×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Arrington Responds To the JooJoo, Files Suit

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 4 years ago | from the time-to-make-a-reality-tv-series dept.

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?'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

91 comments

Shareholder and Chiropractor Bruce Lee?! (4, Funny)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#30405228)

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 ...

Re:Shareholder and Chiropractor Bruce Lee?! (3, Funny)

Eugene O'Neil (140081) | more than 4 years ago | (#30405286)

Hmmm, and the man who took the place of Bela Lagosi in plan 9 from outer space was... a chiropractor! Coincidence?

Re:Shareholder and Chiropractor Bruce Lee?! (3, Funny)

hey! (33014) | more than 4 years ago | (#30405378)

Of course. Raised from the dead by an evil magician's bad juju [wikipedia.org] , then clad in armor -- evidently to evade the normal zombie killing methods. Arrington is apparently bravely jumping them and attempting to get through the armor's weak point with a metal rasp ("Arrington files suit").

Re:Shareholder and Chiropractor Bruce Lee?! (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 4 years ago | (#30407702)

armor's weak point with a metal rasp ("Arrington files suit").

+1 internets

Re:Shareholder and Chiropractor Bruce Lee?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30405602)

I'll alert Natalie Portman.

Re:Shareholder and Chiropractor Bruce Lee?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30405976)

Someone better get the hot grits ready!

Re:Shareholder and Chiropractor Bruce Lee?! (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 4 years ago | (#30406658)

Next thing you know we weill hear about an Asian engineer that then died...

Does Not Look Good for Arrington (4, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#30405316)

I'm not a law-talkin' guy but he's suing them under the Lanham Act [wikipedia.org] 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?

Re:Does Not Look Good for Arrington (1)

jhoger (519683) | more than 4 years ago | (#30405426)

It all hinges on what intellectual property Arrington has. I mean, a web tablet... is that innovative? Really? Web only devices have been around for some time. Making an oversized PDA that only does web browsing does not equal innovation.
So if all the IP he has is trademarks that Fusion Garage is not using, well, game over. Take it as a life lesson and move on.

Re:Does Not Look Good for Arrington (4, Interesting)

yincrash (854885) | more than 4 years ago | (#30405496)

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.

Re:Does Not Look Good for Arrington (3, Informative)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 4 years ago | (#30405772)

Only there's no such thing as generic IP, and there's no such thing as "IP theft", and in any event, he's not suing over THAT, he's suing over the trademark "CrunchPad", which they don't appear to be using.

Re:Does Not Look Good for Arrington (1)

yincrash (854885) | more than 4 years ago | (#30406218)

I would assume they would be considered trade secrets or covered under copyright. And Arrington noted that that lawsuit would have to come from Pegatron, which would make sense if they are the owners.

Re:Does Not Look Good for Arrington (2, Informative)

SydShamino (547793) | more than 4 years ago | (#30406402)

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:Does Not Look Good for Arrington (1)

Killer Orca (1373645) | more than 4 years ago | (#30405558)

Based on a reading over at engadget it appears the lawsuit doesn't even mention IP theft, maybe he gave them none. We'll see how this plays out.

Re:Does Not Look Good for Arrington (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30405624)

I'm a bit confused as to how this is going to work and I think Arrington just got hustled.

He got what he deserved. Arrington is a dick.

Re:Does Not Look Good for Arrington (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30406228)

He got what he deserved. Arrington is a dick.

So does that make Rathakrishnan the pussy that fucked him?

Re:Does Not Look Good for Arrington (2, Interesting)

Firehed (942385) | more than 4 years ago | (#30405664)

Under trademark law? Probably nothing. But he'd have been grossly negligent to be this far along in the development cycle without some sort of contract in place between himself (or TC) and Fusion Garage (I've heard that there were mostly verbal agreements in place, which wouldn't hold up in court, but Arrington is/was a lawyer and should know better). Presumably, something happened that would have been in breach of that contract and would constitute a valid lawsuit.

Re:Does Not Look Good for Arrington (3, Insightful)

Tobor the Eighth Man (13061) | more than 4 years ago | (#30405884)

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:Does Not Look Good for Arrington (1)

linhares (1241614) | more than 4 years ago | (#30408688)

The answer you seek is in the Visas. If these FG folks got into America through Techcrunch.com to conduct any form of business, as Arrington claims, they'll have a lot of explaining to do as to why they stepped into sacred uncle sam's land and did not conduct aforementioned business. I'm a Brazilian and it's effing annoying to get a business visa to the usa; if techcrunch helped or filed the wonderful, marvelous, USA immigration forms, then I think they can start from there.

