More on the TechCrunch/JooJoo Ruling

Nilay Patel:

The court didn’t buy most of those arguments and dismissed everything but the breach of fiduciary duty claim in this latest ruling, which is both a significant loss and a significant win for TechCrunch: breach of fiduciary duty has always struck us as TechCrunch’s strongest argument, and the court’s now effectively ruled that Fusion Garage and TechCrunch were indeed involved in a joint business venture with legal obligations to protect each others’ interests. That’s not a bad position from which to proceed — although TechCrunch now has to prove that Fusion Garage actually violated its duty by releasing the Joojoo on its own, which is a whole new fight.

Other analysis of the ruling: Hank Williams says I’ve got it all wrong, and there’s a good thread on Hacker News. As Patel points out, though, perhaps the most curious aspect of the suit is that anyone is willing to pay for it — the JooJoo has been a total, utter bust. Surely this suit is costing more to litigate than the JooJoo has generated in revenue (let alone profits, which I’m guessing are non-existent).

Monday, 30 August 2010