I think Jasons argument is that he created proprietary value in the form of partnerships, sponsorships and acquaintances that Arrington has leveraged with his "new" and successful conference.
It might be a justifiable argument, but that's for a judge to decide. My opinion is that even with those sponsorships, partnerships etc.. that Arringtons probably leveraged TechCrunch the most to create both successful conferences. I`m sure this is something he argues.
In a partnership dissolution, there's generally agreements about the assets. I would assume they'd each have rights to access those relationships and produce conferences in the future. In my mind, Calcanis came to the partnership as the "lesser" party (which is why it was named the TechCrunch50 and not the JasonNation50)... For TechCrunch to NOT be able to have ongoing relationships with folks who were working with the TechCrunch50 seems odd... But it all comes down to the partnership and dissolution agreements that were signed.
It might be a justifiable argument, but that's for a judge to decide. My opinion is that even with those sponsorships, partnerships etc.. that Arringtons probably leveraged TechCrunch the most to create both successful conferences. I`m sure this is something he argues.