Re:Does Not Look Good for Arrington (1)

TheVoice900 (467327) | more than 4 years ago | (#30408828)

An IP lawyer once told me: A contract is only worth about as much as the paper it's written on.

Re:Does Not Look Good for Arrington (5, Informative)

fooslacker (961470) | more than 4 years ago | (#30406248)

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.

The only people who will get rich... (3, Insightful)

nweaver (113078) | more than 4 years ago | (#30405356)

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.

Re:The only people who will get rich... (3, Funny)

SomeJoel (1061138) | more than 4 years ago | (#30406016)

So all that will happen out of this is entertaining lawsuits where the laywers make their money and everyone else just laughs.

...or cries.

Re:The only people who will get rich... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30408424)

I hate to break it to you but Arrington is a lawyer.

appropriate tag (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30405386)

shutthefuckup no body cares. this is not interesting.

This will not end well for Arrington (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30405398)

He already has a reputation as a pompous ass. Now he has a reputation as a lazy, dishonest, litigious pompus ass.

Re:This will not end well for Arrington (5, Insightful)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 4 years ago | (#30406102)

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:This will not end well for Arrington (1)

koiransuklaa (1502579) | more than 4 years ago | (#30409490)

Your other points may be valid but 1) isn't really. The idea of a web tablet was not revolutionary or new. The _only_ reason Arrington got the press he did was his claim that the end product could be sold at $200. That has turned out to have been as ridiculous as many of us originally predicted.

JooJoo = Linux tablet with 12 inch touchscreen (0, Offtopic)

the ReviveR (1106541) | more than 4 years ago | (#30405436)

Hadn't heard of JooJoo aka Crunchpad before so did some googling.

For those who are as clueless as me, it seems to be a tablet pc with a 12 inch touchscreen. Runs a custom version of Ubuntu on Intel Atom.
Sounds a bit like a bigger version of N810. Sounds a bit interesting, but it's all up to implementation.

Does anyone know whether you could bluetooth tether this to use internet through something like N900?

Re:JooJoo = Linux tablet with 12 inch touchscreen (1)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 4 years ago | (#30405868)

What if this is all a marketing campaign? They've got multiple front-page /. articles, it's up all over the "geek" news sites, and tens of thousands of people in their market segment now know about a product that, up until a month ago, was completely unknown.

It's being timed with the type of elegant precision normally reserved for Swiss watchmakers.* With these last three articles, they've kept themselves in the forefront for the last three weeks WITH NO COST TO THEM.

I'll wager that the next "press release" will be that they've decided that JooJoo is too juvenile and they're rebranding as [Sigma]pic €omputer. (/. has some odd problems with characters, as we all know.)

(I thought about using "Italian train station masters" given the JooJoo brand, but thought it would be in poor taste.)

Support? (2, Insightful)

Ractive (679038) | more than 4 years ago | (#30405438)

If Dell / HP tech support is crappy, and those are well established companies, imagine how this will be.
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.

Joojoo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30405456)

I guess Rathakrishnan will be sued by the ADL [adl.org] next.

Is it just me, or... (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 4 years ago | (#30405458)

...is Arrington laying it on a bit thick, firing every bit of ammo he can muster?

I mean, sure the guy has an understandable grievance and all, but seriously - why not stick to the points that aren't nearly as easy to drag off to the philosophical

Re:Is it just me, or... (2, Informative)

mweather (1089505) | more than 4 years ago | (#30405546)

...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.

Re:Is it just me, or... (3, Insightful)

Tobor the Eighth Man (13061) | more than 4 years ago | (#30405620)

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:Is it just me, or... (1)

linhares (1241614) | more than 4 years ago | (#30408804)

This is a PR war also; he wants to, well, crunch fusion garage; all the while attracting other potential investors/partners. Hell, all it takes is one phone call from someone high up at Dell or Google and the thing is built. PR overrules lawyers, always! (unless the court says otherwise).

On other news, with Android and Chrome OS on the market, who would like to get on a sinking boat of a losing OS???

