This confirms that they had no contracts - Arrington's "exhibits" are some blog posts and emails. This guy seriously used to be a lawyer?
The initial price point was just an attempt to hype it up by Arrington, so this whole device would never be much anyway. BTW, Techcrunch is deleting any unfavorable comments on their blog, just as they have done many other times previously.
I'm glad it was posted. It allows me to keep up with news (and this crunchpad mess is certainly newsworthy) without having to ever visit techcrunch, and read informed, unbiasedopinion here rather than the moderated thread on TC.
The exhibits to the filing only needs to contain enough to establish cause for the complaints made.
There's no reason to attach everything you've got to an initial complaint, and a lot of good reason to wait until you see how the other side responds. If they want to settle, for example, the less you've had to disclose in public, the easier it might be.
So while they very well may not have had a contract, this confirms no such thing.
Techcrunch looks like it made an offer to work with someone to build a device, and Fusion looks like it accepted in some capacity by announcing they were working with them, tentatively branding it the Crunchpad, etc.
After that, the question is - did Techcrunch provide "consideration" to Fusion? That is, did they work to fulfill the agreement the two companies had?
Here, it looks pretty clear that TC did provide some consideration. Courts will look at what was agreed, and whether the parties provided that. Techcrunch might be exaggerating their role in the project, but they did clearly bring some consideration to the table - they put time, effort, money into the project because they believed they had a deal. Fusion accepted this consideration.
Importantly, consideration doesn't look at abstract value. It looks at whether you delivered on the contract. This is important, here's Wik on the subject:
"Consideration must be "sufficient" (i.e., recognizable by the law), but need not be "adequate" (i.e., the consideration need not be a fair and reasonable exchange for the benefit of the promise). For instance, agreeing to buy a car for a penny may constitute a binding contract."
The car for a penny example is extreme, and it might not be a binding contract, but it might too - there's been some famous cases of pranksters getting sued. But the key is, even if what TC provided wasn't important, if Fusion agreed to partner/pay royalties/give them a percent/something in exchange for what TC brought to the table, then they had a deal and TC delivered on their end of it.
Also from Wik -
"Contrary to common wisdom, an exchange of promises can still be binding and legally as valid as a written contract."
A clear, well written contract goes a long way. In absence of one, though, if you can still show there was an offer, acceptance, and consideration, then you've got a contract. I'm still going through the lawsuit reading, I'll come back when I see what TC is asking for because that's an interesting detail.
Edit: On page 10 of the lawsuit. TC is saying they paid vendors and paid Fusion's debts. That'd be pretty clear consideration if true. Still reading.
Edit2: Alright, page 21 has what TC is asking for. They're asking for all profits from sale of the product to be put into a trust and that Fusion is permanently forbidden from selling or distributing the Joojoo product, and must destroy it. Earlier in the suit they mentioned TC and Fusion are now permanently competitors, which implied TC is going to build their own pad. It'll be interesting to see if they have their own set of IP and specs to do that, or if it's just bluffing for leverage.
> A "statute of frauds" requires that certain contracts be in writing, and that they be signed by all parties to be bound by the contract.
Contracts under statute of frauds include land sales and transfers, guaranteeing another person's debts, and contracts that can't be completed in a year.
It can be hard to prove an oral contract, but if you can prove it has all the elements of a contract, it's a contract, legal, and enforceable at least under the standard United States common law.
Some contracts, though, fall under what's called the "statute of frauds" - that means they must be written to become contracts.
From the link you provide, it explains that the statue of frauds makes a contract voidable (either party can break it) but it's still a contract.
Also: 'Sometimes, a party to a contract that would otherwise be invalid under a "statute of frauds" will nonetheless be able to enforce it, on the basis of "partial performance" or "promissory estoppel".'
Seems TechCrunch can reasonably claim partial performance.
Always? I don't know anything about US law, but German law doesn't require contracts to be written by default. If you buy something the contract between you and the shop owner doesn't have to be written down. You don't even have to say anything, just show what you want to buy and hand over the money. Unpolite but legal. There are requirements for certain kinds of contracts, but not for all of them.
Yes oral contracts can be enforceable, but (i) there are limits to the types of oral contracts that are enforceable (see statute of frauds) and (ii) even for an oral contract the parties have to show that both sides clearly intended to be bound by a contract (there are some exceptions to this, but they do not apply here).
From what I read it seems that neither party treated the relationship as if they are bound by a contract. On the contrary it seemed like they proceeded under the assumption that they will negotiate some type of a deal in the future, but currently did not want to bind themselves.
I posted the following comment on the techcruch blog but it got deleted. Not sure why exactly, I think it's a fairly valid question to ask.
"So you apparently found out that your business partner was pretty shady last summer but you chose to not reveal that obviously newsworthy information to readers, why exactly?
Just wondering why readers should be considering techcruch a newsworthy source if such an obvious conflict of interests results in you coming down on the side that benefits you the most?"
Seems pretty obvious. He had a partnership with Fusion Garage, why would he air their dirty laundry? It's not like he did anything to hide the relationship between FG and TC.
Contractually, perhaps not, but both sides stated multiple times that they were working together, which would be enough for him to not want to slander his partner.
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...
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.
It's also clearly him talking about his own project. I think it's reasonable to expect him to talk about it positively, or at least in ways that won't harm himself.
If he tried to pretend it was not his own project, then that would be wrong.
I am not disagreeing with that. I am disagreeing with the analogy that a journalist going to a talk show to talk about his book being the same as Arrington using TC to talk about his product.
Articles which are abridged chapters from books appear in newspapers and magazines all the time. They are clearly attributed, and the understanding is that if you find the subject interesting, you can find more of it in the book.
Point 7 is... interesting. Like the whole post really. It lists a lot of facts about TC helping in CP development, working out some details, assuring commercial support. But that's pretty much it. They have some emails, but that's still not really formal.
I may be mistaken of course, but it looks like they do not have any formal document that says anything about their ownership of the project. Sure - they helped out the project, or even produced the blueprints, but do they have a proper contract saying what do they get in exchange? Afaik there's no law stopping me from creating a device based on someone else's not patented blueprints (otherwise people writing RFCs would own a lot of software they didn't write).
