California Case Update

Status
Not open for further replies.
Im just looking at that document and happened across section 13 pertaining to Mert Gokceimam. Could the case against Mert be dismissed based upon the fact they have not mentioned any wrong doing? Read that para carefully... they do not mention mert in wrong-doing, only Gordon.
 
Rob said:
Im just looking at that document and happened across section 13 pertaining to Mert Gokceimam. Could the case against Mert be dismissed based upon the fact they have not mentioned any wrong doing? Read that para carefully... they do not mention mert in wrong-doing, only Gordon.
Click to expand...

Probably just another one of VBSI's lawyers cocking up. they just C+P'ed the previous without changing all the relevent names.
 
Rob said:
Im just looking at that document and happened across section 13 pertaining to Mert Gokceimam. Could the case against Mert be dismissed based upon the fact they have not mentioned any wrong doing? Read that para carefully... they do not mention mert in wrong-doing, only Gordon.
Click to expand...
No, I don't think that section alone helps Mert....however, as regard to the claims against Mert, Frei, and Gordon, they all seem to have a solid (and probably rock-solid) defense against this action by invoking the arbitration clause of the agreement. Now, whether the arbitration results in a better outcome than the court action or whether it is to their advantage is a separate issue. But, I think they can "opt out" of the this case if they choose.

All of this assumes they have been properly served and the court has personal jurisdiction over them in the first place. I see several other defenses that they have (and, as an aside, the contracts appear to have been poorly drafted...In a cursory perusal of them, I see several flaws in the agreements).
 
Is it not demonstrative of VBSI just slinging mud when they have just copied and pasted the same claims for people? Surely? Copy / paste... change names. This is tell tale of a) pure laziness b) clutching at straws c) desperation
 
I am under the impression that the summons had been issued, but what happens with that and people getting served?
 
Wow, they are bringing "Steve Machol" into it all now claiming he helped with some illegal acts. That's the first time I've seen his name brought into things? As for Mert, well it looks very likely he'll be getting served reading this new post by Shamil.

Still reading it yet...
 
Slavik said:
5th, 7th, 8th and 12th.

Mostly the 7th but the other claims touch on / are related to the same subject.

http://blog.shamil.co.uk/pdf/vbsi-xfl/90-1.pdf
Click to expand...
You're painting with too wide of a brush. What the ruling means is that an employee, who is authorized to access a network, and subsequently steals data, cannot be charged under computer fraud because no fraud was perpetrated to gain access.

A hacker, who is not authorized access to the network, but gains it through fraudulent means can be charged.

A former employee who has had all access revoked, but subsequently accessed the network can be charged.

A former employee who obtained data prior to termination, cannot be charged.

Thats what the ruling means. Its not a blanket defense against computer fraud.
 
Mert said:
You are so pessimistic and possibly you don't even realise that with each of your message that try to defend the case , you are trying to pin more guilt to us. Incredible , i just hope a more happier life for your future.
Click to expand...
Thats BS.

The only defense Kier et al need is for the truth to be heard.
 
I think we all know the claims are ludicrous the moment VB sent them, claiming they have copyright over forum SEO, PHP, MySQL, XHTML, CSS, Like Feature, News Feed, etc.

There is still, to date, not one ounce of actual evidence submitted in documents that shows any wrong doing by XF employee's or existing VB employee's. There are only allegations, heresy, he said, she said nonsense. VB have not provided any documentary evidence to substantiate a single thing.

Now with the right for both parties to have all documents and for such documents to be lodged into evidence, to this day there is still zero evidence to substantiate a claim made by VB against anyone.
 
Fred Sherman said:
A former employee who obtained data prior to termination, cannot be charged.
Click to expand...

Which, if I recall the cases argued on this point, is the situation which Kier is being accused of, that he took information whilst he had "unfettered access".

Also if I recall they argued employees or consultants of VB gave Kier information after he had left. Those employees had access, so they cannot be brought under fraud either.

*edit* VBSI also claim Kier accessed their network after the fact as well as the above points.
 
Fred Sherman said:
You're painting with too wide of a brush. What the ruling means is that an employee, who is authorized to access a network, and subsequently steals data, cannot be charged under computer fraud because no fraud was perpetrated to gain access.

A hacker, who is not authorized access to the network, but gains it through fraudulent means can be charged.

A former employee who has had all access revoked, but subsequently accessed the network can be charged.

A former employee who obtained data prior to termination, cannot be charged.

Thats what the ruling means. Its not a blanket defense against computer fraud.
Click to expand...

That's no ruling you were quoting. That's the "Second Amended Complaint" filed by Internet Brands.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom