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?'"

11 of 91 comments (clear)

  1. Shareholder and Chiropractor Bruce Lee?! by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, 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 ...

    --
    My work here is dung.
  2. Does Not Look Good for Arrington by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Does Not Look Good for Arrington by yincrash · · Score: 4, Interesting

      According to Arrington, a lot of the hardware IP is technically owned by Pegatron, to be exclusively licensed to Crunchpad. However, it seems that Fusion Garage has taken that IP to another ODM to get it manufactured which would be IP theft if that is the case.

    2. Re:Does Not Look Good for Arrington by fooslacker · · Score: 5, Informative

      So I'm not a law talking guy either but I did read the lawsuit and he's suing them under more than just the Lenham act.

      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.

  3. Talk about contradictions... by z4ns4stu · · Score: 4, Insightful
    From TFA:

    In the meanwhile, I'll go back to waiting for an affordable tablet to use while laying on the couch. If nothing else, I have the iTablet to look forward to!

    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
  4. If we ignore him will he go away? by faust2097 · · 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.

  5. Love and chemicals by StreetStealth · · 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.

    --
    Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
  6. misquote by kLaNk · · 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.

  7. Re:Huh? by Conchobair · · Score: 5, Informative

    Michael Arrington was involved in a project for the CrunchPad, a Linux-based tablet PC designed for Web surfing. Magazines such as Wired and Forbes have named Arrington one of the most powerful people on the Internet due to his TechCrunch blog. There was much hype on the product, being reatured in The Business Insider , Popular Mechanics and the Washington Post. On November 30, 2009, Arrington reported that CrunchPad project had ended due to disagreements between himself and the Fusion Garage team, but on December 7, 2009, Fusion Garage CEO Chandra Rathakrishnan announced that the CrunchPad would be released by the company as the Joo Joo, and that it will go on sale December 11, 2009 for $499 USD. Hilarity ensued.

  8. Re:This will not end well for Arrington by d3ac0n · · 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.

    --
    Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
  9. Re:TFA not credible by ZerMongo · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.