Comment Re:TFA not credible (Score 5, Informative) 91
I read the lawsuit. IANAL, et. al., but it seems to come down to a fundamental question: Did TechCrunch materially contribute to the production of the Crunchpad (nee JooJoo)?
Arrington lays out pretty convincing arguments. He notes the idea was conceived and developed to at least the point of Prototype A without the involvement of Fusion Garage at all. Then, at various points, TC directly paid money owed by FG, as well as providing a place for them to stay when FG's development team flew out to SF to work with TC. He (quite rightly) asserts that there is no reason for FG to have flown to the states if they indeed were the sole developers of the CP.
There are some ancillary points (false advertising for the JooJoo that it's FG's to sell, solely developed, misrepresentation by FG that they were developing a browser-based OS [they weren't], and a few other misrepresentation claims), but reading the e-mails attached as exhibits there is another strange thing. There are two competing narratives here: One, advanced by Arrington, is a joint project. The other, advanced by FG CEO Chandra Rathakrishnan, argues that FG developed the entire thing. CR's version has been repeated to the press as well as in private e-mails to his investors -- which were sent after he agreed (via e-mail) for FG to be acquired by TC for 35%, at least 5% lower than he would have preferred.
Thus far, I haven't read of any evidence that FG's story is correct, and there is nothing that refutes the assertions made by Arrington. Thus, for now, I have to come down his side. But hopefully the court case will make everything clear.
