Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

CrunchPad Federal Lawsuit Filed; Some Additional Thoughts

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 98 posts

Re: CrunchPad Federal Lawsuit Filed; Some Additional Thoughts

#41

Post by KWD »

whalesalad wrote: post #6

While 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 Crunch…

My impression is that Arrington realized how bad Fusion Garage was and why there was discussion of a new company being formed. He probably just thought they could get the product out and then deal with the issues, not realizing the backstabbing by Chandresekar was already in motion.

Re: CrunchPad Federal Lawsuit Filed; Some Additional Thoughts

#42

Post by wheaties »

grellas wrote: post #39

I have litigated a variety of "false promise" and breach of fiduciary cases on behalf of startups over the years and can share a few observations about what I see here (and I am seeing it literally for the first time, as I have not followed this story). 1. This obviously was an ill-documented relationship, though what is outlined in the complaint clearly suggests that it was either a joint venture of some type or at…

Damn, that is a fascinating legal discourse from someone who knows what they're talking about. Hats off to you sir. I'm following this story not only because of its relevance to start-ups and IP in general but also because it's techcrunch. On similar note, what can you make of his claims about a third-party owning much of the technical IP? If true, will they be shortly filing a claim?

Re: CrunchPad Federal Lawsuit Filed; Some Additional Thoughts

#43

Post by SamAtt »

grellas wrote: post #39

I have litigated a variety of "false promise" and breach of fiduciary cases on behalf of startups over the years and can share a few observations about what I see here (and I am seeing it literally for the first time, as I have not followed this story). 1. This obviously was an ill-documented relationship, though what is outlined in the complaint clearly suggests that it was either a joint venture of some type or at…

First let me say "Great Post." It was really helpful in defining the issue. But while I don't dispute the legal conclusions you came to I don't agree with your end conclusion.

In a civil suit Arrington and Techcrunch would probably lose the trial. But as far as the dispute goes I think they win if they can just get to trial. Fusion Garage has very few resources and no one is going to invest further money while they're embroiled in a legal battle. So if Arrington can just get an injunction against them selling the product he has effectively cut off every source of money they have.

With limited finances and no source of money coming in they'll eventually lose because they can't pay their legal bills or their employees. So in the end Arrington wins simply by filing a suit that is valid enough to take to trial.

Re: CrunchPad Federal Lawsuit Filed; Some Additional Thoughts

#44

Post by ggruschow »

I know it hurts, but the baby is dead. He needs to bury it, mourn in private, heal, and move on.

Litigation won't bring him happiness, wealth, a good reputation, or even closure. In fact, all this lashing out will do the opposite.

If he just shuts up about them, they'll very likely disappear like all the other >year-late, >100% over-budget buggy gadgets without major marketing, funding, or innovation.

Re: CrunchPad Federal Lawsuit Filed; Some Additional Thoughts

#45

Post by jonknee »

fjabre wrote: post #27

Ok so it seems a lot of people are eager to call out Arrington for being foolish here.. Hindsight is 20/20 and while it's clear TC and friends made some key mistakes let's not burn them at the cross like so many in this forum are doing.. I'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…

I shed no tears when a lawyer doesn't think to make a contract and gets burned. How many times has he been on the other side skewering people who did the same thing?

Re: CrunchPad Federal Lawsuit Filed; Some Additional Thoughts

#46

Post by kulkarnic »

nreece wrote: post #25
lionhearted wrote: post #22

Earlier 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.

Not true in India either (and from what I know) in a lot of countries based on the English Common Law.

Re: CrunchPad Federal Lawsuit Filed; Some Additional Thoughts

#47

Post by jon_dahl »

grellas wrote: post #39

I have litigated a variety of "false promise" and breach of fiduciary cases on behalf of startups over the years and can share a few observations about what I see here (and I am seeing it literally for the first time, as I have not followed this story). 1. This obviously was an ill-documented relationship, though what is outlined in the complaint clearly suggests that it was either a joint venture of some type or at…

Technically, a joint venture (indeed, any partnership) can be based on a purely verbal arrangement

This makes sense, but it scares me a little. Entrepreneurial types frequently do what Fusion Garage and Arrington did, though usually on a lesser scale. A product person and a tech person might get together for a week to try something out, and they might even talk about formalizing a relationship. Often, this is done to just test a relationship or test an idea. I'd hate to think that one would have grounds to sue the other for "false promise" because of something like this.

What's the difference between two parties exploring an idea together and actually having an implicit, binding, unwritten contract?

Re: CrunchPad Federal Lawsuit Filed; Some Additional Thoughts

#48

Post by ErrantX »

wheaties wrote: post #42
grellas wrote: post #39

I have litigated a variety of "false promise" and breach of fiduciary cases on behalf of startups over the years and can share a few observations about what I see here (and I am seeing it literally for the first time, as I have not followed this story). 1. This obviously was an ill-documented relationship, though what is outlined in the complaint clearly suggests that it was either a joint venture of some type or at…

Damn, that is a fascinating legal discourse from someone who knows what they're talking about. Hats off to you sir. I'm following this story not only because of its relevance to start-ups and IP in general but also because it's techcrunch. On similar note, what can you make of his claims about a third-party owning much of the technical IP? If true, will they be shortly filing a claim?

I'm also interested in the 3rd party business (and grellas' thoughts on it). It's highly confusing exactly what has been developed or licensed - and by whom. So far no one (not even DG) have tried to explain all this in full (the current post being the furthest we have)

(grellas: quality post!)

Re: CrunchPad Federal Lawsuit Filed; Some Additional Thoughts

#50

Post by grellas »

SamAtt wrote: post #43
grellas wrote: post #39

I have litigated a variety of "false promise" and breach of fiduciary cases on behalf of startups over the years and can share a few observations about what I see here (and I am seeing it literally for the first time, as I have not followed this story). 1. This obviously was an ill-documented relationship, though what is outlined in the complaint clearly suggests that it was either a joint venture of some type or at…

First let me say "Great Post." It was really helpful in defining the issue. But while I don't dispute the legal conclusions you came to I don't agree with your end conclusion. In a civil suit Arrington and Techcrunch would probably lose the trial. But as far as the dispute goes I think they win if they can just get to trial. Fusion Garage has very few resources and no one is going to invest further money while they'r…

You make a very good point but, in my experience, it is never wise to underestimate the resourcefulness and tenacity of parties that specialize in shark-like tactics (assuming that is indeed the case with Fusion Garage). Yes, parties can and do fold when they run out of resources but the expectation that they will do so, without more, is usually a gossamer-like basis upon which to pursue a lawsuit - this type of strategy can all too easily backfire on a party (and I have seen this happen all too often in the real world of litigation).

By the way, I am not saying that TC's case may not have winnable elements - only that its core case may be relatively weak.

Post reply on HN