4 ms·
CrunchPad Litigation Imminent
- rjurney 17y agoKinda ironic for a Techcrunch product fiasco to become fodder for its own articles. Is the crunchpad dead?
- raheemm 17y agoI look forward to learning the other side of this fiasco.
- Herring 17y agoChandra also forwarded an internal email from one of his shareholders. My favorite part of the email: “We still acknowledge that Arrington and TechCrunch bring some value to your business endeavor…If he agrees to our terms, we would have Arrington assume the role of visionary/evangelist/marketing head and Fusion Garage would acquire the rights to use the Crunchpad brand and name. Personally, I don’t think the name is all that important but you seem to be somewhat attached to the name.” I just don't see how you could possibly spin that. It's clearly out of the blue & they're clearly trying to push TechCrunch out.
- 9oliYQjP 17y agoSomething's sketchy. Wouldn't the TechCrunch lawyer have referred to a contract covering their partnership arrangement? The letter by the lawyer is pure scare tactics. It does not point to any specific violation of a written contract anywhere. Was there even a Letter of Intent signed by TechCrunch and these folks? If not, that's just amateur hour over there.
- rjurney 17y agoYeah, is this how getting hardware built works?
- dgallagher 17y agoYou raise a very good question. Was there a legally binding contract/agreement between both parties, or was it done "on a handshake" without really having a solid legal backing?
- flipbrad 17y agoIt does mention breach of contract several times. but not what contract... perhaps they're trying to imply a contract/rely on oral contract? does anyone know if there's precedent showing how a court would react to the publication of letters and emails concerning a legal rift and running up to proceedings - will courts look favourably on that at all?
- Herring 17y agoYeah a few people on the blog are wondering the same thing. But I don't see how that would make Fusion Garage look good. Unless you think they're both making it up for PR.
- amix 17y agoGiven that Michael Arrington was a lawyer it would surprise me a lot if they don't have any contracts.
- mmt 17y agothat's just amateur hour over there Maybe not for FG, but I think we can comfortably characterize TC as being amateur in the hardware arena. Has Arrington ever run a business whose product end users paid for?
- AndrewO 17y agoAgreed. I keep having to remind myself there's two sides to every story (and the only side we've heard so far has a widely read blog to use as a mouthpiece). Still, Fusion Garage has a lot of explaining to do.
- spolsky 17y agoReminds me of Hearst running the headline, "How do you like the Journal's War?" taking credit for the Spanish-American war.
- flybrand 17y agoThese kinds of issues are very common in hardware; electronics (pure IC), devices, batteries, any kind of physical good with an outsourced manufacturer. Partner / Supplier diligence is just as important as a good idea. Techcrunch is hurting their ability to find future partners in the way they are handling this, regardless of who is at fault.
- Herring 17y agoReputation evolved to solve this problem. I wonder if there's a way of implementing a (better) feedback system.
- flybrand 17y agoInteresting. Hadn't thought about it previously, but a global version of Yelp focused on supply chain partners and their production facilities would be very valuable. You'd need to start with a narrow vertical (textiles, wire-bonding, nonwovens, automation equipment, etc.), but it could be a very useful software fix to a broader problem.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- rjurney 17y agomfg.com
- 9oliYQjP 17y agoI'm not a lawyer but is it not possible that if a lawsuit proceeds, TechCrunch's own inaccurate, often speculative, bordering on drama queen news posts could work against them? A lawyer could paint TechCrunch as the kind of entity that blows everything out of proportion, including their involvement in this project. Surely the lawyer could dig up some TechCrunch stories spewing inaccurate rumours and speculation as proof. Seeing as how it would be a civil case, this sort of evidence could surely be brought up could it not?
- nikcub 17y agoyou're right, you are not a lawyer
- dgallagher 17y agoThere is just no way to argue that TechCrunch is not the joint owner of all intellectual property of the CrunchPad, and outright owner of the CrunchPad trademark. The trademark for "CrunchPad" was filed on November 17, 2009. It's registered under Interserve, Inc. doing business as TechCrunch (apologies if the link goes dead - sometimes they use weird sessions on USPTO.gov): http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4002:t9m119.2.1 http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4002:t9...
- jeremymims 17y agoThey may have some claim to use the word "crunch" since all of their websites have this in the name.