I think the problem is TC may have provided resources such as office space. At which point verbal contracts can become binding, which is why emails back and forth which support the verbal contract would be important. So, the real question becomes did TC provide such services and can they prove what the verbal contract was?
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 CrunchPad. If both of these are true, why the hell didn't he pull out on Fusion Garage early on and go with someone else?
You supposedly have the idea, the investors, the retail channels lined up, etc... so why is Fusion even an issue? I call shenanigans here...
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 have an opposite impression. It could be that Arrington, seeing the business relationship went bust and that he made little to no contribution to the device and thus has little to no rights on it, decided to attempt to get FG's work for free, by suing them out of business and forcing a settlement on his terms.
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.
What they won’t have is cash flow to build the devices.
FG have said they have devices built or building haven't they? I wonder which is true - my guess is a small inventory, hence the pre-sale.
Chandra and Fusion Garage have shown a long term pattern of deceit in their business dealings.
Dear god.... why oh why did he deal with them? (or continue to deal with them)
If the lined up investors, guys who make a living in picking horses to back, were worried why didn't Arrington listen to their concerns
And after a brief scan through I dont see any/many mention of contracts or agreements between TC and FG. As we said before that is a basic mistake - and it looks like it is one that was actually made :(
Personally I am coming down slowly on TC's side: Fusion Garage are screwing about.
However the one thing I am certain about now is that I would definitely never go into business with or invest in Arrington. He's destroyed any reputation he had as an investor / businessman for me.
They have at least one (as shown on the FG video). They probably have 10s or 100s built as a pre-production run (used to proof out the manufacturing process, given to developers to finish the coding and testing). I'm sure they don't have production quantities.
The pre-sale is to get enough cash in hand to pay the manufacturing outfit enough to do a production run in order to fulfill the pre-sale orders. If you send money to FG for a pre-sale, you are gambling that they will use your money to actually make a device and deliver it to you.
That is Arrington's warning in point 5, and it is a valid warning. Even if they don't use the pre-sale money to hire lawyers, there is no guarantee they will get enough money to do a production run, there is no guarantee they won't take your money and disappear.
Pre-sales is based on trust (buyer) and reputation (seller), not goods already manufactured.
The emails talk about shareholder investment; if that is the case they can pre-sale while they are building the first batch on investor money. This way they get a share of the Xmas market rather than launching in the January sales (always a bad move).
With all that said nothing about DG has shouted "marketing sense" :)
I smiled when he tried to defend being labeled as techcrunch being just a blog.
The sad truth is while techcrunch does "other things", its main operation is being a weblog, as posted in its about section:
"TechCrunch was founded on June 11, 2005, as a weblog dedicated to obsessively profiling and reviewing new Internet products and companies. In addition to covering new companies, we profile existing companies that are making an impact (commercial and/or cultural) on the new web space.
TechCrunch has now grown into a network of technology focused sites offering a wide range of content and new media."
In its literal sense Techcrunch is anything but tech blog, more precisely is covers a subset of technology, which is mainly the business aspect of "online technology". A tech blog in it's truest sense would be Arstechnica or Engadget or even gizmodo. TC's tech writing depth goes as far as reporting "twitter being down for 30secs". Their writers couldn't tell their ass from their mouth if you were to ask them a simple question as to point out the underlying technical similarities between safari and chrome.
As much as I love hacker news, I am often troubled by some of our fascination towards techcrunch as a source for tech news. TC is often posted 4-5 times a day here on the front page.
Point 6:
Much of the key intellectual property, including the board and much of the mechanicals, is owned by Pegatron, the manufacturing arm of Asus.
Point 7:
The entire blueprint of the device was created by me.
I don't exactly understand what he means by this. He created the blue print but someone else owns the IP? And what exactly is a blue print, in this case? Just saying what the device needs to do/look? Isn't that too easy to do?
Since Pegatron is an Asus subsidiary, the most reasonable interpretation is that they've started out with motherboard designs or other IP licensed from Pegatron/Asus and modified that to suit the device.
Few people would start out with a blank slate when most large potential manufacturing partners can offer decent starting points that are well suited for their manufacturing process (using components they have large volume discounts on; designs that fit their tooling perfectly etc.)
But presumably that is only a small part of the IP for the device, and TC are arguing they own the rights to some or all of the remaining IP.
From what I experienced of ODM in China, I'd guess that Pegatron not only provides the starting point but also do all the designs of the specific motherboard, the plastic outfit, pretty much all the hardware. The guess is reasonable because from what FG claims, they put much resources on the OS development, thus, for a small startup, it is impossible for them to develop the motherboard and the whole industry design (even they have the ability to hand build a prototype).
What do you mean "TC is none of these"? AFAIK, TC is a corporation with a more-than-decent revenue stream, employees, and everything that goes with that.
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 startup was taken to the cleaners by cons.. With the best of intentions we planned a strategic partnership with a medical device company only to find out that several months later we were deliberately being led on and lied to by the CEO of said company while they worked on stealing and implementing our ideas and cutting us out of the deal..
We thought about a lawsuit but we just didn't have the funds to go through with it.. In the end it worked out for us because we had already had some successful partnerships with other device companies which kept us afloat. Also, the company who stole our ideas failed miserably..
Is it really too much to ask that everyone pointing/shaking their finger at TC and Arrington to give them the benefit of the doubt..? It's pretty obvious if you believe what he's saying about Fusion Garage and Chandra that these guys are accomplished liars.. It's a tough lesson to learn and I for one applaud Arrington for being open and transparent in this whole ordeal.. I'm sure this has been embarrassing enough for him and the TC team..
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?
Filing gets you nothing, he has to win the suit which will be really tricky because he didn't spell it out on paper first. Even then what does he have? Less money and no product. Not to mention looking extraordinarily incompetent in front of the public. Simply having a contract in place would have made this cut and dry.
Filing may get them nothing, but he can get an injunction that prevents FG from launching the product and thus getting funding for a coming legal battle. I bet the shortage of money would make them more amenable to Arrington's allegations of who owns the IP...
