: (Score:2)
The question is, who gets the kids?
misquote (Score:5, Informative)
The quote in the summary about not wanting press to link to the pre-sale site is a bit out of context. The full quote makes slightly more sense:
Fusion Garage’s financial situation is a mess, and it is inappropriate for press to recommend to people to pre-buy a CrunchPad. The company has not yet hired an attorney to respond to our lawsuit. We believe they do not have the cash flow to do so. When the device goes on pre sales today, linked to from scores of gadget and press sites, they will suddenly have cash flow to defend themselves. What they won’t have is cash flow to build the devices. We believe it is irresponsible for press to link to the pre-sale site without disclosing this to readers.
So what did Arrington actually do? (Score:2)
It doesn't seem that he contributed anything to this project other than marketing support. If that's the case, 35% of the company seems astronomically generous.
Re:So what did Arrington actually do? (Score:4, Informative)
AFAIK, he initiated the project, hired engineers (hw & sw), generated masses of publicity through his blogs and business network, hosted FG people at his offices, allegedly made all sorts of distribution deals.. and presumably spending considerable sums in the process. Seems like he (and his company) did rather a lot and was the prime (and very public) driving force from the start.
FG's own blog apparently gave credence to Arringtons version which is probably why they took it down.. unfortunately for them the 'incriminating' posts still exist on google cache and likely many other places. Oops.
However FG have Bruce Lee on their side so it will be a tough fight.. Arrington may need to call in Chuck Norris for some roundhouse support.
That doesn't seem to be the case (Score:3, Informative)
If Arrington did have the engineers in his employ, then he'd own the IP and FG wouldn't be able to push him out. Everything I've read has said FG did the engineering.
That just leaves the publicity from his blog and other touchy feely marketing somesuch. 35% seems well and above reasonable for that.
Re: (Score:2)
To quote TFA..
"That’s not correct. The entire blueprint of the device was created by me. And we also have hired direct resources, including the former head of hardware at Vudu, as well as very high level software engineers, who have worked directly on the project here and in Singapore with the Fusion Garage team."
Not sure what he means by 'entire blueprint' but anyway he clearly states that he hired hardware and software engineers to work directly on the project.
So he claims (Score:2)
But if that were true, he'd own the IP. I've met many, many non technical folks who will quite blithely claim they "created the entire blueprint" of whatever their partners actually did.
This whole situation seems more than mildly racist to me. I don't imagine anyone would pay the least attention to Arrington's claims if FG weren't Indian.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe, Maybe not (Score:4, Informative)
Hardware is Hard (Score:2)
TechCrunch's value as a source for news and analysis (especially analysis) has fallen as a result of this escapade. How much trust can we place in its stories when the owner, operator and editor in chief fails to cover a business enterprise with a written contract or background check of his business partners?
The lesson for readers is that developing, manufacturing and successfully marketing any product is hard. Creating a browser in a tablet that is a cost effective alternative to existing products is very
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think a bigger issue in terms of their status as a source of news and analysis is the fact that Arrington is covering it at all. I know Arrington has never been particularly objective or (as far as I know) made claims that he is, but it seems a little irresponsible to use your news site as a way to air personal grievances, at least if you want to continue to be regarded as a site for news.
At the very least, one of the other TC writers should be covering it.
Re: (Score:2)
"it seems a little irresponsible to use your news site as a way to air personal grievances, at least if you want to continue to be regarded as a site for news."
It doesn't seem to bother most slashdot editors.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
TechCrunch is a blog, not a news site. It is filled with opinions from different bloggers that they employ, including Michael Arrington's himself. It is perfectly valid to discuss the lawsuit on his blog.
However, moving on from that point, I read the lawsuit including the allegations and attached e-mail evidence. 2 things I noticed are (IANAL):
1. Michael Arrington loses some points by (a) not having something resembling a formal contract in place for the joint project - yes, there are e-mails going back and
What is this about? (Score:2)
This seems to involve some feud over clones of renamed vaporware products. I think.
Whatever.
Breach of partner fiduciary duty & copyright.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Also...what is TC trying to get out of this? All they will likely get
Fail Lawsuit (Score:2, Informative)
Famous last words (Score:2)
So let’s design it, build a few and then open source the specs so anyone can create them.
If everything works well, we’d then open source the design and software and let anyone build one that wants to.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
credit for Prototype C
But who gets credit for A and B? Was FG involved in those at all?