12 ms·
First let me say "Great Post." It was really helpful in defining the issue. But while I don't dispute the legal conclusions you came to I don't agree with you
by SamAtt 17y ago
First let me say "Great Post." It was really helpful in defining the issue. But while I don't dispute the legal conclusions you came to I don't agree with your end conclusion.
In a civil suit Arrington and Techcrunch would probably lose the trial. But as far as the dispute goes I think they win if they can just get to trial. Fusion Garage has very few resources and no one is going to invest further money while they're embroiled in a legal battle. So if Arrington can just get an injunction against them selling the product he has effectively cut off every source of money they have.
With limited finances and no source of money coming in they'll eventually lose because they can't pay their legal bills or their employees. So in the end Arrington wins simply by filing a suit that is valid enough to take to trial.
- grellas 17y agoYou make a very good point but, in my experience, it is never wise to underestimate the resourcefulness and tenacity of parties that specialize in shark-like tactics (assuming that is indeed the case with Fusion Garage). Yes, parties can and do fold when they run out of resources but the expectation that they will do so, without more, is usually a gossamer-like basis upon which to pursue a lawsuit - this type of strategy can all too easily backfire on a party (and I have seen this happen all too often in the real world of litigation). By the way, I am not saying that TC's case may not have winnable elements - only that its core case may be relatively weak.