Looks increasingly like MA found some company who could develop a product and that could be bullied out of the deal when it's ready to be taken away.
It isn't likely that he didn't think to make a contract. More like he wanted better terms and thought he could jerk them around, and they thought the same thing. In the end they both win a dead product.
The reaction has less to do with the Crunchpad, and a lot more to do with Arrington's peculiar ability to enrage the startup crowd. He has his issues, but the real bone of contention seems to be the amount of power some people feel he wields over their companies. The Crunchpad's bizarre demise is just an opportunity to enjoy some schadenfreude at his expense.
Arrington and TC point fingers and pre-judge things on a daily basis. I think people are enjoying the roles being reversed. It seems both sides have some major inconsistencies in their stories and both have bad reputations in certain circles. It seems likely to me that both parties involved did some shady things so anyone striving to find a classic right vs. wrong story here is likely to be disappointed.
has this got to the point where we can start using "crunchpad" to mean "a godawful mess" or similar?
as in "i wanted to grow organically; he wanted a big marketing push: it ended in a total crunchpad". or "someone didn't tighten the nuts; front driverside wheel came off on a mountain road: complete crunchpad". or "flock of birds triggered a false alarm; first strike; automated response: crunchpad".
it happened with cuil, i'm sensing the same promise here....
It will start out slow. As founders are making deals, they'll say to each other, "Document well, we don't want another CrunchPad here". Others will overhear and pick it up. "It was a total crunchpad." Then it will achieve meme status and people who have no idea where it came from will just post, CRUNCHPAD! in every thread detailing a startups failure. Divorced from the device, it evokes nice fail imagery. Launchpads -> Rockets ->failure ->crunch and dare I say it, Jar-Jar Binks.
Arrington fan here, so this is very tongue in cheek but.. Arrington didn't comply with UK libel law when Sethi filed his ridiculous lawsuit saying that the UK's laws didn't affect him, so I wonder if these other guys will try and claim US lawsuits don't apply to them over in Singapore? :-)
I guess even if they did that, it'd be the nail in the coffin for ever getting the device sold in the US though.
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 least something intended potentially to be a joint venture. When such a relationship is properly documented, all the associated issues - who is contributing what, who is getting what out of the arrangement, who owns the IP, etc. - are defined in the written documentation, typically a comprehensive written agreement signed by authorized representatives of both parties.
2. That said, opportunistic teaming happens all the time in the startup world and the absence of a carefully defined agreement is not necessarily fatal to a party's claim that a joint venture existed. A joint venture is a variation of partnership law (legally, it is a form of partnership by which the parties agree to do business jointly, and to share profits in some fashion, for a specific purpose, as opposed to a more general partnership by which they agree to do business together, and split profits, in connection with all their business activities). Technically, a joint venture (indeed, any partnership) can be based on a purely verbal arrangement or one that is verbal and supported by various written exchanges documenting some of the material terms of the arrangement, whether physically signed or not. To be a legally enforceable arrangement, the important thing is for the parties to have some clearly understood agreement, verbal or otherwise, specifying that they would be working together, and making their respective contributions, for a specific purpose whose ultimate goal was to split profits in some reasonably defined way as a result of their joint efforts.
3. While the formal requirements for a joint venture are not necessarily rigorous, and can be met even in a comparatively loose arrangement, one nonetheless must have some form of deal terms that can be said to be a reasonable meeting of the minds on some form of coherent business terms. The idea that "we agreed to work together," without more, does not make for an enforceable joint venture (or any form of contract). Moreover, even if there was a pretty good understanding that parties were to work together for a business purpose, if there is no understanding about who was to get what in exchange for what contribution, then it is almost certain that no form of enforceable agreement would be found.
4. Quite apart from whether a technical contract might be found to exist, the question of credibility also is crucial. That is, even if one party's story, if believed, would support the elements of a proper joint venture, there is the further question of whether that story is believable. On the facts alleged here, for example, why would TC, if it really did contribute major components of the software, hardware, funding, etc., do so without insisting that the parties have some form of written agreement documenting the terms of their venture? To me, this is the major flaw in a complaint of this type. It ultimately makes no sense for a reasonably sophisticated party to have, in effect, proceeded through multiple steps of a pretty complex transaction without proper documentation when, by its own admission, it knew quite a ways back that there were good grounds not to trust the party it was dealing with.
5. That said, the tactical goal of this complaint is to try to demonstrate that some form of enforceable joint venture existed (even if it is pretty shaky on its terms and in terms of believability) because that is the predicate for claiming breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the other "partner." If people really are doing business as partners, they do have fiduciary duties toward one another and can't engage in duplicitous tactics in their dealings with one another. Her...
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?
I'm also interested in the 3rd party business (and grellas' thoughts on it). It's highly confusing exactly what has been developed or licensed - and by whom. So far no one (not even DG) have tried to explain all this in full (the current post being the furthest we have)
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?
From what I can see, the story is far too murky to make any intelligent observations about third-party IP rights at this point.
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.
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.
You 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.
Technically, a joint venture (indeed, any partnership) can be based on a purely verbal arrangement
This makes sense, but it scares me a little. Entrepreneurial types frequently do what Fusion Garage and Arrington did, though usually on a lesser scale. A product person and a tech person might get together for a week to try something out, and they might even talk about formalizing a relationship. Often, this is done to just test a relationship or test an idea. I'd hate to think that one would have grounds to sue the other for "false promise" because of something like this.
What's the difference between two parties exploring an idea together and actually having an implicit, binding, unwritten contract?
I don't think you'd have grounds for suit for just exploring an idea - but TC and Fusion Garage did a whole lot more than just exploring.
There's no obvious line to draw, but certainly there's a real difference between talk and a whole lot of work, and outright fraudulent behavior, which (from TC's account) is what happened in this case.
The legal risks of a binding contract being formed merely because parties have exploratory discussions are pretty minimal.
To have a binding contract, even a verbal one, you need to have a meeting of the minds on terms of a deal that typically include mutual consideration - if what you are discussing is preliminary and does not include commitments upon which people can reasonably rely, it usually is safe to conclude that there is no basis for a binding contract.
