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?'"
This will not end well for Arrington (Score:0, Informative)
He already has a reputation as a pompous ass. Now he has a reputation as a lazy, dishonest, litigious pompus ass.
Re:Is it just me, or... (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.
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.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Does Not Look Good for Arrington (Score:4, Informative)
Maybe, Maybe not (Score:4, Informative)
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:If we ignore him will he go away? (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Fail Lawsuit (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Does Not Look Good for Arrington (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 to have a slightly different schematic and layout, and all the contracts were "verbal" with no documentation, he's left with nothing at all.
Re:TFA not credible (Score:5, Informative)
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.