Michael Arlington VS. Facebook Charge: Violation of my statutory and common law publicity rights The key factor in determining whether a use is permitted or not in California (where I live) is Civil Code Section 3344, which was first enacted in 1971. California is perhaps more aggressive than any other state in protecting publicity rights because of the number of people engaged in the entertainment business. Case Status: Closed Case Closed: 2 Years ago. Category: Business and Commerce Tags: Techcrunch Facebook

	Shields VS. Arrington Charge: Talking on your cellphone while driving TechCrunch's Michael Arrington was stopped at a red light, talking on his cellphone to get directions to his meeting. Citizen on patrol, Michael Shields lept to the safety of all of Mountain View and stood in front of Arrington's vehicle refusing to move. According to Arrington, Sheilds finally left after he got out of his vehicle. Case Status: Closed Case Closed: 22 Days ago. Category: Authorities Tags: Techcrunch Michael Arrington

	Techcrunch VS. Fusion Garage Charge: Theft of the CrunchPad intellectual property The CEO of our partner on the project, Chandra Rathakrishnan, notified us we were no longer involved with the CrunchPad project. Chandra said that based on pressure from his shareholders he had decided to move forward and sell the device directly through Fusion Garage, without TC involvement. We jointly own the product intellectual property, and we solely own the CrunchPad trademark. It’s legally impossible for Fusion Garage to build and sell the CrunchPad device without our agreement. Case Status: Closed Case Closed: 3 Months ago. Category: Science and Technology Tags: Techcrunch Michael Arrington Crunchpad Fusion Garage Chandra Rathakrishnan