California Case Update

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fufu said:
yes.
xenforo won.
check out the announcements or grace's website.
http://gracelaw.com/XenForo.html
Click to expand...

Xenforo has not won, the injunction requested was a huge part of the case, as this would have meant XF would have had to stop all sales, potentially surrendering all current earned monies from sales, and could have financially crippled the company.

However, the unwillingness of vBulletin to place its employees under oath to testify means simply, they do not think their case was strong enough, or it would have had to force its employees to lie, obviously the rammifications of lying under oath for both the person, and the company if they had forced them to do so would have been way bigger than anything this case would hope to settle.
 
Shelley said:
hmmmmm Okay can someone explain to me exactly what all this means. Is the California case now totally dismissed?
Click to expand...

Sadly, not yet.

It is a major victory within the case however, as it basically shows the court that IB have little to no evidence nor can it back the claims it has made against Xenforo.

That is my interpretation of it anyway, but I am not a legal expert by any means.
 
Slavik said:
Xenforo has not won, the injunction requested was a huge part of the case, as this would have meant XF would have had to stop all sales, potentially surrendering all current earned monies from sales, and could have financially crippled the company.

However, the unwillingness of vBulletin to place its employees under oath to testify means simply, they do not think their case was strong enough, or it would have had to force its employees to lie, obviously the rammifications of lying under oath for both the person, and the company if they had forced them to do so would have been way bigger than anything this case would hope to settle.
Click to expand...
They are asking for all evidence that is present to be judged, which my understanding is they have lost because VBS case is not strong enough.
 
Now lest put these two sentences together and try and analyze it.

"vBulletin withdrew the motion one day before XenForo's counsel was due to question vBulletin's key employees under oath. vBulletin refused to produce its witnesses and had no choice but to withdraw its motion."

My thoughts.

A: Someone did not want to testify. (Why)
B: Refuse to produce witnesses (Do the witnesses not want to be known?)
C: Will the refusal be able to be brought up again in later parts of this case?
D: If you are not willing to speak in court and will not produce witnesses how can you win later on in the case.

I hope this can be picked apart to see what all can be gleaned from it.
 
Fufu said:
I think it means xenForo won.
VBS is withdrawing their complaint, because they probably realize they are not going to win.
Because Errata means errors.
Click to expand...

do you mean that the california lawsuit has been dropped entirely and the remaining is the Uk lawsuit?
 
I must admit, this:

vBulletin withdrew the motion one day before XenForo's councel was due to question vBulletin's key employees under oath.
vBulletin refused to produce its witnesses and had no other choice but to withdraw is motion.

And other quotes from the documents, would make an excellent parody website

Especially the bits about the domain registration, "Large camera" and the whiteboard.

Heck they'd make a great comic book, to

IB: The white board incident.
IB: The case of the Large Camera
hehe
 
jonsidneyb said:
Where are the cheerleader smiles?
Click to expand...
th_100_.gif
 
Fufu said:
They are asking for all evidence that is present to be judged, which my understanding is they have lost because VBS case is not strong enough.
Click to expand...

They are asking for the Judge to make a judgement to stop sales based on the evidence at that particular point in time. I stress, this does not mean the case is won or lost simply because the injection could have been sanctioned.

Lets take it into another context.

I am suing Microsoft for selling a peice of software which can be used to "Crack" a program I sell. The software might be legitimate, but is well known for "Cracking" my program.

I could ask for the judge to place an injunction into Microsoft to stop them selling their software, because by doing so, every sale could potentially damage my business by allowing another person to crack my software.

The judge agrees, Microsoft is no longer allowed to sell the software until the evidence is examined, and my assets are protected while the case is decided.

After the injunction is in place, the case continues, however it becomes apparent a flaw in my software means the program microsoft is selling is completely legit. The injunction is then lifted.

Vbulletin is using the arguement that xenforo by being an actively saleable peice of software continues to damage their company by taking away potential "illegitimate" customers, hence the request for the injunction.

An injunction is not a final verdict on a case, it is done to protect the plaintiff from taking any further damages that may arise while the case is being decided from the actions of the defendant.
 
oh, thats still wonderful news. but how many motions are left now on california suit?
and are there any news about the uk lawsuit since we know alot of details from california but not from uk
 
maidos said:
oh, thats still wonderful news. but how many motions are left now on california suit?
and are there any news about the uk lawsuit since we know alot of details from california but not from uk
Click to expand...

The UK case is set for hearing next year, however if the california case is defeated, the UK case will most likely be dropped or dismissed to avoid VB taking even more losses.
 
jonsidneyb said:
A: Someone did not want to testify. (Why)
B: Refuse to produce witnesses (Do the witnesses not want to be known?)
C: Will the refusal be able to be brought up again in later parts of this case?
D: If you are not willing to speak in court and will not produce witnesses how can you win later on in the case.
Click to expand...
I think that the answer to all of those is the same. The case was brought by "corporate", witnesses are individuals and when it comes down to it there's nothing an employer can do to compel and employee to testify.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom