3 ms·

Since this indeed is a first-class firm for this type of litigation, it bears noting that litigation such as this very likely has cost Mr. Arrington a quarter m

by grellas 16y ago

Since this indeed is a first-class firm for this type of litigation, it bears noting that litigation such as this very likely has cost Mr. Arrington a quarter million and up by this point. The unusual thing here lies in the fact that Mr. Arrington is choosing to expose details of the discovery to the public view. Since discovery normally is a matter of public record, as long as it is not subject to a court order sealing it or otherwise protecting it from disclosure, any party is free to do this but it is nonetheless rare that anyone would make such a disclosure in such a public way. Among other things, there is a serious risk that statements made about the case, or about specific evidence, would be deemed defamatory and would expose the disclosing party to major legal claims and even to punitive-damage risks. Hence, I would observe / speculate about this as follows: 1. Whatever else might be said about him, Mr. Arrington has guts. He is a fighter. 2. He is using this litigation not to recover any monies from FG (likely a hopeless task) but to figuratively put FG and its founder into the town square, locked in the stocks and made a spectacle for all the world to see their shame. One must admit that his perseverance has yielded some pretty damning evidence against FG. 3. I disagree with those who say that Mr. Arrington is some sort of poor lawyer for not having documented this relationship in a binding legal document. These parties had all sorts of back and forth in what was a very fluid relationship and it seems that Mr. Arrington, for his part, was pushing for maximum advantage on terms without wanting to tie himself down to a premature deal. What he didn't anticipate was that FG would blind-side him as it did with its own power play pulled at the last minute. This was not stupidity but a calculated risk on Mr. Arrington's part and it wound up backfiring on him. 4. In addition to wanting to shame FG, Mr. Arrington wants to send the world a message saying, in effect, that anyone who tries to pull this sort of stunt on him will pay the due penalty for what he does, even if it costs him a large sum to exact the punishment. 5. As an incidental matter, in making himself the center of the drama, Mr. Arrington also derives publicity for himself and for TC, which is really his stock in trade and likely worth more to him in the long run than the out-of-pocket cost of the litigation itself (worth more in the sense of reputation, not in the immediate publicity value itself). 6. The lawsuit itself is otherwise not worth pursuing, as it seeks money damages and injunctive relief over what is essentially a dead product. If the other factors above did not apply, it would be absurd on economic grounds to pursue this any further.

chc 16y ago
Could Arrington seek money damages based on the fact that the Crunchpad very likely would been profitable if not for FG's treachery, or only based on the Joojoo's almost nonexistent profits? I'm not sure how much speculative money is worth in the eyes of the law, but that seems like the real damage here.
- grellas 16y ago
  The evidence as summarized by the court in the preliminary injunction ruling suggested that the only real basis of potential liability had to do with potential breaches of fiduciary duty relating to a possible joint venture of the parties to develop the underlying product. Generally, an aggrieved party can elect to pursue recovery either of the benefits received by the wrongdoing party (i.e., FG's profits from sales of the product) or of the losses it sustained in connection with its investment of time and effort into the product. In either case, where the product is essentially dead, the dollars recoverable would be quite small. A lost profits measure sounds appealing but would not apply. When a business or venture has no track record upon which to measure such profits with some degree of reliability, courts reject such a measure as speculative. Thus, the damage recovery here is likely to be trivial in comparison to the costs of pursuing the case. Moreover, under U.S. law (in contrast to U.K.), a prevailing party cannot force the other party to pay its attorneys' fees unless, among other possible but unusual bases, there is a contract specifying that a prevailing party gets such an award. Here, there was no written contract and hence no attorneys' fees provision. Thus, after a trial, each party would likely have to bear its own own attorneys' fees in the case. The major remedy - where the underlying product is a viable one - is an in-kind remedy by which TC could get a permanent injunction against FG barring it from selling or distributing the product itself. Again, this is meaningless where the product has no intrinsic worth. Finally, even if damages were meaningful, an entity such as FG would very likely be judgment proof, meaning that it would have no assets upon which to execute any judgment. Thus, TC's goals in this lawsuit, especially as framed by sophisticated counsel, really have nothing to do with the specific legal remedies it might get, as these have no real worth against this defendant or for this product.
enjo 16y ago
It sounded like the documents had been public (somehow).. so I'm guessing he's just wanting to get out ahead of it.

by grellas 16y ago

chc 16y ago

Could Arrington seek money damages based on the fact that the Crunchpad very likely would been profitable if not for FG's treachery, or only based on the Joojoo's almost nonexistent profits? I'm not sure how much speculative money is worth in the eyes of the law, but that seems like the real damage here.

grellas 16y ago
The evidence as summarized by the court in the preliminary injunction ruling suggested that the only real basis of potential liability had to do with potential breaches of fiduciary duty relating to a possible joint venture of the parties to develop the underlying product. Generally, an aggrieved party can elect to pursue recovery either of the benefits received by the wrongdoing party (i.e., FG's profits from sales of the product) or of the losses it sustained in connection with its investment of time and effort into the product. In either case, where the product is essentially dead, the dollars recoverable would be quite small. A lost profits measure sounds appealing but would not apply. When a business or venture has no track record upon which to measure such profits with some degree of reliability, courts reject such a measure as speculative. Thus, the damage recovery here is likely to be trivial in comparison to the costs of pursuing the case. Moreover, under U.S. law (in contrast to U.K.), a prevailing party cannot force the other party to pay its attorneys' fees unless, among other possible but unusual bases, there is a contract specifying that a prevailing party gets such an award. Here, there was no written contract and hence no attorneys' fees provision. Thus, after a trial, each party would likely have to bear its own own attorneys' fees in the case. The major remedy - where the underlying product is a viable one - is an in-kind remedy by which TC could get a permanent injunction against FG barring it from selling or distributing the product itself. Again, this is meaningless where the product has no intrinsic worth. Finally, even if damages were meaningful, an entity such as FG would very likely be judgment proof, meaning that it would have no assets upon which to execute any judgment. Thus, TC's goals in this lawsuit, especially as framed by sophisticated counsel, really have nothing to do with the specific legal remedies it might get, as these have no real worth against this defendant or for this product.

enjo 16y ago

It sounded like the documents had been public (somehow).. so I'm guessing he's just wanting to get out ahead of it.