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?'"
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?
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.
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.
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?
Talk about contradictions... (Score:4, Insightful)
If he things Apple is going to release "an affordable tablet" he needs a reality check.
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.
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: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: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:If we ignore him will he go away? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hardware is Hard (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: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:Hardware is Hard (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 forth discussing the deal, but the absence of a contract, even a couple of pages signed by both parties (at the very least saying who does/owns what, etc.), does not reinforce his commitment and perceived value of his team's contributions to the project; and (b) not talking to investors directly to negotiate the acquisition of the company. It seems like the CEO of the Fusion Garage was not in full control of the situation, and Michael Arrington would have been prudent in communicating and negotiating with all parties at the table, including the "Bruce Lee" dude.
2. It looks really bad for Fusion Garage because it looks like they were in cahoots with their "investors" from some unknown point on, and waited until last minute to disclose their "disagreement" so they could present their product at the same time. So, instead of TechCrunch owning 65% of the merged company (as they had been discussing and intending all along), they were proposing TechCrunch own 10% of the company. Umm... yeah, not exactly a minor detail, dudes.
To me it looks like Michael Arrington got scammed. He trusted the small upstart "company" in Singapore that hadn't developed or marketed any product in the past. He took the risk, he didn't keep on top of them, and it backfired. On the other hand, they took all they could from TechCrunch's marketing power and publicity, and are now trying to run away with the product, leaving him empty-handed. In hindsight, if Michael Arrington was really interested in a joint venture, he should have gone with a little more reputable partner, or even started his own company, whether in the U.S. or offshore.