The "false promise" type of situation is a specialized one that normally does not arise in most startup situations. In general, it is a variation of fraud. Fraud generally consists of false representations made to a party upon which that party reasonably relies to his detriment - in other words, getting "tricked," misled, etc. in a way that hurts you. A typical misrepresentation must be one of a fact that is falsely represented by a party (e.g., "my company has achieved x sales and you should invest in it when sales are nowhere near what is represented). The "false promise" variation of fraud is one in which the misrepresentation consists of a false fact but the fact itself is intangible - in this case, a false representation of one's state of mind. Thus, if one makes a promise without any intention of ever performing it, this is in the nature of a false statement of fact by which one can "trick" another person and thus constitutes a basis for fraud (e.g., if you do x, y, and z for my company, I will grant you a 20% interest in my company where the person making the promise never had any intention of performing on that promise). This "false promise" type of fraud is not the type of promise upon which a contract is formed but rather one upon which an action for fraud is predicated. In the contract context, it is most often used to try to get out of a contract ("I know my contract says I must do x, but the only reason I entered into it was in reliance on a promise made by the other party that he never intended to perform - because of the promissory fraud, I can rescind my contract").
With respect to promises or exchanges upon which parties try to claim that a partnership has resulted, you need the essential element that any such venture has to be based on the idea of splitting or sharing profits arising from your joint activity in some fashion (almost always in some percentage fashion). Thus, this represents only a narrow category of situations where one might inadvertently find himself faced with a claim by another party that negotiations they engaged in allegedly resulted in a legal partnership between them.
As appears in the TC case, the "false promise" and "binding partnership" type of claims tend to arise when parties have had complex dealings between them, allowing one or more of the parties to assert colorable claims of having been misled to one's detriment or of claiming that the parties agreed to undertake a venture by which they would split profits.
In 99.99% of cases, you can safely undertake typical negotiations with another party without fear that you will inadvertently enter into a contract. This is one aspect of law in which, surprisingly, common sense is actually your best guide. Contracts ultimately tend to turn on reasonable expectations of the parties and, if what you are doing does not feel like a binding commitment, it usually is not.
Great points. Earlier today I read an AP story before seeing this (now COB Friday). While I have not gone through the posts at TC, the AP story appeared to have checked/ covered/ summarized both sides http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=990515
Interesting Arrington said neither has rights to the product. Just pointing out from an independent AP source instead of TC.
I know it hurts, but the baby is dead. He needs to bury it, mourn in private, heal, and move on.
Litigation won't bring him happiness, wealth, a good reputation, or even closure. In fact, all this lashing out will do the opposite.
If he just shuts up about them, they'll very likely disappear like all the other >year-late, >100% over-budget buggy gadgets without major marketing, funding, or innovation.
It is not a good reason for not suing bad partner. The kind of appealing to pity is irresponsible. Even the product is likely to fail, you have responsibility to expose that your partner is not trustful in doing business. And to learn that, will do benefits to all others if anyone plans to do business with the bad partner in the future.
Two things. First, if Arrington can produce the physical prototype that TC developed on its own, that would be a big deal to me. But he'd still have to establish that the device Fusion Garage is producing used IP from their prototype.
Second, I can see this happening. Arrington has an idea for a tablet. He comes up with the basic idea and rough specs. Fusion Garage goes and implements it. In Arrington's view, the device is partly his because he had the original idea. In Fusion Garage's view, the device is all theirs because they did all of the work to create it. Both think the device is "theirs" because they underestimate the contribution of the other.
Arrginton really needs to establish what exactly they did, and demonstrate that it made it into the final device. I'm not sure what his actual contributions are from the claim; coming up with the specs isn't a big deal to me. (Note I'm talking morally and ethically, not legally - as always, I am not a lawyer.)
This saga reminds of Warren Buffet's advice to invest only in businesses that possess "excellent business economics and an outstanding manager."
In my business we've conducted several off-shoring experiments, and they have largely failed to realize a significant return. The lesson I learned from observing and assisting in those experiments is that the secret sauce in business is reputation. Finding people who are honest, reliable, and intelligent can be very difficult. When you find people like that, "grapple them to thy soul with hoops of steel." If, like Michael Arrington, you wander into an industry with nothing but your hubris to guide you, you'll most likely be taken for a ride.
A very successful CEO told me that contracts were just a formality. If you don't trust the other party to do their end you should not be doing business with them. Sounds like there was a lot of reason not to trust the Fusion Garage guys.
OK. IANAL, but here's my opinion anyway, having read the suit and exhibits as filed:
FG had $500k in debt by end of June. To whom? We don't know. Chandra would have liked to sell FG to CP [crunchpad] and then pay off that debt in a subsequent round of capital-raising. Arrington and fellow investors did not want to buy a company with half a million in outstanding debt.
Another option was for TC to buy FG at a valuation of $3m and pay off the debt at the same time by converting it to equity, which was also undesirable since it would have diluted shareholding by 16%. We may infer that with 35% of CP shares going to FG and a further 16% converted from debt to equity, the upshot would have been that Arrington's investors would have only had a 49% stake, with the other 51% being held by FG's investors and creditors, obviously giving them control of the company.
So TC's offer was for FG to pay off its debt completely, in rturn for which its investors would get 35% of CP shares. Chandra indicated this was acceptable, but was unhappy about it as it would have meant giving up all of his personal equity in FG and $75,000 in cash (in order to satisfy FG creditors) and his only holding would be an option to acquire 11% of CP in a future round.
Chandra asked for a better deal but indicated that this option was acceptable to him if it was the only way. It is unclear from the emails (which are confusingly presented in reverse chronological order) what position, if any Arrington & co. took in response to this offer. Since TC did not go ahead and buy FG, we may infer that the matter was placed on hiatus. I guess but do not assume that this was pending on FG's satisfaction of its creditors and getting back to a clean balance sheet.
