IownFIVEechos wrote:In my short time frequenting these forum's I have learned one can never win an argument that has any negative tone towards Ceton.
My post wasn't negative towards Ceton, it was negative towards lawyers
Seriously, I didn't read Gibson's complaint or Ceton's reply, but I can certainly tell you what it says:
I. Everything Gibson said in their complaint is baloney.
II. In fact, Gibson was mean to us causing us $X in damages; and
III. We ask the court to 1) dismiss Gibson's false and frivolous claims; 2) award us $X in damages on our counterclaims arising from Gibson's outrageous and malicious behavior; and 3) to the extent allowed by law, award us court and attorneys' fees.
This is just the standard move in response to your opponents opener -- it doesn't have anything to do with the strength of their claim or yours. It's just a chess game.
That's remarkably close to what Ceton's brief says. I'd kind of like to see Gibson's complaint, but it doesn't appear to be online for free anywhere, and I don't feel like creating a PACER account and paying a few bucks to get it.
I tend to believe everything in Ceton's countersuit, in part because it doesn't make them look very good. I mean, it doesn't sound like they did anything legally wrong, but it seems pretty foolish to devote significant resources to a project without a pretty solid agreement with any partners. Ceton's countersuit argument seems pretty weak. By their own admission, they started work knowing that they didn't have important details worked out with Gibson. They were willing to do so, presumably, because they didn't have to front any money themselves- Gibson was paying Ceton's development costs during this time. The "damages" incurred by Ceton are essentially just the opportunity cost of devoting time to a failed effort. That seems rather weak, particularly given that Ceton appears to go in knowing that there was a possibility the business arrangements would fall through.
I'm by no means a lawyer, but if I was on a jury I think I'd be hard-pressed to award anyone damages in this case. It sounds like both Gibson and Ceton made some bad management/business decisions, and now they're engaged in a spitting contest in the courts, wasting tons of corporate and public resources.
Anyways, what do people think of the revelation that Ceton was working on a wireless home audio system? That's a different direction for them. The other interesting tidbit hidden in the Ceton brief was a reference to a "HomeCaster" line of products. It didn't make any reference to video streaming, but perhaps the broader line would have included some of that functionality.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. With the impending death of WMC, and the failure of the Echo, I largely expected Ceton to abandon the consumer space and focus on the hospitality market. This lawsuit indicates that wasn't Ceton's plan at all, although I have no idea what they're going to do moving forward from this.