TFA not credible (3, Insightful)

shashark (836922) | more than 4 years ago | (#30405482)

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?

Re:TFA not credible (5, Informative)

ZerMongo (1129583) | more than 4 years ago | (#30406404)

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.

Re:TFA not credible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30407948)

The way you used "et al." is just plain wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Et_al#et_alii [wikipedia.org]

Re:TFA not credible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30408474)

Same with the way he used 'nee', which is supposed to mean 'originally named' (actually it's French for 'born'). Sounds like someone who's trying to be erudite, but doesn't understand the fancy words he's throwing around.

Talk about contradictions... (4, Insightful)

z4ns4stu (1607909) | more than 4 years ago | (#30405492)

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.

Re:Talk about contradictions... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30405990)

If he things Apple is going to release "an affordable tablet" he needs a reality check.

Year 20XX:
Apple releases the very expensive iTablet and creates the market for tablet PCs (yes, some exist now, as do netbooks, but they all suck)

Year 20XX+5:
Generic clones of the iTablet are finally released that are remotely comparable to the iTablet's features and ease of use. And they cost 50% as much.

Year 20XX+10:
The clones now coast 5% as much as the iTablet, and Apple finally reduces the price of the iTablet to what is "affordable", if still twice as expensive as its competitors.

Re:Talk about contradictions... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30406410)

Also, the ZuneTablet will still cost slightly more, despite there being a tiny fraction of the demand for it.

Re:Talk about contradictions... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30406826)

Riiight, 'cause nobody at all buys Apples. They're unafforable! Thirty billion a year in consumer product sales is obviously a company that prices itself out of the market.

cheapest != affordable. It's a sub-set.

Re:Talk about contradictions... (1)

z4ns4stu (1607909) | more than 4 years ago | (#30407292)

The original device was supposed to be under $300 and the one entering production is, according to the article, too expensive at $500. There is no way Apple will release a tablet for less than $500, so it's already not affordable by the standards applied.

Re:Talk about contradictions... (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 4 years ago | (#30410754)

That's assuming an equivalent product. The crunchpad is, as far as I'm aware, just a browser. While everything about Apple's future product is speculative, it's safe to assume it'll fit somewhere between iPhone and desktop OS (probably more iPhone-like) in terms of capabilities.

Yes, that comes down mostly to software differences. But it works to get people paying a premium for Macs which are using standard PC hardware, so no reason it wouldn't also work with a tablet.

Along with Apple suing Nokia, Intel vs. AMD... (2, Funny)

kaizendojo (956951) | more than 4 years ago | (#30405508)

This is why we STILL don't have fucking jet packs and robotic sex dolls.

All kidding aside, if these jokers spent as much time DEVELOPING as they did LITIGATING, just imagine the cool stuff we'd have.

Re:Along with Apple suing Nokia, Intel vs. AMD... (1)

StayFrosty (1521445) | more than 4 years ago | (#30405932)

I don't know about you, but I don't want a chip, phone...well anything developed by lawyers.

If we ignore him will he go away? (5, Insightful)

faust2097 (137829) | more than 4 years ago | (#30405510)

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.

Re:If we ignore him will he go away? (3, Insightful)

tixxit (1107127) | more than 4 years ago | (#30405892)

I think that's it. He mentions investors, but says they would only invest after the product is launched. In other words, he found investors who said, "if it's a success, we'll invest," which is kind of stupid, because, if its a success, you wouldn't have a problem finding investors anyways, with or without Arrington. Not making up my mind one way or another though, until I see the outcome of this lawsuit.

Re:If we ignore him will he go away? (3, Informative)

subsystem (1568177) | more than 4 years ago | (#30405966)

I agree. I seem to remember Arrington posting rumors about last.fm handing user data over to the RIAA back in February, and then AGAIN in May. As far as I know, both of these rumors turned out to be false. He never said anything about his source, just that it was a very trustworthy one, and he never posted a retraction. He did, however, make a post in May ridiculing last.fm because its servers overheated and were taken offline.

Re:If we ignore him will he go away? (1)

jo42 (227475) | more than 4 years ago | (#30406106)

Isn't TechCrunch one of those 'tarded blogs that every other post is "Google did this", "Google did that", "Twitter did this", "Twitter did that", "some social web site queefed [mightly]", "some Web 2.0 startup farted [soundly]", "some [dumbass] VC invested [pissed away] $15 million for another [dumbass] Web 2.0 idea"? Or am I thinking of Mashable or ReadWriteWeb?

