DISQUS

Mathew's comments: Mike should lay off TechCrush — and Dead 2.0

  • /pd · 3 years ago
    I think Mike and Nic, marshall , oriel are like the mafia2.0 !!

    If one talks bad about them, they shot you down.. They like to dish it out , but they can't really take it. Thats the conclusions that I am coming too.

    Its sad, they are losing crediablity and trust ..
  • Nik Cubrilovic · 3 years ago
    PD: don't you have anything better to do? Your name comes up whenever techcrunch does, do you refresh technorati results all day?
  • Mathew Ingram · 3 years ago
    That's a little offside, Nik -- Pete's name comes up whenever just about anything happens in the blogosphere, because he seems to be everywhere and anywhere that people are talking about or on the Web. He's an international man of mystery :-)
  • Rob Hyndman · 3 years ago
    Let's set up a legal defense fund to help pay their way.
  • michael arrington · 3 years ago
    love techcrush content, my lawyer says if they use the name and the logo I'll have issues trying to protect techcrunch as a trademark down the road. my recommendation would be to change the name and look of the logo to something less like techcrunch. I'm also trying to see if a simple disclaimer, that they are not affiliated with us, will work.

    stowe seems to want to pick a fight. Problem is I love the idea of what they are doing, as I've said before.

    on dead20, my only point is whether someone should do what he's doing when they are an exec at a startup. nothing more. i take shots much worse than what he writes every day, and rarely comment.
  • Nik Cubrilovic · 3 years ago
    Ye ok, a bit offside - sorry PD :)
  • Mathew Ingram · 3 years ago
    Fair enough, Mike -- although I think trademark lawyers almost always say that. It doesn't necessarily mean you have to do it. I think the disclaimer is probably a good way to go. As for Dead 2.0, I hope he keeps it up -- although the rest of the staff at his startup may not feel the same way :-)
  • John Wilson · 3 years ago
    Perhaps Mike should offer to put techcrush under his wing - that way the trademark issue goes away and there can be an honesty about the outcomes of the firms covered 6 months down the line v the opinions proferred. As it stands, it could be taken as a sad attempt to cover up embarassing editorials on ventures that subsequently flop. Likewise, how many brands in the web2.0 space are near misses on existing brands (flickr, flockr) with far less fuss. Mike should take it as a complement that people care enough what he & his colleagues think to track it - is its' existence reallly going to diminish his brand value or will that be simply the result of their "outing" of the results.