CrunchPad Federal Lawsuit Filed; Some Additional Thoughts
1–10 of 98 posts
Re: CrunchPad Federal Lawsuit Filed; Some Additional Thoughts
#2This confirms that they had no contracts - Arrington's "exhibits" are some blog posts and emails. This guy seriously used to be a lawyer?
The initial price point was just an attempt to hype it up by Arrington, so this whole device would never be much anyway. BTW, Techcrunch is deleting any unfavorable comments on their blog, just as they have done many other times previously.
Re: CrunchPad Federal Lawsuit Filed; Some Additional Thoughts
#3I posted the following comment on the techcruch blog but it got deleted. Not sure why exactly, I think it's a fairly valid question to ask.
"So you apparently found out that your business partner was pretty shady last summer but you chose to not reveal that obviously newsworthy information to readers, why exactly?
Just wondering why readers should be considering techcruch a newsworthy source if such an obvious conflict of interests results in you coming down on the side that benefits you the most?"
Re: CrunchPad Federal Lawsuit Filed; Some Additional Thoughts
#4I posted the following comment on the techcruch blog but it got deleted. Not sure why exactly, I think it's a fairly valid question to ask. "So you apparently found out that your business partner was pretty shady last summer but you chose to not reveal that obviously newsworthy information to readers, why exactly? Just wondering why readers should be considering techcruch a newsworthy source if such an obvious confli…
Seems pretty obvious. He had a partnership with Fusion Garage, why would he air their dirty laundry? It's not like he did anything to hide the relationship between FG and TC.
Re: CrunchPad Federal Lawsuit Filed; Some Additional Thoughts
#5Point 7 is... interesting. Like the whole post really. It lists a lot of facts about TC helping in CP development, working out some details, assuring commercial support. But that's pretty much it. They have some emails, but that's still not really formal.
I may be mistaken of course, but it looks like they do not have any formal document that says anything about their ownership of the project. Sure - they helped out the project, or even produced the blueprints, but do they have a proper contract saying what do they get in exchange? Afaik there's no law stopping me from creating a device based on someone else's not patented blueprints (otherwise people writing RFCs would own a lot of software they didn't write).
Re: CrunchPad Federal Lawsuit Filed; Some Additional Thoughts
#6While I've started to lean more against Fusion Garage in this battle for the CrunchPad, I still think that TechCrunch is equally to blame for choosing such a shady group to work with.
Arrington states that he has known for a long while (as steerpike pointed out) that Fusion Garage has been in such shambles, and claims he isn't "just a blog" and has made significant (and/or the majority of) contributions to the CrunchPad. If both of these are true, why the hell didn't he pull out on Fusion Garage early on and go with someone else?
You supposedly have the idea, the investors, the retail channels lined up, etc... so why is Fusion even an issue? I call shenanigans here...
Re: CrunchPad Federal Lawsuit Filed; Some Additional Thoughts
#7What they won’t have is cash flow to build the devices.
FG have said they have devices built or building haven't they? I wonder which is true - my guess is a small inventory, hence the pre-sale.
Chandra and Fusion Garage have shown a long term pattern of deceit in their business dealings.
Dear god.... why oh why did he deal with them? (or continue to deal with them)
If the lined up investors, guys who make a living in picking horses to back, were worried why didn't Arrington listen to their concerns
And after a brief scan through I dont see any/many mention of contracts or agreements between TC and FG. As we said before that is a basic mistake - and it looks like it is one that was actually made :(
Personally I am coming down slowly on TC's side: Fusion Garage are screwing about.
However the one thing I am certain about now is that I would definitely never go into business with or invest in Arrington. He's destroyed any reputation he had as an investor / businessman for me.
Shambles.
Re: CrunchPad Federal Lawsuit Filed; Some Additional Thoughts
#8This confirms that they had no contracts - Arrington's "exhibits" are some blog posts and emails. This guy seriously used to be a lawyer? The initial price point was just an attempt to hype it up by Arrington, so this whole device would never be much anyway. BTW, Techcrunch is deleting any unfavorable comments on their blog, just as they have done many other times previously.
[deleted]
Re: CrunchPad Federal Lawsuit Filed; Some Additional Thoughts
#9This confirms that they had no contracts - Arrington's "exhibits" are some blog posts and emails. This guy seriously used to be a lawyer? The initial price point was just an attempt to hype it up by Arrington, so this whole device would never be much anyway. BTW, Techcrunch is deleting any unfavorable comments on their blog, just as they have done many other times previously.
This guy seriously used to be a lawyer?
Jack Thompson used to be a lawyer, too. Having the training guarantees neither intellect nor sanity.
Re: CrunchPad Federal Lawsuit Filed; Some Additional Thoughts
#10Point 7 is... interesting. Like the whole post really. It lists a lot of facts about TC helping in CP development, working out some details, assuring commercial support. But that's pretty much it. They have some emails, but that's still not really formal. I may be mistaken of course, but it looks like they do not have any formal document that says anything about their ownership of the project. Sure - they helped out…
I think the problem is TC may have provided resources such as office space. At which point verbal contracts can become binding, which is why emails back and forth which support the verbal contract would be important. So, the real question becomes did TC provide such services and can they prove what the verbal contract was?