California Case Update
- Thread starter Shamil
- Start date
- Status
Jake Bunce
Well-known member
IB is claiming that Mike has failed to respond to the SAC and on that basis is asking the court for a default judgment against Mike.
jonsidneyb
Well-known member
Best wishes to everyone on the XenForo team. I hope this will all end soon in XenForo's favor.
Jake Bunce
Well-known member
Something isn't right here...
In this recent document XF states that IB has failed to file a TAC since May 2012 when such leave was granted, and on that basis the case should be dismissed for failure to prosecute on the part of IB:
But in this most recent document IB states that the court denied them leave to file a TAC:
The basis for IB's claim that Mike failed to respond in time relies on automatic deadlines depending on the fate of the TAC. IB's cites automatic deadlines from document 108:
So the question is... was IB granted or denied leave to file a TAC? The answer is... both. This is according to document 121 from last May:
So it's unclear which automatic deadline is in effect. Though I would assume that the TAC being "granted in part" would invoke the 21 day deadline, and that 21 day deadline starts after the TAC is filed which IB has not done yet. That means Mike did not miss any deadlines because he is waiting for IB to file the TAC. IB says they were denied leave to file a TAC, but in fact leave was granted in part.
So basically we have XF saying, "dismiss the case because IB failed to file a TAC." At the same time IB is saying, "enter a judgment against Mike for failure to respond after we were denied leave to file a TAC." There is some ambiguity as to the deadline that IB is using against Mike, but it looks to me like Mike is in the clear here. Also, this latest document from IB regarding TAC deadlines ignores the larger fact that IB has failed to serve new defendants from the SAC which is the basis of XF's request for dismissal.
If I had to guess, and if IB is being consistent, then I would say IB is trying to muddy the waters in an attempt to distract from their failure to prosecute.
In this recent document XF states that IB has failed to file a TAC since May 2012 when such leave was granted, and on that basis the case should be dismissed for failure to prosecute on the part of IB:
But in this most recent document IB states that the court denied them leave to file a TAC:
The basis for IB's claim that Mike failed to respond in time relies on automatic deadlines depending on the fate of the TAC. IB's cites automatic deadlines from document 108:
So the question is... was IB granted or denied leave to file a TAC? The answer is... both. This is according to document 121 from last May:
So it's unclear which automatic deadline is in effect. Though I would assume that the TAC being "granted in part" would invoke the 21 day deadline, and that 21 day deadline starts after the TAC is filed which IB has not done yet. That means Mike did not miss any deadlines because he is waiting for IB to file the TAC. IB says they were denied leave to file a TAC, but in fact leave was granted in part.
So basically we have XF saying, "dismiss the case because IB failed to file a TAC." At the same time IB is saying, "enter a judgment against Mike for failure to respond after we were denied leave to file a TAC." There is some ambiguity as to the deadline that IB is using against Mike, but it looks to me like Mike is in the clear here. Also, this latest document from IB regarding TAC deadlines ignores the larger fact that IB has failed to serve new defendants from the SAC which is the basis of XF's request for dismissal.
If I had to guess, and if IB is being consistent, then I would say IB is trying to muddy the waters in an attempt to distract from their failure to prosecute.
Anthony Parsons
Well-known member
I think that was expected. IB will try everything in their bag of tricks to push this out... though I don't think they're going to change the judges mind on this one. Court date is set according to the judge. No more time to screw about. New evidence is going to have to get raised in court, if not presented by appropriate court dates... and such evidence would need reason, and fact. None of which IB have produced to date. I see no change in the near future either.
IB still haven't presented facts. Just nonsense statements which the judge has clearly seen through.
IB's attempts via Mike, as an individual, I feel will not persuade the judge to change the court date either. Individuals and XF are still viewed uniquely.
Shelley
Well-known member
This kind of think serves as a reminder why I canceled my vb license, an attempt to destroy lives. I'll be glad when all this is over tbh.
jonsidneyb
Well-known member
This has to have had a huge affect on the guys.