By November, the awesomely-named Bruce Lee and his 2 co-investors considered FG to be worth $10m in its own right and valued TC's contribution at 10% of that for the Crunchpad name and Arrington's marketing effort, with Lee noting that Chandra had commended an offer of 25% of the shares in CP as payment for FG. It's unclear whether Arrington lowered the equity offer in exchange for taking on the debt, or whether the ~28% discount to the earlier offer represented Chandra's personal equity in FG; I suspect the former, suggesting that that CP planned to put down $2.5m in cash and absorb any outstanding debt in exchange for 75% of the equity, which would be fairly consistent with the negotiations in June.
Whew. So the upshot here is that Dr Lee is basically saying that he disbelieves Arrington/Crunchpad has brought $5m worth of product development and marketing clout to the table, but instead values their contribution at $1m (out of $10m cash that he and fellow investors are willing to put on the table). Additionally, he seems to feel like he is being hustled, considering the lack of a formal offer letter for the merger.
Seems to me that Dr Lee has decided to see the color of Arrington's money by raising the cash stakes considerably; suddenly Fusion Garage [in the sense of its largest shareholder] is offering to gobble up Crunchpad and pay Arrington off with a job rather than the other way round. Arrington's blogged thoughts refer to FG's poor financial position, but gloss over the fact that its investors have $10m on hand (which appears to be about 4x what Arrington had lined up).
The plaintiffs seem to argue that Fusion Garage is only alive because of the good will invested by Arrington/Crunchpad and would have died otherwise; I presume the defendant's argument will be that this was never the case, that FG had entered into the project in a spirit of partnership rather than supplication, and that any monies advanced by Crunchpad to FG's creditors were a matter of mutual convenience. The case seems to turn on the degree of innovation provided to the project by Arrington/CP: and looking at some of their claims, they seem pretty thin (eg suggesting web pages are bettered rendered against white background, or the use of large icons to select favorite sites, both of which the defendant will claim ...
> Their main shareholder, the guy who wrote the now infamous email telling us that we were no longer part of the project, is a chiropractor named Bruce Lee.
So I tried going over all the emails, docs posted over techcrunch and here are some thoughts. I do wonder why is no popular blogger/journalist out there taking Fusion Garage's side and highlighting these points ?
These are entirely my interpretations and personal thoughts. Happy to be corrected.
- From emails its clear that Chandra is desperate, to be either acquired by Tech-crunch or raise some money. Poor guy is under loan, has to pay vendors, salaries. There is no contract because then techcrunch would have to invest and hence share the risks and put in some real money. If its their joint venture why haven't they done that ?
- Michael is aware of chandra's talking to other investors. He jointly owns the product, but wouldn't let his lined-up investors come and help chandra out. Doesn't he know that when investors come they do have some say in how company should run ?
- The blueprint shit. Come-on. I have a time-machine blue print. Anyone building it ?
- Michael says FG is in trouble, has no money even to defend lawsuit. Now if this was a joint venture started by Michael, how did it come to this ?
- Many are now suggesting Techcrunch to take their blue print and Crunchpad name and get the hardware done by someone else. Isn't this what FG did ? Too their hardware and got a new name ?
To me its clear that Chandra thought of Michael as an potential investor and discussed details hoping to get acquired. He also talked to several other investors, who agreed to invest under some conditions they deemed fair. Chandra, desperate enough, went ahead. Doesn't this happen all the time ? What's the fuss. Its only unfair that FG is being projected in such a wrong light.
97 comments
[ 0.29 ms ] story [ 97.2 ms ] threadJack Thompson used to be a lawyer, too. Having the training guarantees neither intellect nor sanity.
There's no reason to attach everything you've got to an initial complaint, and a lot of good reason to wait until you see how the other side responds. If they want to settle, for example, the less you've had to disclose in public, the easier it might be.
So while they very well may not have had a contract, this confirms no such thing.
(Disclosure: I know Mike)
This is a misconception - a contract does not need to be written to be enforceable. A contract consists of an "offer" and "acceptance"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract#Offer_and_acceptance
Techcrunch looks like it made an offer to work with someone to build a device, and Fusion looks like it accepted in some capacity by announcing they were working with them, tentatively branding it the Crunchpad, etc.
After that, the question is - did Techcrunch provide "consideration" to Fusion? That is, did they work to fulfill the agreement the two companies had?
Here, it looks pretty clear that TC did provide some consideration. Courts will look at what was agreed, and whether the parties provided that. Techcrunch might be exaggerating their role in the project, but they did clearly bring some consideration to the table - they put time, effort, money into the project because they believed they had a deal. Fusion accepted this consideration.
Importantly, consideration doesn't look at abstract value. It looks at whether you delivered on the contract. This is important, here's Wik on the subject:
"Consideration must be "sufficient" (i.e., recognizable by the law), but need not be "adequate" (i.e., the consideration need not be a fair and reasonable exchange for the benefit of the promise). For instance, agreeing to buy a car for a penny may constitute a binding contract."
The car for a penny example is extreme, and it might not be a binding contract, but it might too - there's been some famous cases of pranksters getting sued. But the key is, even if what TC provided wasn't important, if Fusion agreed to partner/pay royalties/give them a percent/something in exchange for what TC brought to the table, then they had a deal and TC delivered on their end of it.
Also from Wik -
"Contrary to common wisdom, an exchange of promises can still be binding and legally as valid as a written contract."
A clear, well written contract goes a long way. In absence of one, though, if you can still show there was an offer, acceptance, and consideration, then you've got a contract. I'm still going through the lawsuit reading, I'll come back when I see what TC is asking for because that's an interesting detail.
Edit: On page 10 of the lawsuit. TC is saying they paid vendors and paid Fusion's debts. That'd be pretty clear consideration if true. Still reading.
Edit2: Alright, page 21 has what TC is asking for. They're asking for all profits from sale of the product to be put into a trust and that Fusion is permanently forbidden from selling or distributing the Joojoo product, and must destroy it. Earlier in the suit they mentioned TC and Fusion are now permanently competitors, which implied TC is going to build their own pad. It'll be interesting to see if they have their own set of IP and specs to do that, or if it's just bluffing for leverage.
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 signed by all parties to be bound by the contract.
Contracts under statute of frauds include land sales and transfers, guaranteeing another person's debts, and contracts that can't be completed in a year.