Re:If we ignore him will he go away? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30406198)

Yup. He's an asshole and it's wonderful schadenfreude to watch him squirm under the weight of his own highly-publicized failure.

Re:If we ignore him will he go away? (1)

zullnero (833754) | more than 4 years ago | (#30406784)

I don't like Techcrunch either, but the truth is they're really not that far off from most other tech blogs. Chock full of fanboys without a clue about anything other than the toys they play with, and the only reason they get to post their blogs there is because they can write reasonably grammatically correct bits. I couldn't care less, though, if it was just an ego project for Arrington...innovation happens when someone who is moderately clued in decides they want something better than the current products available on the market and has an idea.

Fusion Garage has done nothing to convince me they're not a disreputable rip-off shop. When you get notoriety for taking someone's idea and repackaging it as your own, especially if there are plenty of other options out on the market already, you better hope your theft pays off or else get ready to put your assets up on eBay and give your property management company a months notice. Companies like Fusion Garage go out of business for pulling stunts like this. Even if Arrington ends up not making a penny in a lawsuit against them.

Re:If we ignore him will he go away? (1)

unix1 (1667411) | more than 4 years ago | (#30408142)

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.

I don't know - I read the e-mails attached to the lawsuit, and they pretty much say TechCrunch would acquire Fusion Garage, and FG's investors would have 35% stake in the resulting company. At least, it looks like that was the intention of FG and TC, and FG CEO was grateful for it; that is, until FG delivered a new bombshell proposition of 90/10 split favoring them, supposedly coming from the Bruce Lee dude.

We still have to wait for FG's response, and what evidence they produce of your claimed promise of "VC and supplier contacts" but so far I didn't see anything to that point.

What did Arrington provide besides *ideas* (1)

nobodyman (90587) | more than 4 years ago | (#30408920)

I've heard game developers are often approached by folks who say "hey, I've got a great *idea* for a video game, but I don't know how to program. How about I share my ideas with you, you program the video game, and we split the profits 50/50!".

I wonder if it was a similar sitation here. I'm leaning towards believing that Fusion Garage and Chandra Rathakrishnan have the actual ability to design and create the hardware, and Arrington is just a douchebag blogger with an inflated sense of how important his ideas are.

"Okay guys, check out my VISION. How about... a thin and *cheap* tablet pc!" Yeah Michael, thanks.

Huh? (3, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 4 years ago | (#30405524)

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:Huh? (5, Informative)

Conchobair (1648793) | more than 4 years ago | (#30405698)

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.

Re:Huh? (3, Informative)

gclef (96311) | more than 4 years ago | (#30405842)

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:Huh? (1)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 4 years ago | (#30406244)

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.

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=crunchpad+joo+joo [lmgtfy.com]

Fascinating, isn't it?

Love and chemicals (5, Funny)

StreetStealth (980200) | more than 4 years ago | (#30405538)

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.

misquote (5, Informative)

kLaNk (82409) | more than 4 years ago | (#30405636)

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:misquote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30405826)

I took that to read that Arrington thinks the only way he's going to win this suit is if Fusion Garage is unable to defend itself.

Re:misquote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30412138)

So the press should disclose that FG has no money, without any proof, just on Arringtons word? How should the press know the details of FG's financial situation?

Re:misquote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30416188)

basic research and fact-checking?

YUOK FAIL IT! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30405720)

wheN done playing

So what did Arrington actually do? (1)

Rix (54095) | more than 4 years ago | (#30405762)

It doesn't seem that he contributed anything to this project other than marketing support. If that's the case, 35% of the company seems astronomically generous.

Re:So what did Arrington actually do? (3, Informative)

slashmojo (818930) | more than 4 years ago | (#30407608)

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 (2, Informative)

Rix (54095) | more than 4 years ago | (#30408680)

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.

Re:That doesn't seem to be the case (1)

slashmojo (818930) | more than 4 years ago | (#30412064)

To quote TFA..

"That’s not correct. The entire blueprint of the device was created by me. And we also have hired direct resources, including the former head of hardware at Vudu, as well as very high level software engineers, who have worked directly on the project here and in Singapore with the Fusion Garage team."

Not sure what he means by 'entire blueprint' but anyway he clearly states that he hired hardware and software engineers to work directly on the project.

