Current Litigation

[Peggy]

... the law has proved time and again that common sense has nothing to do with the law.

As we have just witnessed....

 

[Kier]

I don't understand the reasoning that two courts in two different countries with two completely different and separate legal systems cannot hear the case if both determine they have standing to do so. Can someone knowlegable please explain that? I'm not even smart enough to play a lawyer on TV when it comes to things like this.

Consider the following fictional example:

Adam is driving along the road while reading the newspaper. Bernard is driving his own car along the same road when suddenly Adam's car veers off course and crashes into Bernard's.

Bernard's car is a wreck, and as Adam has no insurance, Bernard decides to sue Adam in his home town of Bernardville. Bernard sues Adam using a Bernardville's law that states that one must have one's full concentration on the road when driving. Bernard seeks the cost of replacing his car in damages.

Then, Bernard decides to also sue Adam in Adamsberg, using an Adamsberg law that states that one must not read the newspaper while driving.

Bernard wins his case in Bernardsville, and Adam is ordered to pay Bernard the $20,000 that it will cost to replace the wrecked car. Adam duly pays Bernard.

Bernard then also wins in Adamsberg, and Adam is ordered to pay Bernard $20,000...

See where this falls over?

 

[MGSteve]

lol, see that's why you're doing what you do and I'm doing what I do! Far better and clearer than I could ever of explained it!

btw, just noticed that your last activity was listed as browsing this thread 14 mins ago, but you just made a post?

Kier was last seen: Viewing thread Current Litigation, 14 minutes ago

I know its off topic, but shouldn't it update when you make a post?

 

[Fred Sherman]

Consider the following fictional example:

Adam is driving along the road while reading the newspaper. Bernard is driving his own car along the same road when suddenly Adam's car veers off course and crashes into Bernard's.

Bernard's car is a wreck, and as Adam has no insurance, Bernard decides to sue Adam in his home town of Bernardville. Bernard sues Adam using a Bernardville's law that states that one must have one's full concentration on the road when driving. Bernard seeks the cost of replacing his car in damages.

Then, Bernard decides to also sue Adam in Adamsberg, using an Adamsberg law that states that one must not read the newspaper while driving.

Bernard wins his case in Bernardsville, and Adam is ordered to pay Bernard the $20,000 that it will cost to replace the wrecked car. Adam duly pays Bernard.

Bernard then also wins in Adamsberg, and Adam is ordered to pay Bernard $20,000...

See where this falls over?

Which gets back to my jaded belief that there is no justice in legal systems where the letter of the law is more important that the spirit of justice or a genuine interest in the truth. The scenario you describe is assinine, all the more so because it seems legally correct and patently unfair and unjust.

So maybe I can restate my question another way...

Is there some type of international law recognized by both the US and UK that would establish precedence for dismissing the case in one country since there is an active case is another. Because my fear is if the argument rests on the idea of fairness and justice, you need to make that case in the UK as it will only fall in deaf ears in a US Federal Court.

Of course in a truly fair and just world, this BS would never have made it past the filing clerk to begin with.

 

[MGSteve]

There have been similar situations before where two cases are filed on both sides - it probably actually happens pretty regularly. As far as I know they do try and avoid both going to trial. I guess if the California court decides its got jurisdiction (somehow) then that's where it will be heard.

But the truth is no-one really knows until the court enters session, unless a deal is brokered first.

Kier's analogy may well come to play out. Niether party ends up better off and the only ones who are better off are 4 sets of lawyers, 2 for each country.

 

[Salty]

Relevant

The UK government is putting its money where its mouth is. It’s appointed a panel of IP experts, to review the IP system – including copyright, trademark, patent and design rights, along with more informal types of IP – and its effect on innovation.

http://eu.techcrunch.com/2011/02/08...ke-the-uks-ip-laws-in-the-image-of-a-startup/

 

[MGSteve]

Good find there Salty.

Kier, do you know roughly, when you'll be able to expand more on the outcome from the hearing?

 

[Kier]

Good find there Salty.

Kier, do you know roughly, when you'll be able to expand more on the outcome from the hearing?

At the hearing, the judge read a prepared statement and did not allow any oral argument. We await the publication of the ruling to see if we can make sense of it from a legal standpoint.

