@ciparis Where's the use? There's no product on the market, and both Arrington and Fusion Garage had been posting updates on the CrunchPad's development on their respective websites. That's a pretty weak foundation for use in commerce.

Again, I'm not saying that Arrington won't prevail in this part of his case -- he probably will. I'm just saying that it's strange for him to be claiming that he owns a mark "outright" when he doesn't have a registration, and even stranger that a Silicon Valley attorney didn't cover all his bases in this matter.

@FerrumMihi You're right, the court can probably figure out what each party's responsibilities to the other are based on emails and other documents -- although I would argue that there's an interesting statute of frauds problem here, since the development of the CrunchPad probably couldn't have been completed in a year.

But you're talking about a figurative contract -- I'm talking about the absence of actual contract that was memorialized and signed by each party. As a law student, would you advise anyone to begin a venture like the CrunchPad without writing out a contract? And can you explain why Michael Arrington, who once represented NeXT as it was being sold to Apple, is now in the unenviable position of depending on parol evidence to defend his rights?

@FerrumMihi Let's say I grant you all of that. You've still got to litigate past the fact that there's no product in the marketplace called a CrunchPad in order to claim common law protection, which isn't going to be easy and cost a hell of lot more than filing the ITU app would have.

In the end, none of this actually matters -- they've filed now, and I'm sure they'll get the mark registered. But it's strange for Arrington to claim he owns the mark outright when he's got so little to back it up.

@mmurfin87 Just saying that you're developing a product called the CrunchPad doesn't give you any rights -- you'd have to actually use the mark in commerce to claim common law protection, and Arrington hasn't sold a single CrunchPad. Even then, it's a super-weak claim compared to an intent-to-use registration, which would have cost like five grand and totally protected him.

@(Unverified) Clearly!

@jadalias He hasn't used it in the marketplace -- there's no product. In any event, he should have filed an intent to use application months ago.

@sciman111 That may be, but watch the video at the read link -- Birdwell pretty much just talks trash about SETI@home.

@ChrisTots Because it's a screen grab from the Fox 5 video.

@shadowj0 I can't tell if I'm more offended by your racism, or how pathetic and lazy it is.

@Autumn23 Rule 1, my friend! http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/30/editorial-the-engadget-style-guide-reaches-a-milestone/