It can be hard to prove an oral contract, but if you can prove it has all the elements of a contract, it's a contract, legal, and enforceable at least under the standard United States common law.
From what I read it seems that neither party treated the relationship as if they are bound by a contract. On the contrary it seemed like they proceeded under the assumption that they will negotiate some type of a deal in the future, but currently did not want to bind themselves.
None of this is legal advice, etc.
"So you apparently found out that your business partner was pretty shady last summer but you chose to not reveal that obviously newsworthy information to readers, why exactly?
Just wondering why readers should be considering techcruch a newsworthy source if such an obvious conflict of interests results in you coming down on the side that benefits you the most?"
Doesn't sound like he did, actually.
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.
If he tried to pretend it was not his own project, then that would be wrong.
Point being, Arrington is not a journalist in any stretch of imagination.
I may be mistaken of course, but it looks like they do not have any formal document that says anything about their ownership of the project. Sure - they helped out the project, or even produced the blueprints, but do they have a proper contract saying what do they get in exchange? Afaik there's no law stopping me from creating a device based on someone else's not patented blueprints (otherwise people writing RFCs would own a lot of software they didn't write).
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 CrunchPad. If both of these are true, why the hell didn't he pull out on Fusion Garage early on and go with someone else?
You supposedly have the idea, the investors, the retail channels lined up, etc... so why is Fusion even an issue? I call shenanigans here...
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.
FG have said they have devices built or building haven't they? I wonder which is true - my guess is a small inventory, hence the pre-sale.
Chandra and Fusion Garage have shown a long term pattern of deceit in their business dealings.
Dear god.... why oh why did he deal with them? (or continue to deal with them)
If the lined up investors, guys who make a living in picking horses to back, were worried why didn't Arrington listen to their concerns
And after a brief scan through I dont see any/many mention of contracts or agreements between TC and FG. As we said before that is a basic mistake - and it looks like it is one that was actually made :(
Personally I am coming down slowly on TC's side: Fusion Garage are screwing about.
However the one thing I am certain about now is that I would definitely never go into business with or invest in Arrington. He's destroyed any reputation he had as an investor / businessman for me.
Shambles.
The pre-sale is to get enough cash in hand to pay the manufacturing outfit enough to do a production run in order to fulfill the pre-sale orders. If you send money to FG for a pre-sale, you are gambling that they will use your money to actually make a device and deliver it to you.
That is Arrington's warning in point 5, and it is a valid warning. Even if they don't use the pre-sale money to hire lawyers, there is no guarantee they will get enough money to do a production run, there is no guarantee they won't take your money and disappear.
Pre-sales is based on trust (buyer) and reputation (seller), not goods already manufactured.
The emails talk about shareholder investment; if that is the case they can pre-sale while they are building the first batch on investor money. This way they get a share of the Xmas market rather than launching in the January sales (always a bad move).
With all that said nothing about DG has shouted "marketing sense" :)
We sell units like that.
The sad truth is while techcrunch does "other things", its main operation is being a weblog, as posted in its about section:
"TechCrunch was founded on June 11, 2005, as a weblog dedicated to obsessively profiling and reviewing new Internet products and companies. In addition to covering new companies, we profile existing companies that are making an impact (commercial and/or cultural) on the new web space.
TechCrunch has now grown into a network of technology focused sites offering a wide range of content and new media."
In its literal sense Techcrunch is anything but tech blog, more precisely is covers a subset of technology, which is mainly the business aspect of "online technology". A tech blog in it's truest sense would be Arstechnica or Engadget or even gizmodo. TC's tech writing depth goes as far as reporting "twitter being down for 30secs". Their writers couldn't tell their ass from their mouth if you were to ask them a simple question as to point out the underlying technical similarities between safari and chrome.
As much as I love hacker news, I am often troubled by some of our fascination towards techcrunch as a source for tech news. TC is often posted 4-5 times a day here on the front page.
Utter rubbish example #1:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/12/11/google-code-freeze/
example #2:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/12/10/playboy-iphone/
example #3:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/12/10/facebook-is-totally-dow...
Those are in last 24 hours...
Must. click. link.
Point 7: The entire blueprint of the device was created by me.
I don't exactly understand what he means by this. He created the blue print but someone else owns the IP? And what exactly is a blue print, in this case? Just saying what the device needs to do/look? Isn't that too easy to do?
Few people would start out with a blank slate when most large potential manufacturing partners can offer decent starting points that are well suited for their manufacturing process (using components they have large volume discounts on; designs that fit their tooling perfectly etc.)
But presumably that is only a small part of the IP for the device, and TC are arguing they own the rights to some or all of the remaining IP.
Plaintiffs
INTERSERVE, INC. dba TECHCRUNCH, a Delaware Corporation, and CRUNCHPAD, INC., a Delaware Corp.
Seems like they are incorporated
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 startup was taken to the cleaners by cons.. With the best of intentions we planned a strategic partnership with a medical device company only to find out that several months later we were deliberately being led on and lied to by the CEO of said company while they worked on stealing and implementing our ideas and cutting us out of the deal..
We thought about a lawsuit but we just didn't have the funds to go through with it.. In the end it worked out for us because we had already had some successful partnerships with other device companies which kept us afloat. Also, the company who stole our ideas failed miserably..
Is it really too much to ask that everyone pointing/shaking their finger at TC and Arrington to give them the benefit of the doubt..? It's pretty obvious if you believe what he's saying about Fusion Garage and Chandra that these guys are accomplished liars.. It's a tough lesson to learn and I for one applaud Arrington for being open and transparent in this whole ordeal.. I'm sure this has been embarrassing enough for him and the TC team..
And, unless most of the article is correct, he is also slandering them pretty bad.
Looks increasingly like MA found some company who could develop a product and that could be bullied out of the deal when it's ready to be taken away.
as in "i wanted to grow organically; he wanted a big marketing push: it ended in a total crunchpad". or "someone didn't tighten the nuts; front driverside wheel came off on a mountain road: complete crunchpad". or "flock of birds triggered a false alarm; first strike; automated response: crunchpad".
it happened with cuil, i'm sensing the same promise here....