 

[GofD]

Thanks for the update Kier.

 

[Peggy]

At the hearing, the judge read a prepared statement and did not allow any oral argument. We await the publication of the ruling to see if we can make sense of it from a legal standpoint.

What?? Neither side was able to argue why the case should/should not be dismissed?? That's insane.

 

[MGSteve]

Thanks for the update - insane indeed. I can only image that he wanted more time or something. Not to hear any arguments sounds, at the moment very odd.

To quote #5 - "Need more input"

 

[Lucas]

This whole thing just sucks. Hopefully you guys can keep going forward.

 

[AnthonyCea]

Me personally, I wouldn't even bother to attend or fight it in another country... what are they really going to do at the end of the day? Just don't go back to the US ever. I would just continue with the UK one personally.

Because if you don't answer a lawsuit or pay attention to it the judge enters a summary judgment against you and you lose.

Yeah if you are incorporated and want to throw in the towel you walk away and they take what they can (assets they can find), but if you are personally liable also, one tends to fight for their name if they have the resources to do so.

 

[TheLaw]

I don't understand the reasoning that two courts in two different countries with two completely different and separate legal systems cannot hear the case if both determine they have standing to do so. Can someone knowlegable please explain that? I'm not even smart enough to play a lawyer on TV when it comes to things like this.

It's the notion of fundamental fairness to litigants and the best use of our limited time and resources. If one court is acceptable to both litigants and there is just one argument/issue, it should be decided and finished in and by that one court. Some examples if you think about it:

1. There would be no justice if wealthy litigants could sue on the exact same issue five times in five different countries. Where does it end? When the defendants' money ends? What if they get 5 identical judgments on the same issue? Does the defendant now have to pay five times the actual damages?

2. Judicial resources are limited. In California, do you have any idea how long it will take for you to get your personal injury case going in court? Get ready to wait. If the same issue is litigated 17 times then people who have a legitimate case will never have their case heard. They will wait indefinitely for someone with an ax to grind finishes a colossal waste of judicial time.

3. Costs and fairness: If all the witnesses are in the UK, why are we making everyone fly out to California to testify? Who pays for all of this? If everyone involved was in the UK and it involves a UK company and UK employees, then all the evidence and people will be in the UK. Can we expect the witnesses to fly to the US? Would a US court even be able to compel witnesses to appear?

 

[Sadik B]

I have a question. If the california case proceeds to hearing, will the same judge preside over it? No disrespect or anything but i somehow get a feeling that IB's argument (all the frivolous whiteboard stuff and facebook page arguments) were made with this particular judge in mind. It seems IB's lawyers knew that they could get away with these arguments, which any tech savvy person would throw out immediately, with a person who may not be up to speed with internet technologies which have grown over the last decade.

So if the same judge is to preside over the entire case, XF guys really need to prepare their defense with the internet technology handicap (again, no disrespect intended) of the Judge in mind. And this would make the case much much more difficult for Xenforo i am afraid, compared to if a regular internet user person was to hear it.

 

[Edrondol]

If my 70+ year old parents are any indication, there should be an age limit for judges on technical trials.

(I doubt this judge is as bad as my mom & dad. At least I hope not. My mother curls up in a little ball & cries if a device has more than an on/off switch.)

 

[AnthonyCea]

The only thing lawyers prepare their case on is the law and other cases or legal precedent, judges are lawyers too !!

 

[DoctorWatsOn]

(I doubt this judge is as bad as my mom & dad. At least I hope not. My mother curls up in a little ball & cries if a device has more than an on/off switch.)

OMG, we seem to share the same mother.

 

[Peggy]

OMG, we seem to share the same mother.

We're triplets!

 

[Fred Sherman]

The only thing lawyers prepare their case on is the law and other cases or legal precedent, judges are lawyers too !!

Not always. In some states, "judge' is an elected position, meaning a judge is a politician, not a lawyer. But even that is a grey area. Look how many members (in every meaning) serving in the US House and Senate are lawyers?

So it seems to me that lawyer is the pupal form of politicians.

Q: What do you call 100,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?

A: A good start.

Think all this anti-lawyer stuff is new?

Jesus replied, "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.