5 ms·

I have to agree with you. With Arrington's resent openness about the whole issue, you'd think he'd slap those contracts up on TechCrunch as fast as possible to

I have to agree with you. With Arrington's resent openness about the whole issue, you'd think he'd slap those contracts up on TechCrunch as fast as possible to refute any claim like this. He put up the lawsuits that were filed, but I haven't seen any contracts which lead me to believe they never existed. This is definitely a story of botched communications, but don't be so quick to believe this guy. I think when the dust settles, the truth will be somewhere in the middle of the two stories we are hearing.

mechanical_fish 17y ago
you'd think he'd slap those contracts up on TechCrunch as fast as possible IANAL, but I suspect that from a legal standpoint his best plan is to say nothing. Even what has been said so far is much too much. If TC hadn't made such a big public push for the product that it was impossible to just let it quietly fade from view while the court battle was fought, I suspect TC wouldn't even have published what we've already seen, let alone more internal contracts and communications. What a clusterfk. The other obvious point that even a non-lawyer can make is: The absence of paper is not the same thing as the absence of contract.