Digital Doctor
Well-known member
MEH.
Victory must wait !
Victory must wait !
Josh there are useful statements`on this thread about how the courts have a strong bias is to "allow them their day in court." Not merely a kind of fair play, but to block a vexatious litigant (hot air troublemaker) from using the appeal process to drag things out forever.
I have now compiled my own research review of this thread and others. I'll put it to work.
[EDIT: All quotes happen to be from this thread (the CCU) ]
Oct 19 jadmperry: ... preferred to let things go to trial so long as there is any plausible theory on which they might win. ... The law favors giving plaintiffs their day in court; ...
Nov 11 ’11. jadmperry: ... if enough evidence is not adduced at trial to support the claim, the judge will not let the jury decide. The law favors letting claims go forward to trial IF there is a plausible basis for the claim (and in deciding this they will assume what the plaintiff claims is true). This is a simplification, but is good enough for discussion purposes. So, in order to avoid appeals from cases that are borderline, many judges will let the case go to trial. But, if at trial there is no evidence supporting the claim, the judge will enter judgment in favor of the defendant.
June 6 ’12. jadmperry: The jury would decide whether there is enough evidence to make a finding. However, the judge also has a role and can find that as a matter of law, there has not been enough evidence to meet this standard (and would result in a JNOV- judgment notwithstanding verdict).
Oct 2 ’12. ENF: Document #128
Proposed Order for Dismissal
jadmperry: 2) The defendant's have moved for involuntary dismissal (which would result in a with prejudice dismissal and award of costs/attorneys fees). The ruling will be either a grant or a denial of this motion. But, the court's decision will be strengthened (for want of a better term) if it considers less harsh measures. I tend to think that if a dismissal without prejudice would come (which I don't think it would- I think you would get either a grant of involuntary dismissal, or strict orders for compliance with non-compliance followed with grant of motion for involuntary dismissal... the court would likely just explain how and why it considered- and then rejected a dismissal without prejudice), it would not be under Rule 41, but under the court's inherent power to manage its own cases and have compliance with its orders. This would give the judge more flexibility in fashioning the court's order.
My reading is that the recent back and forth re Mike and the TAC has thrown up enough dust that this needs to be cleared that it is nothing of substance. Plus the strong principle as above to allow a "day in court" to prevent later appeals: even if that day then decrees the complaints are unworthy of jury assessment, or even lengthy examination by the judge.
The motion was denied. At this point, the January trial date stands.
So Kier, ill ask again - what happens now for your customers and development?
Any idea?Any idea what the judge's thoughts were in this?
Thanks for the wonderful compilation Morgain. Jadmperry's insights never cease to amaze me, and while his insights carry significant weight on this forum, it does not necessarily reflect the judge's thought process. It is the judge's thought process in which I am eager to see.
[ the judge's thought process] may contain valuable information on how the trial will continue from here on out. It may also contain valuable information on whether the Court is choosing to manage its docket by letting the case go to trial in order to prevent future appeals or there is bias from the courts leaning one direction or another.
Eitherway, the transcript gives us an insight to what the Judge is thinking, and his overall attitude towards this case.
Nothing of substance will happen until the case is settled, it's a no-brainer, since nothing of substance has happened since it started.
.
I agree it's not sensible to expect XF development to take place right now at the peak of the court case.
Aug. 29 ’12. XF ANNOUNCEMENT (Ashley)
http://xenforo.com/community/threads/august-update.35633/
No new announcement has been made on development so we must conclude none will arrive till after the case is decided, other than troubleshooting, bug fixes and third party addons.
But it's not strictly true that "nothing of substance has happened since it started."
The case started up the day before XF went sale. So we've since had the beta, March 2011: 1.0.0 stable/ 1.1.0 stable/ various patches, the active Resource Manager on the core site, hundreds of addons and coding snippets, themes, designs, and a strong real community surviving in spite of external challenges and internal dramas!
Quite a lot really.
Nothing of substance will happen until the case is settled, it's a no-brainer, since nothing of substance has happened since it started....
Docket Text said:REPLY Support MOTION to Strike Answers Answer to Complaint[104] Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion for a Court Order Striking the Answers of Defendants Darby and Xenforo Limited and Entering a Default Judgment Against Them as a Sanction, or in the Alte MOTION to Strike Answers Answer to Complaint[104] Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion for a Court Order Striking the Answers of Defendants Darby and Xenforo Limited and Entering a Default Judgment Against Them as a Sanction, or in the Alte MOTION to Strike Answers Answer to Complaint[104] Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion for a Court Order Striking the Answers of Defendants Darby and Xenforo Limited and Entering a Default Judgment Against Them as a Sanction, or in the Alte MOTION to Strike Answers Answer to Complaint[104] Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion for a Court Order Striking the Answers of Defendants Darby and Xenforo Limited and Entering a Default Judgment Against Them as a Sanction, or in the Alte[133] filed by Plaintiff vBulletin Solutions, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Declaration of Russell Selmont)(Fraioli, Patrick)
This bodes ill for XF. It seems like the basis for their defense is being chiseled away.
We shall see if you are correct come Nov. 19th.This is all pretrial stuff. It has nothing to do with XenForo's defense against the actual allegations. XenForo tried to kill the case early. They failed. Now it appears it will go to trial. This doesn't hurt their legal position.
We shall see if you are correct come Nov. 19th.
So what are the procedural details still needing ironed out necessitating the hearing on the 19th?Absolutely I am correct. The issues being addressed right now are procedural. The allegations made by IB (such as copying vB's code) don't enter into it. That stuff will be heard at trial.
This is all pretrial stuff. It has nothing to do with XenForo's defense against the actual allegations. XenForo tried to kill the case early. They failed. Now it appears it will go to trial. This doesn't hurt their legal position.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.