So he claims (1)

Rix (54095) | more than 4 years ago | (#30415494)

But if that were true, he'd own the IP. I've met many, many non technical folks who will quite blithely claim they "created the entire blueprint" of whatever their partners actually did.

This whole situation seems more than mildly racist to me. I don't imagine anyone would pay the least attention to Arrington's claims if FG weren't Indian.

Re:So what did Arrington actually do? (2, Interesting)

linhares (1241614) | more than 4 years ago | (#30408904)

If anyone subscribed to it in google reader or other feeds, it's probably still there. It will be nice to read what was in there. Arrington's chuck norris is in the US visas. If it was really techcrunch that got visas for that guy with a wig and his band, then either a) they conducted official business with techcrunch.com, or b) they Fking lied to Uncle Sam (which is not a good position to be in in an american court, i would imagine there may be some crimes involved way beyond the civil stuff).

Maybe, Maybe not (3, Informative)

Exstatica (769958) | more than 4 years ago | (#30405802)

I think Gizmodo said it right in this article http://gizmodo.com/5424261/the-crunchpadjoojoo-lawsuit-has-been-filed-preorders-are-officially-a-gamble [gizmodo.com] "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.

Hardware is Hard (1)

jamesl (106902) | more than 4 years ago | (#30405848)

TechCrunch's value as a source for news and analysis (especially analysis) has fallen as a result of this escapade. How much trust can we place in its stories when the owner, operator and editor in chief fails to cover a business enterprise with a written contract or background check of his business partners?

The lesson for readers is that developing, manufacturing and successfully marketing any product is hard. Creating a browser in a tablet that is a cost effective alternative to existing products is very hard.

Re:Hardware is Hard (2, Insightful)

Tobor the Eighth Man (13061) | more than 4 years ago | (#30405956)

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:Hardware is Hard (1)

VoxMagis (1036530) | more than 4 years ago | (#30407866)

"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."

It doesn't seem to bother most slashdot editors.

Re:Hardware is Hard (3, Insightful)

unix1 (1667411) | more than 4 years ago | (#30408022)

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.

What is this about? (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 4 years ago | (#30405852)

This seems to involve some feud over clones of renamed vaporware products. I think.

Whatever.

Giant Iphone (1)

Zero_Independent (664974) | more than 4 years ago | (#30406098)

It looks like a giant Iphone to me. I thought the appeal of the Iphone is that it's small. This product seems like a bad idea.

Breach of partner fiduciary duty & copyright.. (3, Interesting)

waTR (885837) | more than 4 years ago | (#30406236)

After a quick read through part of the document linked to, it sounds like this was a partnership as per the law (if you act and give the impression that you are partners, under the law, you are to those parties who you created the impression to). So there would be breach of fiduciary duty on Fusion Garage's part... This looks like a lawyer's wet dream in some respects... Though it will be interesting how the lawyers will play this...

Also...what is TC trying to get out of this? All they will likely get is an injunction (maybe interlocutory--thereby preventing sale of the Joojoo in the US before it even launches). There DOES seem to be some copyright involved (design of the tablet), as the copyright on the software is apparantly owned by Fusion Garage.

Interesting...

Fail Lawsuit (2, Informative)

Skellbasher (896203) | more than 4 years ago | (#30406250)

Arrington isn't suing for breach of contract. He isn't suing for on any grounds related to the IP. To me, this suit is simply intended to sic legal costs on Fusion Garage since they backed out of whatever verbal or implied deal that they had with Arrington, and he's mad about it. The claims aren't frivolous, but they're pretty weak, and not what Arrington has said the actual problems were.

Why don't they just (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30406400)

rename it the "Phantom".

Famous last words (1)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 4 years ago | (#30406418)

From the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] (quote from Arrington himself):

So let’s design it, build a few and then open source the specs so anyone can create them.
If everything works well, we’d then open source the design and software and let anyone build one that wants to.

Re:Famous last words (1)

Haidon (1628521) | more than 4 years ago | (#30406972)

That very quote is included in the lawsuit filing, as well as one other quote where Arrington said [paraphrased] that Fusion Garage should be given all the credit for Prototype C. Those 2 quotes really don't help TC's position.

Shame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30406940)

I was already seeing the ads: "JooJoo, you buy one Joo, you get two!"

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...