California Case Update

Status
Not open for further replies.
ManagerJosh said:
That's no ruling you were quoting. That's the "Second Amended Complaint" filed by Internet Brands.
Click to expand...

What you going on about, did you even read what he said? He isn't quoiting that as being a ruling. He was highlighting things in the court docs covered by the new ruling.
 
mrGTB said:
What you going on about, did you even read what he said? He isn't quoiting that as being a ruling. He was highlighting things in the court docs covered by the new ruling.
Click to expand...

I know. But what was quoted, link wise, leads to the Second Amended Complaint.
 
Here's a great visual representation of how the current US civil legal system really works....

US Legal System.webp
 
ManagerJosh said:
Thought everyone would be interested in this.

Stealing Corporate Data Does Not Violate Federal Computer Fraud Law
article: http://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/s...snt-violate-federal-computer-fraud-law-042012

Court opinion and decision: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/04/10/10-10038.pdf
Click to expand...
The ruling has absolutely no bearing on our case, unfortunately. Different court, criminal vs civil etc. The cases that have a bearing are referred to as Brekka and Nosal.
 
Floris said:
lulzsec said the same, you're probably also the first to snitch to the feds when they put you in the white van to safe your own butt.
Click to expand...
you're thinking of surveillance vans, abductions ones are black... also, I highly doubt the FBI would waste their time or waterboarding over my thoughts on a rival forum software. I admire your attempt at sarcasm though.
 
Kier said:
The ruling has absolutely no bearing on our case, unfortunately. Different court, criminal vs civil etc. The cases that have a bearing are referred to as Brekka and Nosal.
Click to expand...

Im guessing your very quickly becoming an expert on the specific laws these days :confused: How does your brain cope lol
 
Kier said:
The ruling has absolutely no bearing on our case, unfortunately. Different court, criminal vs civil etc. The cases that have a bearing are referred to as Brekka and Nosal.
Click to expand...

Umm... isn't the ruling I posted United States v. Nosal?

Granted it is part of a bigger ruling and that in the brief I posted the courts interpreted that CFAA's rule of "exceeds authorized access" does not encompass to use violations.
 
I'm currently reading document 107-1, and in a whole lot of claims, the main words being used are:

VBSI is informed and BELIEVES
Click to expand...

Believing is for the church. Courtrooms require evidence, which VBSI supplied exactly none of for any of those claims.

They also keep refering to Lynne demanding all documents and other IB property were handed back and that Kier and Mike refused to do so. Yet, Lynne's own testimony already as much as stated that those claims were not true.

A number of follow-up claims refer time and time again to these alleged trade secrets that were refused to be handed back.

Stevie Wonder could see this whole case is more full of holes than a Swiss Cheese.
 
Internet Brands strategy is a flawed one. Customers know what's really going on and have voted with their wallets...more will follow as the cream rises to the top. The stench of fear is overwhelming and I suspect that the shareholders over at IB aren't smelling roses. :eek:
 
Deepmartini said:
I suspect that the shareholders over at IB aren't smelling roses. :eek:
Click to expand...
Considering Internet Brands was acquired for $640M, and Internet Brands probably acquired vBulletin for somewhere in the neighborhood of $20M... it works out to ~3% of their business. And even if vBulletin was completely failing and bringing in $0 revenue, I don't think a failure of such a small part of their business is much for shareholders to care about. It would be like saying shareholders are up in arms because Apple's sales of iPod cords isn't doing that well. :)
 
Yea, IB just cares about buying forums, throwing ads on them and not giving a **** what happens to them. Owning the software that runs their forums is just a bonus!
 
The parent company, Hellman and Friedman, is massive and IB is a tiny tiny part of their portfolio.
It's hard to imagine that this suit is anything except a personal grudge of some sort from the carryovers.......

Getty Images, Nielsen Ratings, Nasdaq, Doubleclick, etc. are shown as some of their former investments.

This lawsuit is the equiv. of a morning cup of coffee for them.
 
ManagerJosh said:
Umm... isn't the ruling I posted United States v. Nosal?

Granted it is part of a bigger ruling and that in the brief I posted the courts interpreted that CFAA's rule of "exceeds authorized access" does not encompass to use violations.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I didn't fully read your post - I assumed you were referring to this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom