California Case Update

Status
Not open for further replies.
Without reference to the 154 pages of previous material, are we seeing that what's denied is a request to dismiss a certain complaints against XenForo? If so that simply means, I suppose, that these parts of the case go forward, but some of the more extreme claims are killed. Right? Wrong? Indifferent, or am I reading this, at my advanced age, backwards?
 
Gene Steinberg said:
Without reference to the 154 pages of previous material, are we seeing that what's denied is a request to dismiss a certain complaints against XenForo? If so that simply means, I suppose, that these parts of the case go forward, but some of the more extreme claims are killed. Right? Wrong? Indifferent, or am I reading this, at my advanced age, backwards?
Click to expand...


Correct.
The ones in red go forward in the case.
 
And, of course, none of this necessarily assures anything when judgement is entered. But the removal of a "Conspiracy" charge sounds significant. Would that mean that the defendants, therefore, didn't plan on infringing vB-based intellectual property? So they didn't plan to steal the secrets then? Maybe it was an all an accident? That would appear to really hurt IB's case significantly to my non-legal mind.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
And, of course, none of this necessarily assures anything when judgement is entered. But the removal of a "Conspiracy" charge sounds significant. Would that mean that the defendants, therefore, didn't plan on infringing vB-based intellectual property? So they didn't plan to steal the secrets then? Maybe it was an all an accident? That would appear to really hurt IB's case significantly to my non-legal mind.
Click to expand...

Let me read the SAC, because I still haven't read that yet :/
 
Knowing the little I know about US law... it seems judges like to have things heard by juries instead of making decisions themselves. This was always going to a jury... IF VB ever allow it to by stop pulling out and making excuses at the last minute each time it gets close. Hopefully they do this enough that the judge will step in and close it down, finally recognising what they are doing.
 
Shamil said:
Let me read the SAC, because I still haven't read that yet :/
Click to expand...
Shamil,

It looks like your link to SAC is broken (at least for me, I get PDF Failed to Load message). If you have it handy, can you fix? If not, no worries, I can download another copy from PACER.

BTW, hope all is well with your health (IIRC, you had some surgery or were in the hospital).
 
jadmperry said:
Shamil,

It looks like your link to SAC is broken (at least for me, I get PDF Failed to Load message). If you have it handy, can you fix? If not, no worries, I can download another copy from PACER.

BTW, hope all is well with your health (IIRC, you had some surgery or were in the hospital).
Click to expand...

Hi :)

Let me reupload the SAC, it does seem dead.

Yeah, I'm in hospital with myocardiopathy :/
 
Shamil,

Thanks!

Sorry to hear of the health problems. I have known several people with that condition (mainly through my work; I deal with disability issues). It is a serious thing, but can respond well to treatment. I hope it goes that way for you. Take care and best wishes for your recovery.
 
Anthony Parsons said:
Knowing the little I know about US law... it seems judges like to have things heard by juries instead of making decisions themselves. This was always going to a jury... IF VB ever allow it to by stop pulling out and making excuses at the last minute each time it gets close. Hopefully they do this enough that the judge will step in and close it down, finally recognising what they are doing.
Click to expand...

Yes, essentially, that is my best guess as to why other claims were not dismissed. In the US, there is a strong preference to allow people their "day in court" and if there is any plausible way the plaintiff can prevail (at this stage, based on a presumption that the allegations are true), then the case will normally be allowed to proceed to trial. (It is very rare to actually get to trial as most rational parties will usually work something out by agreement prior to trial; given that it appears VBSI has business motives aside from the apparently weak merits, I think this is unlikely in this case). But, once at trial, the presumptions that the plaintiffs have to their advantage now disappear. The judge is unlikely to dismiss before VBSI has a chance to present its evidence. But, given that the evidence appears to be completely lacking, at the close of their case, it is possible that the judge will dismiss claims. If he does not at that point, he could also do the same after XF has presented their case in rebuttal. (There are actually a ton of permutations...the judge could wait until a jury rules, and still dismiss claims even after an adverse decision, if, for example, as a matter of law, the claims are not supported by the evidence or must fail as a matter of law. There could even be post-judgment motions that result in dismissal). The point is, once the evidence has been heard at trial, the policy issues with allowing them to present their claims go away- and there is generally a higher comfort level with dismissing claims that have been allowed to be fully presented and argued.
 
Shamil,

Thanks for all of your hard work. Take care of yourself and do everything you can to maximize your recovery.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom