California Case Update

Status
Not open for further replies.
What's interesting is that on page 2, lines 10 and 11, they confirm what we all suyspected for a while.

"... Busby and two former Jelsoft software developers, Kier Darby (Darby) formed...'

No mention of Mike. Kier = two guys in one body. Two brains in one skull. Two tenderloins in a single T-Bone.

.

.

.

.

.


(j/k, Mike. You know we all respect what you do, but the line in the document was too funny NOT to point out)
 
I don't think logging on to servers, wherever they are located, would do it...I highly doubt that that reaches the "minimum contacts" threshold. That said, it is always a highly fact intensive analysis (i.e., if he knew they were in CA, specifically meant to log on to "CA located" servers, etc....well, that might do the trick...I don't know for sure and am not going to research this issue, but my strong hunch is that between mirror servers and most folks not knowing where servers are physically located, that wouldn't meet "minimum contacts." Plus, that would be very hard to show via admissible evidence).
I get what you are saying, but when I do work for VERITAS and log on to their servers, I know that I am logging into servers in Mountain View CA. When I do work for particular business unit of another client I work with, I know their servers are in Redondo Beach, CA.

How many times would you need to access a server in a case like this? My gut feeling is it could be as little as once, depending on what was accessed.

Anyway, I'm not saying that happened. It was the omission of a statement saying he never logged into their server that I found curious, because it left that door open. If he did not, then not saying so was a glaring omission. If he did, then the door is open to claim personal jurisdiction.

Obviously, I'm not a lawyer. I'm not even smart enough to play one on TV. This is my view as a technologist.
 
Funniest damned thing I've read all day. Thanks for that gem of a cherry on the crap sundae that has been my Friday.
Well, I just had fried ice cream with a cherry on top and it was quite delicious making my Friday ever better. :)

To be clear, there are lawsuits against Ashley, Mike, and Kier as individuals and another one against the corporate entity?

Since there are lawsuits in the UK and US, does that mean there is a total of eight lawsuits?

I am sure that number is off a bit. Can someone correct me?
 
Well, I just had fried ice cream with a cherry on top and it was quite delicious making my Friday ever better. :)

To be clear, there are lawsuits against Ashley, Mike, and Kier as individuals and another one against the corporate entity?

Since there are lawsuits in the UK and US, does that mean there is a total of eight lawsuits?

I am sure that number is off a bit. Can someone correct me?

United States -
Effectively, it is one lawsuit with multiple defendants.

Defendants, collectively comprising of: XenForo Limited, Kier Darby, Mike Sullivan, Ashley Busby, Darren Gordon, Colin Frei and Mert Gokceimam.

United Kingdom -

Effectively, it is one lawsuit with multiple defendants.

Defendants, collectively comprising of: XenForo Limited, Kier Darby, Mike Sullivan and Ashley Busby. It is unknown whether additional defendants have been added, however, I am under the impression that this is not [yet] the case.

In total, there are two lawsuits with multiple defendants.

Defendants are shared, but not equally, across both complaints.
 
The problem with these type of lawsuits, is they actually hit stale periods, whether you want them to or not.

Both parties endup waiting on court dates... so there is no further correspondence between parties or lawyers, thus costs are minimal.

For IB's aim, this will be counter productive, because Xenforo will have ample time to recover financially, build its brand and continue forward. Court dates will come around, and if IB again do the delay tactic, they will paint themselves into a corner they'll find difficult to get out of legally... providing justification to relodge dismissal notices based on detail tactics.

The end costs become little beyond the initial costs leading into a legal dispute. If you can get past that initial year of costs, then it slows right down awaiting court dates and such typically.

Quite honestly, I think IB's strategy will continually change trying to break XF... but if they have failed to do it up until now, I doubt they will now be able to crack that pot. The longer they delay things only goes against them in a case like this, it isn't going to help them because numbers continue to talk, with VB's going downwards due to their poor product and business ethics, and XF's going upwards, with their better product and business ethics.

Whilst one could try to use that argument for their justification... the case very much is based around VB's stupid decisions, their lack of coding ability to create what is essentially XF today, and so forth. They really just continue to shoot themselves in their own fat feet with delay tactics.

IF IB has a real brain, they would have had the most chance to break XF by pushing for a quick court ruling, then using the appeals process to push again, and so forth. That is how you drain the maximum funds in the shortest time and do the most damage, because then XF would be focused on court, not on building the product.

Once again, IB have done themselves another injustice in their half arsed tactics... they can't even break a company based on known principles, the same as they can't make a good software product based on known software principles.

It seems they suck at both things.

IB should drop all their nonsense and just stick with what they seem to do ok at, being ripping people of for buying their sites, plastering them with ads and moving on, buying, destroying, making some money, next website.
 
Quite honestly, I think IB's strategy will continually change trying to break XF

It comes across to me, that's been the pattern so far. They keep throwing new things up you really don't expect. Just when you think things are coming to a closure soon, or things are swinging strongly in XenForo's direction. They do something new that turns the whole thing on it's head ahead.
 
IB should drop all their nonsense and just stick with what they seem to do ok at, being ripping people of for buying their sites, plastering them with ads and moving on, buying, destroying, making some money, next website.
Such a thing would release the natural demand for better forum software that they have so desperately been artificially suppressing. I believe something is going to happen that will make the lawsuits meaningless (for the purpose of artificially suppressing demand for XF, not the cost factor).

Wait, what does Mert have to do with any of this?
 
Agreed... just because a person works for a company, does not mean any country has jurisdiction over that person in a court of law. Even with selling things across borders nowadays through the web, it is very difficult to actually do anything to a person in another country, because jurisdiction is not a right of another country.

I get that XF are playing the game for image and so forth with VB in the US... me personally, I would have told them to stuff it in their backside and I will only deal with the country I am legally bound by which has jurisdiction over me.

The US do not own .com registration. VB can't stop Google spidering a .com purchased from another country, as all countries have access to .com TLD. Even Paypal... they won't achieve much by trying to stop sales through them, because Paypal have a UK branch in which XF can still accept payment via for US customers.

It isn't up to XF who buys their software and from what country they reside. VB can't do a damn thing under such circumstances of ignoring them... it would force them to the UK courts.

Problem now is XF will have spent tens of thousands defending this in the US courts. If they want any chance of reclaiming that money they have to win, so dropping the case isn't an option.
 
So what would happen if XF just decided to stop defending themselves against IB "in the US court case", not the UK one. Obviously it would mean they lose by default, but what's the worse scenario that could happen seeing as they are a UK registered company, not US. And none of it's main owners are US citizens in Kier, Mike and Ashley.

Just curious?
 
For IB's aim, delays will be counter productive, because Xenforo will have ample time to recover financially, build its brand and continue forward.
Well, IB's aim is for this little company to start out it's first five years with lawsuits hanging over their heads.
IB has and will continue to delays things as long as possible.
Xenforo will only be able to go full speed ahead when the lawsuits are over .... so IB wants that to be a long time from now.
IMO.
 
Not only that, any company that might have an interest in buying XenForo limited or employers might now think twice. IB has directly managed to avoid any potential future acquisitions for the simple question of "Why buy a risk".
 
Not only that, any company that might have an interest in buying XenForo limited or employers might now think twice.
My understanding from Kier and Mikes initial opening statements, this is not even on the table as they learnt the first time round. This is their baby now... not a company for sale to the highest bidder so they can drive it into the ground like last time round.
 
My understanding from Kier and Mikes initial opening statements, this is not even on the table as they learnt the first time round. This is their baby now... not a company for sale to the highest bidder so they can drive it into the ground like last time round.

Everybody has a price.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom