Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 1st Feb 2010 21:42 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless While we're all busy weeting ourselves or getting our knickers in twists over Apple's iPad, we'd almost forget that this other company had already announced a similar product two months ago. Fusion Garage's CEO has given a number of updates on the Joo Joo, while also filing its motion to dismiss the court case started by TechCrunch.
Thread beginning with comment 407310
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Not going to buy a Joo Joo
by Mage66 on Mon 1st Feb 2010 22:24 UTC
Mage66
Member since:
2005-07-11

I have no plans to give this company or it's partner a single dollar for stealing the product from Arrington, and for giving it such a stupid name besides.

I want the person who brainstormed the device and did most of the original development to get what is rightfully his.

Having been someone who has created IP in the past, and was treated fairly... I'm standing for others to be treated fairly as well.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Not going to buy a Joo Joo
by flanque on Mon 1st Feb 2010 22:27 in reply to "Not going to buy a Joo Joo"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

I wonder if they got permission to use that Avatar image on their promotional material...?

Reply Parent Score: 2

russellallen Member since:
2010-02-01

As a technology lawyer, my sympathy for trained lawyers pretending to be technology experts who nevertheless fail to get a properly drafted written contract with collaborating development partners is (to put it succinctly) limited.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: Not going to buy a Joo Joo
by Spinfusor on Mon 1st Feb 2010 23:05 in reply to "Not going to buy a Joo Joo"
Spinfusor Member since:
2007-01-11

I have a question for you: Why did a former lawyer not create a legal agreement?

Michael Arrington's brainstorming and "original development" amounts to wanting to create a cheap, browser-centric tablet. Fusion Garage didn't steal anything; there was nothing to steal. Arrington's only significant contribution was hype.

Did you bother to read the Engadget article linked to? Arrington's a bad journalist, a terrible lawyer, and has no case.

Edited 2010-02-01 23:06 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

True. All true, but that doesn't make fusion garage any less of a slime ball operation. Not getting a thin dime from me or any one I have any influence with.

Reply Parent Score: 2

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

There is definately two sides to the story, and I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. Chandra basically says that he had the same idea for a conductive tablet consumption device and was moving forward on it. During TC50, he approached arrington and they ended up partnering up. Chandra basically says that after that there was little to no help from TC outside of promotion, and that arrington gave him the runaround on actually signing an agreement, so when it was done, he basically told arrington that he was going his own way.

Arrington says that TC helped substancially with the creation of the device, and that the breaking of ways came out of thin air, and hurt him personally and emotionally.

If Chandra was completely lying, there would have been a business agreement, which there wasn't. On the other hand, there is documented evidence of Fusion Garage people mixing with TC people both in america and in asia for extended periods of time. Chandra says that they were basically just hanging out, which I find sort of hard to swallow.

Reply Parent Score: 1

funny_irony Member since:
2007-03-07

There are nothing original about tablet PC.
Many people have already come out with the idea many years ago. However, due to technology limitation, it is not been implemented.

In this case, the company that can pull it off will get the IP. Fusion Garage have the upper hand with all the aces cards.

For your info, some chinese company already produce IPad clones before it is announce. Fujisu already come out with a IPAD in year 2001. We may see more law suits in the near future.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Not going to buy a Joo Joo
by TechGeek on Mon 1st Feb 2010 23:51 in reply to "Not going to buy a Joo Joo"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

I find your statement humorous as this case basically boils down to what Xerox did. They let a bunch of geeks see there work and not sign an NDA. Then the Mac OS was born. Considering Xerox really developed the first windowing GUI and the mouse, they really got the shaft for it. This is why Trade Secrets are a protected class of IP.

Reply Parent Score: 1

cr12345 Member since:
2010-02-02

Perhaps you should learn the actual history of what happened at Xerox before ...

"At any rate, Jobs, who was first told by Raskin about the fun going on at PARC in 1976, decided that he wanted to bring a team of Appleniks into PARC and see what was causing such a buzz – but again, the idea of Jobs coming in like a kid touring Epcot with a tape recorder hidden under his shirt is mistaken. Apple negotiated a deal with Xerox; in return for a block of Apple stock, Xerox allowed Jobs and his team to tour PARC in December 1979, take notes, and implement some of the ideas and concepts being bounced around at PARC in their own creations. "
http://articles.sitepoint.com/article/real-history-gui/5#


... the ideas were bought from Xerox in return for Apple stock, far from the theft of ideas you are suggesting.

Reply Parent Score: 4

Mage66 Member since:
2005-07-11

That's actually not true. Both Microsoft and Apple looked at the Xerox technology as invited guests.

It's all a fable that anything was "stolen".

Reply Parent Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

There's no law against being an ass, that's why we have contracts. Seriously, WTF was he thinking?

Reply Parent Score: 2