Was Michael Arrington really "smacked around" by a series of joojoo rulings?

John Gruber weighed in on a series of rulings concerning the ongoing TechCrunch v. Fusion Garage (joojoo/CrunchPad) lawsuit:

Mike Arrington gets smacked around in the first round of his lawsuit over the JooJoo/CrunchPad. In short: TechCrunch didn’t get much in writing regarding their “partnership” with Fusion Garage to develop the product, and, well, they should have. Curiously, I’ve seen no coverage of this decision on TechCrunch.

Regarding the last sentence: I find that, generally, the person most willing to write about unresolved litigation matters (or to speak to the press, etc.) is also the party least likely to have much of a case. There’s very, very little to be gained by doing so.

Arrington seems to be a pompous ass, so it’s a bit surprising to me that he’s not live-blogging the entire lawsuit, but the fact that he isn’t may be telling. Beyond that, TechCrunch probably isn’t covering their own lawsuit for the same reason Gizmodo won’t touch the iPhone investigation—their lawyers are likely telling them not to.

As to whether or not Arrington has been smacked around by the ruling:

TechCrunch’s motion for a preliminary injunction is denied. Fusion Garage’s motion to strike “extrinsic speaking evidence” is denied. Fusion Garage’s motion to dismiss is denied as to the claim for breach of fiduciary duty. Fusion Garage’s motion to dismiss is granted, without leave to amend, as to the tort claim for misappropriation of business ideas, but without prejudice to any related claim sounding in contract that TechCrunch may be able to plead in good faith. The motion to dismiss is granted, with leave to amend, as to the claims for fraud, violations of the Lanham Act, and violations of California Business & Professions Code §§17200 and 17500. Any amended complaint shall be filed within 20 days of the date of this order.

1. TechCrunch lost their motion for a preliminary injunction. (Fusion Garage isn’t selling any joojoos anyway, right? What good would an injunction do?)
2. Fusion Garage lost a motion to strike certain evidence.
3. Fusion Garage lost a motion to dismiss regarding a breach of fiduciary duty claim.
4. Fusion Garage won, without prejudice, a motion to dismiss on a misappropriation of business ideas claim.*
5. Fusion Garage won motions to dismiss on a fraud claim and two other charges.*

*Part of the ruling on #4 is that it is without prejudice: TechCrunch can still pursue the misappropriation of business ideas claim with respect to having been involved in an implied contract.

*Part of the ruling on #5 is that TechCrunch can file an amended complaint. This is because TechCrunch alleges that, through discovery, they’ve come into evidence which would prove the fraud claim but that they didn’t have it prior to filing the original motion. The Judge is allowing the motion to be refiled and reconsidered with the new evidence included, so long as it’s filed within 20 days. I suspect it’ll be filed within 2.

In other words, yes, it’s a bit of a mixed bag for TechCrunch but I think it’s more than a little hyperbolic to say that Arrington was smacked around. Both sides took some punches, and the big victories for Fusion Garage (the motions to dismiss) come with significant asterisks and are further tempered by having lost another of their motions to dismiss outright.

I’d rate these rulings: “To be continued…”

Given the dismal sales of the joojoo, though, my prediction is that much of this will turn out to have been posturing. I suspect we’ll eventually see this settled out of court—once Arrington feels his point has been made.