California Case Update

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh, that was just the list of features Bruce says are similar. He goes on to cite other stuff in that document.

- similarly functioning phrase systems in XF and vB4.
- similar style systems in XF and vB4. Both use stylevars, template objects, template functions (xen:if)
- the choice of PHP and MVC.
- the use of the same public libraries.

This in addition to the overlapping features:

- Semantic XHTML
- SEO
- Facebook Connections and Like Buttons
- Style Variables
- Content Specific Search
- Inline video, or video embedding
- Improved CMS
- Following a user

Taken together, he argues that XenForo likely copied vB3/vB4.
 
What would the situation be legally if Kier had expressed the thought (while employed by IB) that "it'd be nice to build VB4 around MVC with some facebook functionality, etc" and then used that with XF?

Is that enough for it to be a problem? That's effectively what Meacham's suggesting isn't it? That he didn't want his plans for VB4 to "go to waste". Or did he mean literal plans, code, etc?
 
I think the comparison is being drawn to vB3 and vB4, not vB5. These are copyright claims, and to my knowledge the only copyrights that have been offered are for vB3 and vB4. These claims originated long before vB5 was released.

well, in order to claim a "Copyright" on something, then you need to file your "Copyright" with a Patent or Trademark-office:

http://www.copyright.gov/records/


So on what kind of "architecture" or "elements" of a website has IB/vB claimed to have a "Copyright" ?


Here are the documents filed, however I can not see for "which elements" those have been filed ?

vBulletin Solutions, Inc.:
http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pw..._rWY8y1CPwgh&SEQ=20121218040025&CNT=25&HIST=1

Internet Brands, Inc.:
http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=internet brands&Search_Code=NALL&PID=86kpD3R9VrrsBF-4UE8IiEo6kwZp&SEQ=20121218040225&CNT=25&HIST=1
 
What would the situation be legally if Kier had expressed the thought (while employed by IB) that "it'd be nice to build VB4 around MVC with some facebook functionality, etc" and then used that with XF?

Is that enough for it to be a problem? That's effectively what Meacham's suggesting isn't it? That he didn't want his plans for VB4 to "go to waste". Or did he mean literal plans, code, etc?

It wouldn't matter. MVC is a concept and an idea. It is one that is universally adopted by multiple programmers globally.

As for what Mecham said, remember it is what Mecham said. It is not what Kier said. Pamela has pointed out consistently that Mecham's skype logs were in the possession of IB's counsel and they never did anything with it. Why? Probably because there is nothing there.
 
well, if you claim to "own or have a Copyright", then you need to file your "Copyright" with a Patent or Trademark-office, as far as I am aware.

So on what "elements" of a website has IB/vB claimed to have a "Copyright" ?


Here are the documents filed, however I can not see for "which elements" those have been filed ?

http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pw..._rWY8y1CPwgh&SEQ=20121218040025&CNT=25&HIST=1

http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=internet brands&Search_Code=NALL&PID=86kpD3R9VrrsBF-4UE8IiEo6kwZp&SEQ=20121218040225&CNT=25&HIST=1
Copyright is not patents. You file for patents or trademarks, copyright is automatic, basically anything you create is your copyrighted material, as long as it is "copyrightable" (some countries demand "artistic merit" or something like that, to prevent excessive use of copyright).
 
Copyright is not patents. You file for patents or trademarks, copyright is automatic, basically anything you create is your copyrighted material, as long as it is "copyrightable" (some countries demand "artistic merit" or something like that, to prevent excessive use of copyright).

wrong!
You need to file for your Copyright in order to claim it.

See link:
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/

What is copyright?
Copyright is a form of protection grounded in the U.S. Constitution and granted by law for original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Copyright covers both published and unpublished works.

What does copyright protect?
Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section "What Works Are Protected."

How is a copyright different from a patent or a trademark?
Copyright protects original works of authorship, while a patent protects inventions or discoveries. Ideas and discoveries are not protected by the copyright law, although the way in which they are expressed may be. A trademark protects words, phrases, symbols, or designs identifying the source of the goods or services of one party and distinguishing them from those of others.

When is my work protected?
Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.”

Why should I register my work if copyright protection is automatic?
Registration is recommended for a number of reasons. Many choose to register their works because they wish to have the facts of their copyright on the public record and have a certificate of registration. Registered works may be eligible for statutory damages and attorney's fees in successful litigation. Finally, if registration occurs within 5 years of publication, it is considered prima facie evidence in a court of law. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration” and Circular 38b, Highlights of Copyright Amendments Contained in the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), on non-U.S. works.

I’ve heard about a “poor man’s copyright.” What is it?
The practice of sending a copy of your own work to yourself is sometimes called a “poor man’s copyright.” There is no provision in the copyright law regarding any such type of protection, and it is not a substitute for registration.