Fred Sherman
Well-known member
I'll never understand the circular reasoning that seems to be the cornerstone of the US legal system. Texas had a much better system in the 1880s. Meet at high noon, slap leather and let flying lead decide the victor.
Digital Doctor
Well-known member
From IB's perspective, the Lawsuit has been a success, as it has had chilling effect on XF's progress.
Even covering Xenforo et. al's court costs will be money well spent (like positive ROI).
Even covering Xenforo et. al's court costs will be money well spent (like positive ROI).
Adam Howard
Well-known member
I agree.
I don't think winning was the exact goal in my opinion. I mean if they could win; all the better for them, but I believe the true goal of this case from the start was to hurt a clear threat to Internet Brand's business. The had anti-trust written all over it from the start.
They knew vBulletin 4 was not pleasing people. And they knew XenForo offered exactly what people have been wanting all this time. vBulletin 5 was not yet in development and vBulletin 4 would require a re-write to get even close to XenForo... Which they've ended up failing on in vBulletin 5 it would seem.
So the goal was to kick the living sh*t out of XenForo and try to destroy it, rather than actually compete ... Something vBulletin just can not do (compete)
steven s
Well-known member
The love affair was over and xenforo was ripe for the rebound.
EQnoble
Well-known member
Funny you say that....by reading one of the latest docs again...I came across something the plaintiffs said or implied or whatever...something to the effect of xf conspiring to take away vb market advantage.
Again...I am not a effing number in a effing book...I am a customer and if you don't give me what I want I will go somewhere else....if you make it painful for me I will tell everyone in the world how horrible you are.
If it were not for xf popping up...I would have never started securing server hardware again and would have given up on working with the web and just went HAM on learning C++ only pounding out code in my own little corner of the world. I literally lost faith in web scripts because of what vb became and xf pulled me back in because of how engaging the system is and how well it was designed.
The nature of a market share and a lead in it is actually having a solid product that people want. Not pre-selling promises that you never make right on even a whole version later.
Every time I read a doc that vB puts out in court I cringe and my blood pressure rises. It is sickening...here I am contemplating starting my own legitimate business and now realize that if I do something REALLY good that people actually want...I may have my life thrown under a bus and my family and friends attacked.
Anthony Parsons
Well-known member
I think all competitors would love to claim this in a court of law. Unfortunately for IB, there claim is not a law based on how things occurred prior in this case, and California law for non-compete.
I completely agree... IB's aim was achieved the moment they started this, by hindering sales and putting a cloud over XF's head from the get go. Some customers borked at purchase, and still have, until the suit is finished.
AdamD
Well-known member
I just don't understand how a legal system, supposedly run and created by highly intelligent individuals, allows this kind of charade to go on.
I mean, when everyone knows something is wrong and should be forbidden, it usually is, so it makes you wonder why this kind of thing is allowed to go on.
I mean, when everyone knows something is wrong and should be forbidden, it usually is, so it makes you wonder why this kind of thing is allowed to go on.
digitalpoint
Well-known member
The legal system was created by politicians, not scientists.
ManagerJosh
Well-known member
I can hear Jadmperry just groaning now, shaking his head, and having a pick me up...
as ever the question is Cui bono.... who profits?
who makes money interpreting the laws?
who makes money"working" the law?
Who makes money making the law?
who makes money deciding what the law actually is?
if your answer is lawyers.... well you can work the rest out
Sador
Well-known member
You'd also be wrong.as ever the question is Cui bono.... who profits?
who makes money interpreting the laws?
who makes money"working" the law?
Who makes money making the law?
who makes money deciding what the law actually is?
if your answer is lawyers.... well you can work the rest out
steven s
Well-known member
as ever the question is Cui bono.... who profits?
who makes money interpreting the laws?
who makes money"working" the law?
Who makes money making the law?
who makes money deciding what the law actually is?
if your answer is lawyers.... well you can work the rest out
- Status