The saga has the appearance of deliberate, or perhaps just subconscious submarining for the sake of having something sensational to blog about.
(Perhaps this is a good topic for an essay: how blogging twists the mind to make everything you do seem like a blog entry.)
I was getting tired of FAIL! anyway.
I guess even if they did that, it'd be the nail in the coffin for ever getting the device sold in the US though.
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 least something intended potentially to be a joint venture. When such a relationship is properly documented, all the associated issues - who is contributing what, who is getting what out of the arrangement, who owns the IP, etc. - are defined in the written documentation, typically a comprehensive written agreement signed by authorized representatives of both parties.
2. That said, opportunistic teaming happens all the time in the startup world and the absence of a carefully defined agreement is not necessarily fatal to a party's claim that a joint venture existed. A joint venture is a variation of partnership law (legally, it is a form of partnership by which the parties agree to do business jointly, and to share profits in some fashion, for a specific purpose, as opposed to a more general partnership by which they agree to do business together, and split profits, in connection with all their business activities). Technically, a joint venture (indeed, any partnership) can be based on a purely verbal arrangement or one that is verbal and supported by various written exchanges documenting some of the material terms of the arrangement, whether physically signed or not. To be a legally enforceable arrangement, the important thing is for the parties to have some clearly understood agreement, verbal or otherwise, specifying that they would be working together, and making their respective contributions, for a specific purpose whose ultimate goal was to split profits in some reasonably defined way as a result of their joint efforts.
3. While the formal requirements for a joint venture are not necessarily rigorous, and can be met even in a comparatively loose arrangement, one nonetheless must have some form of deal terms that can be said to be a reasonable meeting of the minds on some form of coherent business terms. The idea that "we agreed to work together," without more, does not make for an enforceable joint venture (or any form of contract). Moreover, even if there was a pretty good understanding that parties were to work together for a business purpose, if there is no understanding about who was to get what in exchange for what contribution, then it is almost certain that no form of enforceable agreement would be found.
4. Quite apart from whether a technical contract might be found to exist, the question of credibility also is crucial. That is, even if one party's story, if believed, would support the elements of a proper joint venture, there is the further question of whether that story is believable. On the facts alleged here, for example, why would TC, if it really did contribute major components of the software, hardware, funding, etc., do so without insisting that the parties have some form of written agreement documenting the terms of their venture? To me, this is the major flaw in a complaint of this type. It ultimately makes no sense for a reasonably sophisticated party to have, in effect, proceeded through multiple steps of a pretty complex transaction without proper documentation when, by its own admission, it knew quite a ways back that there were good grounds not to trust the party it was dealing with.
5. That said, the tactical goal of this complaint is to try to demonstrate that some form of enforceable joint venture existed (even if it is pretty shaky on its terms and in terms of believability) because that is the predicate for claiming breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the other "partner." If people really are doing business as partners, they do have fiduciary duties toward one another and can't engage in duplicitous tactics in their dealings with one another. Her...
(grellas: quality post!)
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.
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.
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.
This makes sense, but it scares me a little. Entrepreneurial types frequently do what Fusion Garage and Arrington did, though usually on a lesser scale. A product person and a tech person might get together for a week to try something out, and they might even talk about formalizing a relationship. Often, this is done to just test a relationship or test an idea. I'd hate to think that one would have grounds to sue the other for "false promise" because of something like this.
What's the difference between two parties exploring an idea together and actually having an implicit, binding, unwritten contract?
There's no obvious line to draw, but certainly there's a real difference between talk and a whole lot of work, and outright fraudulent behavior, which (from TC's account) is what happened in this case.
To have a binding contract, even a verbal one, you need to have a meeting of the minds on terms of a deal that typically include mutual consideration - if what you are discussing is preliminary and does not include commitments upon which people can reasonably rely, it usually is safe to conclude that there is no basis for a binding contract.
The "false promise" type of situation is a specialized one that normally does not arise in most startup situations. In general, it is a variation of fraud. Fraud generally consists of false representations made to a party upon which that party reasonably relies to his detriment - in other words, getting "tricked," misled, etc. in a way that hurts you. A typical misrepresentation must be one of a fact that is falsely represented by a party (e.g., "my company has achieved x sales and you should invest in it when sales are nowhere near what is represented). The "false promise" variation of fraud is one in which the misrepresentation consists of a false fact but the fact itself is intangible - in this case, a false representation of one's state of mind. Thus, if one makes a promise without any intention of ever performing it, this is in the nature of a false statement of fact by which one can "trick" another person and thus constitutes a basis for fraud (e.g., if you do x, y, and z for my company, I will grant you a 20% interest in my company where the person making the promise never had any intention of performing on that promise). This "false promise" type of fraud is not the type of promise upon which a contract is formed but rather one upon which an action for fraud is predicated. In the contract context, it is most often used to try to get out of a contract ("I know my contract says I must do x, but the only reason I entered into it was in reliance on a promise made by the other party that he never intended to perform - because of the promissory fraud, I can rescind my contract").
With respect to promises or exchanges upon which parties try to claim that a partnership has resulted, you need the essential element that any such venture has to be based on the idea of splitting or sharing profits arising from your joint activity in some fashion (almost always in some percentage fashion). Thus, this represents only a narrow category of situations where one might inadvertently find himself faced with a claim by another party that negotiations they engaged in allegedly resulted in a legal partnership between them.
As appears in the TC case, the "false promise" and "binding partnership" type of claims tend to arise when parties have had complex dealings between them, allowing one or more of the parties to assert colorable claims of having been misled to one's detriment or of claiming that the parties agreed to undertake a venture by which they would split profits.
In 99.99% of cases, you can safely undertake typical negotiations with another party without fear that you will inadvertently enter into a contract. This is one aspect of law in which, surprisingly, common sense is actually your best guide. Contracts ultimately tend to turn on reasonable expectations of the parties and, if what you are doing does not feel like a binding commitment, it usually is not.
grellas +++
Interesting Arrington said neither has rights to the product. Just pointing out from an independent AP source instead of TC.
Why didn't TC & these guys set up a legal person in which to jointly conduct their business?
