71–80 of 98 posts
Arrington contributed "blueprints" of the device? Does he mean schematics and a bill of materials? Or does he mean pictures that he drew himself? If he means pictures then I've got some rockin' time machine blueprints for sale. Hit me up...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a strictly lawful perspective, a contract is a legally binding written agreement between two or more parties.
It might depend on your country/jurisdiction. In the United States, oral and implied contracts are contracts, and are legal and binding. Some contracts, though, fall under what's called the "statute of frauds" - that means they must be written to become contracts. http://www.expertlaw.com/library/business/statute_of_frauds.... > A "statute of frauds" requires that certain contracts be in writing, and that they be sig…
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?
And, unless most of the article is correct, he is also slandering them pretty bad.
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?
Generally speaking, if a third-party contractor did work on the project, that party could potentially have IP rights to its work, but not if it did so as a work-for-hire and assigned rights to whoever retained it. If there were no work-for-hire or IP assignments, then any contractor that might have done software development or hardware design could potentially assert infringement claims if its IP is used without benefit of a license agreement to the party using it.
Without further details, though, it is impossible to assess this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
the stuff about Asus would indicate to me that either Arrington is an even bigger idiot than he appears to be or is trying to bluff his way through this. If Asus actually did have legal action in the pipeline Arrington would be an idiot to talk about it. Talking about his own suit on his own website is fine, talking about other, unpublicized suits?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In this case, he is clearly an entrepreneur writing about his venture. To think that his writing is anything approaching journalism is simply naive.
This may be true, but Arrington does push himself as a journalist, not as someone writing about his own venture. He's gone so far as to say that he is ushering in the next era of journalism...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This may be true, but Arrington does push himself as a journalist, not as someone writing about his own venture. He's gone so far as to say that he is ushering in the next era of journalism...
When journalists go on a talk show to promote their new book, we don't expect them to also list the reasons we should not buy it.
This is not the same. If the journalist wrote about his book in his own column would be the same. Arrington didnt go to gigaom to talk about crunchpad, He is using his own platform to talk about his own project, for the last year or so. Most of the time good things about it.
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.
I expect him to be able to prove that FG has and continues to engage in shady deals.
Actually, I hope not. I would love to see him fight off a slander lawsuit.