- gvb 17y ago"Interserve, Inc. doing business as TechCrunch" - the phrase "doing business as" (aka "dba") is a legal term, technically known as an assumed name. This means TechCrunch is Interserve and thus owns the trademark.
- vaksel 17y agowell it was inevitable...and I wish them luck. But suing someone in another country seems like an impossible proposition. It's one of the inherent risks of offshoring, if the other person screws you over, you really don't have any real recourse.
- cmelbye 17y agoI must have missed the part in the article where Arrington says why I should care about this publicity stunt.
- rjurney 17y agoThe novelty is that Arrington often documents the failures of others, but is now documenting a failure of his own.
- jeremymims 17y agoI think we've passed the point for publicity stunt speculation. There's enough blood spilled that this couldn't have been the intent.
- cmelbye 17y agoFair enough. Replace "publicity stunt" with "drama". Stuff being leaked and shady things happening are not new things to happen on TechCrunch by any means.
- gojomo 17y agoSo far there is only ink spilled -- not blood. ('Blood' would in this case be large legal fees or judgments.)
- bumblebird 17y agoIt's certainly an effective way to get people to link/come to Techcrunch.
- amix 17y agoI wonder what kind of problems TechCrunch is going to face suing a company in Singapore... The laws in Singapore might be very different and Fusion Garage might be favorable since it's a local company. At best they can sue distributors of CrunchPad in USA, but Fusion Garage could just target Asia and Europe.
- sandGorgon 17y agoActually, I am interested to know how much does it cost to get a hardware PROTOTYPE built. Say, if I have a really cool idea about a new 3g device , how much would it cost me to get it prototyped - what happens to the intellectual property rights in that case. Is it shared ownership or do I own all IP ? Anybody have any idea about pricepoints...
- gvb 17y agoI don't have much experience, but I'll throw out some guesses to prime the pump. The CrunchPad is a very non-trivial design, there is probably a couple million invested either as real money or contributed effort ("IP"). a) Cost of a prototype... it depends. :-) Your hypothetical is badly underspecified. In the boat owner world, we use a unit known as a Boat Unit of Cost (BUC) which is typically defined as $1000 ($100 if you are cheap like me, $1,000,000 if you are Larry Ellison http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Ellison#Sailing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Ellison#Sailing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rising_Sun_%28yacht%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rising_Sun_%28yacht%29). Lets define a "Prototype Unit of Cost" (PUC) to be $100,000. Designing the hardware (schematic, mechanical) if you don't do it yourself. 1.0 PUC for a starting point for design to schematic capture. 0.5 PUC for a simple layout. 0.5 PUC for mechanical design. Software, assuming you are using open source (say porting U-Boot and a Debian-based linux distribution to your device). If you add custom application software on top of this, you will add 1-10 more PUCs. 1.0 PUC (linux boots and runs well) Fabbing a 1-4 layer board is pretty cheap for prototype quantities, a couple hundred to a few thousand dollars. This is probably your cheapest purchase. :-/ 0.1 PUC If you are using small surface mount parts (i.e. need to use automated machines to place parts), it costs a LOT for the first unit, but the next 10,000 are pretty cheap. If you promise to build large quantities, the assembly outfit will build the first few prototypes at a fairly reasonable price. If you stiff them and don't go to production, well, that probably only happens once. Ever. 1.0 PUC. Maybe less, likely more. If you need a custom or semi-custom enclosure, $$$ (my crystal ball has no experience, and it will be heavily dependent on what the enclosure is). 0.1 - 1.0 PUC If you need FCC/CE/UL certification (i.e. not a hobbyist device), add a lot more. Again, my crystal ball is inexperienced, say... 1.0 PUC assuming passing the first time (perhaps with some minor mods). So, having said all that, my gut feel is: * Hobbyist device... $1,000..$10,000 * "Collection of already certified modules" simple commercial device, mostly self-designed... $100,000..$500,000. * Outsourced design, software, with a more integrated design (less buying of pre-certified modules)... $500,000..$5,000,000 b) You own all the IP that you paid to have developed. The legal doctrine that covers this is "work for hire." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire (Disclaimer: IANAL, you always want your lawyer to CYA for you on this!)
- bumblebird 17y agoWho cares? really. Lets not give Techcrunch so much attention for some vaporware.