But the project "self-destructed," Arrington said, because of "greed, jealousy and miscommunication."

Chandra Rathakrishnan, CEO of TechCrunch's partner on the project, Fusion Garage, informed Arrington in an e-mail that "based on pressure from his shareholders, he had decided to move forward and sell the device directly through Fusion Garage, without our involvement," Arrington reported.

Enter the Lawyers

But Arrington said his company and Fusion Garage worked jointly on developing the prototypes for the device and expenses were shared. "We jointly own the CrunchPad product intellectual property, and we solely own the CrunchPad trademark. So it's legally impossible for them to simply build and sell the device without our agreement," Arrington asserted.

The two companies appear headed to court. An e-mail Rathakrishnan forwarded to Arrington proposes that Fusion Garage has the right to go forward with the project without TechCrunch, although it might consider purchasing rights to the trademark and name: "[W]e would have Arrington assume the role of visionary/evangelist/marketing head and Fusion Garage would acquire the rights to use the CrunchPad brand and name. Personally, I don't think the name is all that important, but you seem to be somewhat attached to the name."

"Without knowing anything about the inside politics here, this story reflects that Fusion Garage thinks they have a successful product on their hands," said Greg Sterling, principal analyst with Sterling Market Research. "They probably either thought TechCrunch's involvement was going to mess it up or they're just being greedy."

The 'Thrill' Is Gone

If Fusion Garage thinks it's better off without TechCrunch, that may be a miscalculation, Sterling said. "I would argue that with the audience TechCrunch has and the brand that TechCrunch has, they would have a better time with them than without them," he added.

Another e-mail from Rathakrishnan said Fusion Garage's position is justified but that TechCrunch had not made a counteroffer. Arrington's retort: "We have not come back to you with any counteroffer to the e-mail you forwarded because you and your shareholders have communicated to us that moving forward without us is something that you consider to be a legitimate and legal option. In other words, your 'counter' offer is theft of intellectual property."

"We will almost certainly be filing multiple lawsuits against Fusion Garage, and possibly Chandra and his shareholders as individuals, shortly," Arrington promised. But a lawsuit is cold comfort for a visionary who thought he was about to produce an important new product.

"This isn't really about money. It was about the thrill of building something with a team that had the same vision. Now that's going to be impossible. And I've also lost a friend," Arrington said. "Chandra spent months in our office this year and, until a week and a half ago, was the kind of young, determined entrepreneur that I admire. I thought we'd be friends for the rest of our lives."