CrunchPad Federal Lawsuit Filed; Some Additional Thoughts • Hacker News Board

Re: CrunchPad Federal Lawsuit Filed; Some Additional Thoughts

#51

Post by vidarh » Fri, Dec 11, 2009, 4:31 PM UTC

vijayr wrote: post #16

Point 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…

Since Pegatron is an Asus subsidiary, the most reasonable interpretation is that they've started out with motherboard designs or other IP licensed from Pegatron/Asus and modified that to suit the device.

Few people would start out with a blank slate when most large potential manufacturing partners can offer decent starting points that are well suited for their manufacturing process (using components they have large volume discounts on; designs that fit their tooling perfectly etc.)

But presumably that is only a small part of the IP for the device, and TC are arguing they own the rights to some or all of the remaining IP.

Re: CrunchPad Federal Lawsuit Filed; Some Additional Thoughts

#52

Post by scott_s » Fri, Dec 11, 2009, 4:36 PM UTC

Two things. First, if Arrington can produce the physical prototype that TC developed on its own, that would be a big deal to me. But he'd still have to establish that the device Fusion Garage is producing used IP from their prototype.

Second, I can see this happening. Arrington has an idea for a tablet. He comes up with the basic idea and rough specs. Fusion Garage goes and implements it. In Arrington's view, the device is partly his because he had the original idea. In Fusion Garage's view, the device is all theirs because they did all of the work to create it. Both think the device is "theirs" because they underestimate the contribution of the other.

Arrginton really needs to establish what exactly they did, and demonstrate that it made it into the final device. I'm not sure what his actual contributions are from the claim; coming up with the specs isn't a big deal to me. (Note I'm talking morally and ethically, not legally - as always, I am not a lawyer.)

Re: CrunchPad Federal Lawsuit Filed; Some Additional Thoughts

#53

Post by Vivtek » Fri, Dec 11, 2009, 4:50 PM UTC

jon_dahl wrote: post #47

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…

I don't think you'd have grounds for suit for just exploring an idea - but TC and Fusion Garage did a whole lot more than just exploring.

There's no obvious line to draw, but certainly there's a real difference between talk and a whole lot of work, and outright fraudulent behavior, which (from TC's account) is what happened in this case.

Re: CrunchPad Federal Lawsuit Filed; Some Additional Thoughts

#54

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Dec 11, 2009, 4:58 PM UTC

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…

[deleted]

Re: CrunchPad Federal Lawsuit Filed; Some Additional Thoughts

#55

Post by forensic » Fri, Dec 11, 2009, 5:03 PM UTC

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 any country. All countries recognize oral agreements as legally binding contracts.

Re: CrunchPad Federal Lawsuit Filed; Some Additional Thoughts

#56

Post by forensic » Fri, Dec 11, 2009, 5:07 PM UTC

tghw wrote: post #4

steerpike wrote: post #3

I 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.

He's supposed to be a journalist. It's a massive conflict of interest and in traditional media would be a breach of professional ethics.

Re: CrunchPad Federal Lawsuit Filed; Some Additional Thoughts

#57

Post by forensic » Fri, Dec 11, 2009, 5:09 PM UTC

ggruschow wrote: post #44

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.

Well I think Arrington is actually profiting from increased traffic. Drama and gossip is good for a blogger's bottomline.

He also has a lot of pride invested here.

So yes, Arrington is out to destroy them, and he wants to send a message saying more or less, "Don't fuck with me."

And he's smart enough to know that there's no such thing as bad publicity.

Re: CrunchPad Federal Lawsuit Filed; Some Additional Thoughts

#58

Post by forensic » Fri, Dec 11, 2009, 5:11 PM UTC

petercooper wrote: post #36

Arrington fan here, so this is very tongue in cheek but.. Arrington didn't comply with UK libel law when Sethi filed his ridiculous lawsuit saying that the UK's laws didn't affect him, so I wonder if these other guys will try and claim US lawsuits don't apply to them over in Singapore? :-) I guess even if they did that, it'd be the nail in the coffin for ever getting the device sold in the US though.

They're living in Silicon Valley now.

Re: CrunchPad Federal Lawsuit Filed; Some Additional Thoughts

#59

Post by tghw » Fri, Dec 11, 2009, 5:14 PM UTC

forensic wrote: post #56

tghw wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He's supposed to be a journalist. It's a massive conflict of interest and in traditional media would be a breach of professional ethics.

In this case, he is clearly an entrepreneur writing about his venture. To think that his writing is anything approaching journalism is simply naive.

Re: CrunchPad Federal Lawsuit Filed; Some Additional Thoughts

#60

Post by tghw » Fri, Dec 11, 2009, 5:15 PM UTC

pmjordan wrote: post #12

tghw wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He had a partnership with Fusion Garage Doesn't sound like he did, actually.

Contractually, perhaps not, but both sides stated multiple times that they were working together, which would be enough for him to not want to slander his partner.