CrunchPad Federal Lawsuit Filed; Some Additional Thoughts
21–30 of 98 posts
Re: CrunchPad Federal Lawsuit Filed; Some Additional Thoughts
#22This 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 is a misconception - a contract does not need to be written to be enforceable. A contract consists of an "offer" and "acceptance"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract#Offer_and_acceptance
Techcrunch looks like it made an offer to work with someone to build a device, and Fusion looks like it accepted in some capacity by announcing they were working with them, tentatively branding it the Crunchpad, etc.
After that, the question is - did Techcrunch provide "consideration" to Fusion? That is, did they work to fulfill the agreement the two companies had?
Here, it looks pretty clear that TC did provide some consideration. Courts will look at what was agreed, and whether the parties provided that. Techcrunch might be exaggerating their role in the project, but they did clearly bring some consideration to the table - they put time, effort, money into the project because they believed they had a deal. Fusion accepted this consideration.
Importantly, consideration doesn't look at abstract value. It looks at whether you delivered on the contract. This is important, here's Wik on the subject:
"Consideration must be "sufficient" (i.e., recognizable by the law), but need not be "adequate" (i.e., the consideration need not be a fair and reasonable exchange for the benefit of the promise). For instance, agreeing to buy a car for a penny may constitute a binding contract."
The car for a penny example is extreme, and it might not be a binding contract, but it might too - there's been some famous cases of pranksters getting sued. But the key is, even if what TC provided wasn't important, if Fusion agreed to partner/pay royalties/give them a percent/something in exchange for what TC brought to the table, then they had a deal and TC delivered on their end of it.
Also from Wik -
"Contrary to common wisdom, an exchange of promises can still be binding and legally as valid as a written contract."
A clear, well written contract goes a long way. In absence of one, though, if you can still show there was an offer, acceptance, and consideration, then you've got a contract. I'm still going through the lawsuit reading, I'll come back when I see what TC is asking for because that's an interesting detail.
Edit: On page 10 of the lawsuit. TC is saying they paid vendors and paid Fusion's debts. That'd be pretty clear consideration if true. Still reading.
Edit2: Alright, page 21 has what TC is asking for. They're asking for all profits from sale of the product to be put into a trust and that Fusion is permanently forbidden from selling or distributing the Joojoo product, and must destroy it. Earlier in the suit they mentioned TC and Fusion are now permanently competitors, which implied TC is going to build their own pad. It'll be interesting to see if they have their own set of IP and specs to do that, or if it's just bluffing for leverage.
Re: CrunchPad Federal Lawsuit Filed; Some Additional Thoughts
#23Re: CrunchPad Federal Lawsuit Filed; Some Additional Thoughts
#24[deleted]
Plaintiffs
INTERSERVE, INC. dba TECHCRUNCH, a Delaware Corporation, and CRUNCHPAD, INC., a Delaware Corp.
Seems like they are incorporated
Re: CrunchPad Federal Lawsuit Filed; Some Additional Thoughts
#25This 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 confirms that they had no contracts This is a misconception - a contract does not need to be written to be enforceable. A contract consists of an "offer" and "acceptance" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract#Offer_and_acceptance Techcrunch looks like it made an offer to work with someone to build a device, and Fusion looks like it accepted in some capacity by announcing they were working with them, tentativel…
Re: CrunchPad Federal Lawsuit Filed; Some Additional Thoughts
#26[deleted]
Re: CrunchPad Federal Lawsuit Filed; Some Additional Thoughts
#27I'm working in a startup with a Neurologist who has an appointment at Harvard and an MBA - no doubt he's a smart guy. Nevertheless that didn't really matter a few years ago when our startup was taken to the cleaners by cons.. With the best of intentions we planned a strategic partnership with a medical device company only to find out that several months later we were deliberately being led on and lied to by the CEO of said company while they worked on stealing and implementing our ideas and cutting us out of the deal..
We thought about a lawsuit but we just didn't have the funds to go through with it.. In the end it worked out for us because we had already had some successful partnerships with other device companies which kept us afloat. Also, the company who stole our ideas failed miserably..
Is it really too much to ask that everyone pointing/shaking their finger at TC and Arrington to give them the benefit of the doubt..? It's pretty obvious if you believe what he's saying about Fusion Garage and Chandra that these guys are accomplished liars.. It's a tough lesson to learn and I for one applaud Arrington for being open and transparent in this whole ordeal.. I'm sure this has been embarrassing enough for him and the TC team..
Re: CrunchPad Federal Lawsuit Filed; Some Additional Thoughts
#28Point 6: Much of the key intellectual property, including the board and much of the mechanicals, is owned by Pegatron, the manufacturing arm of Asus. Point 7: The entire blueprint of the device was created by me. I don't exactly understand what he means by this. He created the blue print but someone else owns the IP? And what exactly is a blue print, in this case? Just saying what the device needs to do/look? Isn't t…
Re: CrunchPad Federal Lawsuit Filed; Some Additional Thoughts
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This confirms that they had no contracts This is a misconception - a contract does not need to be written to be enforceable. A contract consists of an "offer" and "acceptance" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract#Offer_and_acceptance Techcrunch looks like it made an offer to work with someone to build a device, and Fusion looks like it accepted in some capacity by announcing they were working with them, tentativel…
In a strictly lawful perspective, a contract is a legally binding written agreement between two or more parties.
Re: CrunchPad Federal Lawsuit Filed; Some Additional Thoughts
#30as in "i wanted to grow organically; he wanted a big marketing push: it ended in a total crunchpad". or "someone didn't tighten the nuts; front driverside wheel came off on a mountain road: complete crunchpad". or "flock of birds triggered a false alarm; first strike; automated response: crunchpad".
it happened with cuil, i'm sensing the same promise here....