Or was TC just effectively the marketer for this company?
Litigation won't bring him happiness, wealth, a good reputation, or even closure. In fact, all this lashing out will do the opposite.
If he just shuts up about them, they'll very likely disappear like all the other >year-late, >100% over-budget buggy gadgets without major marketing, funding, or innovation.
He also has a lot of pride invested here.
So yes, Arrington is out to destroy them, and he wants to send a message saying more or less, "Don't fuck with me."
And he's smart enough to know that there's no such thing as bad publicity.
If he means pictures then I've got some rockin' time machine blueprints for sale. Hit me up...
Second, I can see this happening. Arrington has an idea for a tablet. He comes up with the basic idea and rough specs. Fusion Garage goes and implements it. In Arrington's view, the device is partly his because he had the original idea. In Fusion Garage's view, the device is all theirs because they did all of the work to create it. Both think the device is "theirs" because they underestimate the contribution of the other.
Arrginton really needs to establish what exactly they did, and demonstrate that it made it into the final device. I'm not sure what his actual contributions are from the claim; coming up with the specs isn't a big deal to me. (Note I'm talking morally and ethically, not legally - as always, I am not a lawyer.)
In my business we've conducted several off-shoring experiments, and they have largely failed to realize a significant return. The lesson I learned from observing and assisting in those experiments is that the secret sauce in business is reputation. Finding people who are honest, reliable, and intelligent can be very difficult. When you find people like that, "grapple them to thy soul with hoops of steel." If, like Michael Arrington, you wander into an industry with nothing but your hubris to guide you, you'll most likely be taken for a ride.
FG had $500k in debt by end of June. To whom? We don't know. Chandra would have liked to sell FG to CP [crunchpad] and then pay off that debt in a subsequent round of capital-raising. Arrington and fellow investors did not want to buy a company with half a million in outstanding debt.
Another option was for TC to buy FG at a valuation of $3m and pay off the debt at the same time by converting it to equity, which was also undesirable since it would have diluted shareholding by 16%. We may infer that with 35% of CP shares going to FG and a further 16% converted from debt to equity, the upshot would have been that Arrington's investors would have only had a 49% stake, with the other 51% being held by FG's investors and creditors, obviously giving them control of the company.
So TC's offer was for FG to pay off its debt completely, in rturn for which its investors would get 35% of CP shares. Chandra indicated this was acceptable, but was unhappy about it as it would have meant giving up all of his personal equity in FG and $75,000 in cash (in order to satisfy FG creditors) and his only holding would be an option to acquire 11% of CP in a future round.
Chandra asked for a better deal but indicated that this option was acceptable to him if it was the only way. It is unclear from the emails (which are confusingly presented in reverse chronological order) what position, if any Arrington & co. took in response to this offer. Since TC did not go ahead and buy FG, we may infer that the matter was placed on hiatus. I guess but do not assume that this was pending on FG's satisfaction of its creditors and getting back to a clean balance sheet.
By November, the awesomely-named Bruce Lee and his 2 co-investors considered FG to be worth $10m in its own right and valued TC's contribution at 10% of that for the Crunchpad name and Arrington's marketing effort, with Lee noting that Chandra had commended an offer of 25% of the shares in CP as payment for FG. It's unclear whether Arrington lowered the equity offer in exchange for taking on the debt, or whether the ~28% discount to the earlier offer represented Chandra's personal equity in FG; I suspect the former, suggesting that that CP planned to put down $2.5m in cash and absorb any outstanding debt in exchange for 75% of the equity, which would be fairly consistent with the negotiations in June.
Whew. So the upshot here is that Dr Lee is basically saying that he disbelieves Arrington/Crunchpad has brought $5m worth of product development and marketing clout to the table, but instead values their contribution at $1m (out of $10m cash that he and fellow investors are willing to put on the table). Additionally, he seems to feel like he is being hustled, considering the lack of a formal offer letter for the merger.
Seems to me that Dr Lee has decided to see the color of Arrington's money by raising the cash stakes considerably; suddenly Fusion Garage [in the sense of its largest shareholder] is offering to gobble up Crunchpad and pay Arrington off with a job rather than the other way round. Arrington's blogged thoughts refer to FG's poor financial position, but gloss over the fact that its investors have $10m on hand (which appears to be about 4x what Arrington had lined up).
The plaintiffs seem to argue that Fusion Garage is only alive because of the good will invested by Arrington/Crunchpad and would have died otherwise; I presume the defendant's argument will be that this was never the case, that FG had entered into the project in a spirit of partnership rather than supplication, and that any monies advanced by Crunchpad to FG's creditors were a matter of mutual convenience. The case seems to turn on the degree of innovation provided to the project by Arrington/CP: and looking at some of their claims, they seem pretty thin (eg suggesting web pages are bettered rendered against white background, or the use of large icons to select favorite sites, both of which the defendant will claim ...
Reminds me of 'The Dentist' from Cryptonimicon.
These are entirely my interpretations and personal thoughts. Happy to be corrected.
- From emails its clear that Chandra is desperate, to be either acquired by Tech-crunch or raise some money. Poor guy is under loan, has to pay vendors, salaries. There is no contract because then techcrunch would have to invest and hence share the risks and put in some real money. If its their joint venture why haven't they done that ?
- Michael is aware of chandra's talking to other investors. He jointly owns the product, but wouldn't let his lined-up investors come and help chandra out. Doesn't he know that when investors come they do have some say in how company should run ?
- The blueprint shit. Come-on. I have a time-machine blue print. Anyone building it ?
- Michael says FG is in trouble, has no money even to defend lawsuit. Now if this was a joint venture started by Michael, how did it come to this ?
- Many are now suggesting Techcrunch to take their blue print and Crunchpad name and get the hardware done by someone else. Isn't this what FG did ? Too their hardware and got a new name ?
To me its clear that Chandra thought of Michael as an potential investor and discussed details hoping to get acquired. He also talked to several other investors, who agreed to invest under some conditions they deemed fair. Chandra, desperate enough, went ahead. Doesn't this happen all the time ? What's the fuss. Its only unfair that FG is being projected in such a wrong light.