Is my copyright good in other countries?
The United States has copyright relations with most countries throughout the world, and as a result of these agreements, we honor each other's citizens' copyrights. However, the United States does not have such copyright relationships with every country. For a listing of countries and the nature of their copyright relations with the United States, see Circular 38a, International Copyright Relations of the United States.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Copyright protection in the European Union, see this:

http://www.eucopyright.com

http://intellectualprotection.wordp...-to-register-copyright-in-the-european-union/

http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/
 
In the E.U you do not need to take any action to copyright any original work you create. The second you create it you automatically own the copyright.
The problem arises when you have to prove you were the original creator and that is why it can be useful to file your work with a copyright register.
Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.”

As I said, copyright is automatic. Some recommend you "register" it so you have proof of ownership, but it is by no means a requirement.
 
As I said, copyright is automatic. Some recommend you "register" it so you have proof of ownership, but it is by no means a requirement.


read below:
You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.”


Again, the question is:

What kind of "architecture" or "elements" of a software/website has IB/vB registered to have a "Copyright" on, in order to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work.
 
Do you even read the links you provide? The general idea is that registration is not necessary, but it can provide additional benefits, such as proof of ownership. Again, copyright is automatic at creation.
 
Erich, sorry... Magnus is correct. You do not need to file anything for copyright. Not in the US either. It is voluntary. You only need prove the work is your original work and that you created it first. Lots of people do this the cheap way, being to collate their copyright data and put it into an envelope / postal package, have the postal office stamp the seal and then mail it to themselves, and then never open it. If needed for legal matters, a legal representative can open and verity its authenticity using the postal date stamped, as that is legally binding in a court of law to represent date of copyright.

DMCA is an exact example of this... the person only need lodge sufficient evidence to cite copyright authenticity, the rest is done and dusted, guilty until proven innocent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HWS
What would the situation be legally if Kier had expressed the thought (while employed by IB) that "it'd be nice to build VB4 around MVC with some facebook functionality, etc" and then used that with XF?

Is that enough for it to be a problem? That's effectively what Meacham's suggesting isn't it? That he didn't want his plans for VB4 to "go to waste". Or did he mean literal plans, code, etc?
No. Here is a point many people seem to be missing - the noncompete timeframe. It is designed for just this reason. The one-year timeframe allows the company losing an employee to maintain their competitive advantage. After the time period has ended, then the market has caught up, so there is no reason to hold a former employee hostage. In spite of everything IB has claimed, you must look at the market at the time XF was released. Were these VB specific features, or simply a common sense direction taken by an entire marketplace?
 
Copyright is not patents. You file for patents or trademarks, copyright is automatic, basically anything you create is your copyrighted material, as long as it is "copyrightable" (some countries demand "artistic merit" or something like that, to prevent excessive use of copyright).

Yes, "copyright" springs into existence with creation of an original work. However, filing for and approval of copyrights, under US law gives rise to statutory damages for infringement.
 
No. Here is a point many people seem to be missing - the noncompete timeframe. It is designed for just this reason. The one-year timeframe allows the company losing an employee to maintain their competitive advantage. After the time period has ended, then the market has caught up, so there is no reason to hold a former employee hostage. In spite of everything IB has claimed, you must look at the market at the time XF was released. Were these VB specific features, or simply a common sense direction taken by an entire marketplace?

Most of this is wrong. While perhaps logically correct, you have to look at relevant statues. Under CA law, non-competes are generally disfavored. Even "if" stated in an otherwise enforceable contract, CA law would generally not permit these terms- making the provision unenforceable.
 
From the "Status of lawsuit" thread, post #22:
IB has just requested that Mike's response to the SAC be stricken and a default judgment entered against him.
[...snip...]
The motion (see above bold text) will be heard tomorrow morning, Dec 17 at 10:00am California time (GMT -8). The ruling will be available sometime after that.
Does anyone how the ruling went on this? I assumed an update would be posted, but haven't seen one yet ...
 
That must be what they mean by "non-literal copying":

- Semantic XHTML
- SEO
- Facebook Connections and Like Buttons
- Style Variables
- Content Specific Search
- Inline video, or video embedding
- Improved CMS
- Following a user

Yes that is the idea they are trying to "sell" to the judge and jury. That they have these great building blocks which constructs the VBulletin forum software developed and conceptualized over several years of development. XF founders used all of these building blocks even though the syntax, technicalities might be different.

I am of course not saying that they are right, simply trying to understand how IB is trying to present this to a non technical person.

I still think, in spite of this, the law cannot decide over ideas and concepts... For IB to win they need evidence and proof that there was indeed an instance of copyright or original ideas theft. I suspect they will still lose, but the case as presented isn't entirely baseless to a non technical person at least.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HWS
- Semantic XHTML
- SEO
- Facebook Connections and Like Buttons
- Style Variables
- Content Specific Search
- Inline video, or video embedding
- Improved CMS
- Following a user

None of these are really legitimate as they are used by so many other forums and other internet software. If it were true, it is easy to say that IB is just copying everyone else.
However,

Does IB own the Trademarks to it's Style Variables ?
Probably not. As well, I'm sure you could use the same argument that IB is just using the same style variables as other software packages.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom