Slashdot Mirror
Arrington Responds To the JooJoo, Files Suit
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?'"
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 ...
My work here is dung.
I'm not a law-talkin' guy but he's suing them under the Lanham Act which seems to be for all things trademark including trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and false advertising. So way back when this first hit Slashdot, I went poking around for trademarks and patents belonging to Arrington. All I found was the trademark for Crunchpad assigned to Interserve, Inc (I assume that's Arrington). No patents.
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?
My work here is dung.
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.
Test your net with Netalyzr
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.
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?
If he things Apple is going to release "an affordable tablet" he needs a reality check.
The whole moon and the entire sky are reflected in one dewdrop on the grass. - Dogen
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.
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.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
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.
Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
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.
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.
I think Gizmodo said it right in this article http://gizmodo.com/5424261/the-crunchpadjoojoo-lawsuit-has-been-filed-preorders-are-officially-a-gamble "if Arrington's lawsuit has even a hint of truth to it regarding the lack of lack of Fusion Garage's sound capital resource—is no longer an option for the sane or even marginally patient. I mean, just wait til it ships and gets reviewed before giving these guys any money, ok?" One, I wouldn't put 500 bucks down on a device that is a web browser, and looks like e-ink. I want something very fresh. I've never owned an apple product, but if the rumored tablet is real, and is off the charts, I'll buy it. Otherwise I'm going to wait a year to see what other products come to light.
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.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
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.
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.