Lots of attacks came in today about TechCrush, a new blog I have nothing to do with. Stowe Boyd’s the ringleader, suggesting a lynching is about to take place. This got picked up at Valleywag, which stated that I sent a cease and desist letter to the founders, and calling that tacky.

For anyone who cares about what really happened, here it is:

Sept 9: Fred Olivera says we need to announce failures when they happen.

Sept 9: Stowe suggests that someone should create a new blog that looks at companies profiled on techcrunch six months later.

Sept 12: Lutz Winter and Yves Luther announce they are going to launch a new blog that does exactly this. Stowe says “I am drunk with power!”

Sept 18: Deep Jive Interests discusses the whole thing. This is (I think) the first time I hear of it. I check out the site, note that the name and logo appear very close to techcrunch, and that the content looks very similar to techcrunch. I call my lawyer and say “I love this blog…but do we have a trademark issue?” He says “yes, a big one. when people do this, if you don’t try to stop it, you lose the right to try to stop others in the future.” I comment on the DJI blog “i think this kind of thing is a good check against techcrunch and will keep us honest…I will say though that when companies start to fail we cover that too. My lawyers are pissy about our trademark and want us to send them a letter. I need to contact them to talk when they launch.”

Somewhere in here TechCrush launches. Good content.

Sept 20: Lutz sends me an email. I’m not going to reprint it here because I don’t have his permission (haven’t asked). It’s a nice email, saying he saw my comment on DJI, isn’t his intention to violate TC’s trademarks or copyright, wants to talk things over.

Sept 20: I reply to Lutz’ email while on the road - “Thanks for reaching out. Based on my discussion with my attorney I believe we are going to have a trademark issue. TechCrush is confusingly similar to TechCrunch in both the name itself and the way you visually represent it, and your coverage is basically the same topics as we cover. We’ll be in touch soon.”

Sept 21: TechCrush post saying “We put down our pencils here at the Crush-Room for the next days due to possible legal issues. Please stay with us, we will see how things are going to work out.”

early on Sept 21: DJI goes for the kill. Reports that TechCrush has stopped posting. Has funny Mr. Burns cartoon with me saying I’ve “released the hounds.” Says he’s trying to reach the techcrush guys for an interview (suggesting he never spoke to them).

mid day, Sept 21: I speak with my lawyer. we discuss asking them to put a disclaimer on the site that they aren’t affiliated with techcrunch. I send an email to Lutz that says “Hey Lutz, Spoke to my lawyer at length today. How about a statement somewhere, preferably in the header area, that simply says you aren’t affiliated with TechCrunch in any way? If that doesn’t work for you, let’s keep talking…and there is no need to stop posting on the site…looking forward to more good content. Mike”

mid day on Sept 21: Stowe Boyd picks up DJI post and takes a step further. Says this is very similar to the CMP/O’Reilly Web 2.0 trademark issue. Says its “sad to see a worthwhile activity sidelined for trademark issues that are possibly immaterial.” Wonders if a lynching is about to take place. He also says he has no idea if I spoke to the techcrush guys or what we talked about.

late evening Sept 21: Stowe emails me. Won’t post it here. Message is basically that i should buy Techcrush to “end the problem”. Stowe says he has no business interest in the site. I note to myself that his name is on the blog, though. I feel like I’m being blackmailed. I reply “gosh Stowe thanks for the email AFTER the trash post.”

Late evening Sept 21: Valleywag links to Stowe. says i sent a “vitrolic cease and desist to Techcrush”. Calls that “bad form” and “tacky”. Not only is he late to the party, all his facts are wrong.

early, Sept 22: Lutz replies. Nice again. Says that sounds like a fine idea and will include a disclaimer. Concludes with “cheers, and a nice weekend”

early, Sept 22: techcrush says all is good on their blog.

5:59 AM, Sept. 22: I’m taking a beating on a post suggesting that an exec at a startup who’s anonymousy ridiculing journalists and other startups in the valley may not have used good judgement. Someone (anonymousy) calls me mentally deranged. I turn off comments. Write this post trying to set the record straight on the techcrush issue. Eagerly await positive reinforcement from the blogosphere that some small part of what I’ve dedicated my life to is worth it. Hoping Stowe wasn’t really trying to create a problem and then “solve” it by asking me for money. Glad that the entire correspondence with the actual techcrush guys was cordial and the issue was quickly resolved.

Update: I just want to do one more thing to reinforce a point. I’ve copied the back and forth with Lutz below, removing all the extraneous stuff written on blogs by guys who didn’t know what was going on:

Sept 20: Lutz sends me an email. I’m not going to reprint it here because I don’t have his permission (haven’t asked). It’s a nice email, saying he saw my comment on DJI, isn’t his intention to violate TC’s trademarks or copyright, wants to talk things over.

Sept 20: I reply to Lutz’ email while on the road - “Thanks for reaching out. Based on my discussion with my attorney I believe we are going to have a trademark issue. TechCrush is confusingly similar to TechCrunch in both the name itself and the way you visually represent it, and your coverage is basically the same topics as we cover. We’ll be in touch soon.”

Sept 21: TechCrush post saying “We put down our pencils here at the Crush-Room for the next days due to possible legal issues. Please stay with us, we will see how things are going to work out.”

mid day, Sept 21: I speak with my lawyer. we discuss asking them to put a disclaimer on the site that they aren’t affiliated with techcrunch. I send an email to Lutz that says “Hey Lutz, Spoke to my lawyer at length today. How about a statement somewhere, preferably in the header area, that simply says you aren’t affiliated with TechCrunch in any way? If that doesn’t work for you, let’s keep talking…and there is no need to stop posting on the site…looking forward to more good content. Mike”

early, Sept 22: Lutz replies. Nice again. Says that sounds like a fine idea and will include a disclaimer. Concludes with “cheers, and a nice weekend”

early, Sept 22: techcrush says all is good on their blog.