we_are_borg
Well-known member
Then there should be one more in that list there where two migrating away from Xenforo. Also that list is for bigboards some smaller once went back to vBulletin.
California Case Update
- Thread starter Shamil
- Start date
- Status
Then there should be one more in that list there where two migrating away from Xenforo. Also that list is for bigboards some smaller once went back to vBulletin.
Russ
Well-known member
And there were smaller vbulletin that switched to xenforo, what are you trying to prove here? The reference was to the big board list and marc claimed multiple boards switched to vbulletin, all I was doing was pointing out it clearly wasn't true. Anywho, I think you just got added to my list
Back on topic!
Fred Sherman
Well-known member
Its an alarming trend, especially when coupled with the departures of early adopters, former forum mods and coders.
The fact of the matter is this case doesn't have to end in a winner/loser scenario. It could end in a settlement where IB gets the Xenforo code as the core for VB5 and the XF guys get a payday instead of continuing to pour money into defense. IB agrees to pay their court costs to date, buys the code and provides them with some long term compensation.
Hypothetically, if negotiations such as this were in progress, it certainly would explain a great deal of what has been happening lately.
To explain it simply. There is an alternate and that is to liquidate XenForo, sell the code to a 3rd party UK company and continue from there. VB would be left hanging to dry, if they sued the 3rd party company they would be forced into UK courts and any expert witness would soon put an end to proceedings once he gives tesitmony on the underlying code base.
Fred Sherman
Well-known member
I don't think its quite that easy. This case, is at its core, a case of copyright and intellectual property. Both the UK and US are signatories to the Berne Convention, as are 162 other countries. This isn't something that can be avoided by national boundaries. It comes down to whether you want this tried in the courts of the US or UK, or if you'd rather roll the dice and let the World Intellectual Property Organization take it to the International Court. The latter, I imagine, gets a great deal more expensive with a far less likely outcome for either party.
- Albania
- Algeria
- Andorra
- Antigua and Barbuda
- Argentina
- Armenia
- Australia
- Austria
- Azerbaijan
- Bahamas
- Bahrain
- Bangladesh
- Barbados
- Belarus
- Belgium
- Belize
- Benin
- Bhutan
- Bolivia
- Bosnia and Herzegovina
- Botswana
- Brazil
- Brunei
- Bulgaria
- Burkina Faso
- Cameroon
- Canada
- Cape Verde
- Central African Republic
- Chad
- Chile
- China
- Colombia
- Comoros
- Congo
- CostaRica
- Coted Ivoire
- Croatia
- Cuba
- Cyprus
- Czech Republic
- Denmark
- Djibouti
- Dominica
- Dominican Republic
- Ecuador
- Egypt
- El Salvador
- Equatorial Guinea
- Estonia
- Fiji
- Finland
- France
- Gabon
- Gambia
- Georgia
- Germany
- Ghana
- Greece
- Grenada
- Guatemala
- Guinea
- Guinea-Bissau
- Guyana
- Haiti
- Holy See
- Honduras
- Hungary
- Iceland
- India
- Indonesia
- Ireland
- Israel
- Italy
- Jamaica
- Japan
- Jordan
- Kazakhstan
- Kenya
- Korea
- Kyrgyzstan
- Latvia
- Lebanon
- Lesotho
- Liberia
- Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
- Liechtenstein
- Lithuania
- Luxembourg
- Macedonia
- Madagascar
- Malawi
- Malaysia
- Mali
- Malta
- Mauritania
- Mauritius
- Mexico
- Micronesia
- Moldova
- Monaco
- Mongolia
- Morocco
- Namibia
- Nepal
- Netherlands
- New Zealand
- Nicaragua
- Niger
- Nigeria
- Norway
- Oman
- Pakistan
- Panama
- Paraguay
- Peru
- Philippines
- Poland
- Portugal
- Qatar
- Romania
- Russian Federation
- Rwanda
- Saint Kitts and Nevis
- Saint Lucia
- Saint Vincent and Grenadines
- Samoa
- Saudi Arabia
- Senegal
- Serbia and Montenegro
- Singapore
- Slovakia
- Slovenia
- South Africa
- Spain
- Sri Lanka
- Sudan
- Suriname
- Swaziland
- Sweden
- Switzerland
- Syrian Arab Republic
- Tajikistan
- Tanzania, United Republic of
- Thailand
- Theformer Yugoslav
- Togo
- Tonga
- Trinidad and Tobago
- Tunisia
- Turkey
- Ukraine
- United Arab Emirates
- United Kingdom
- United States of America
- Uruguay
- Uzbekistan
- Venezuela
- Vietnam
- Zambia
- Zimbabwe
In the proccess of correct liquidation all responsibilities of the previous companies are removed from any assets they sell. IB could add them all they want, it would mean jack.
If XF wanted to liquidate, and VB wanted to make a claim on the product in question, the dispute would have to be resolved in the UK system as the US has no juristiction over the business formation or dissolution of UK companies and its assets.
Kevin
Well-known member
How would that make it any different from the UK lawsuit that IB has already filed?
Fred Sherman
Well-known member
You are mistaken. Intellectual property protection is afforded to the originator, regardless of who the violator is or how they came into possession.
Passing the IP through many hands does nothing to weaken the protection given to the originator.
That is, of course, a theoretical argument. Having personally reviewed VB and XF code, that is not the case here, although it is the claim.
Just because a claim is made does not mean it changes the juridical laws of other aspects of business, it is also these points of juristicion which play such a large part in VB's attempt to drag out the case because they know they can play the US system. The point being at this moment in time no claim of IP has been upheld in VB's favor, and as such, if they wanted to intervene between aspects of business to busiess transactions in the UK, they would have to do it in the UK system.
Fred Sherman
Well-known member
You're arguing specifics, I'm speaking in generalizations. I have to, because I can't argue against XF. But as a general rule, because copyright protection under international law is afforded to the originator, there is no legal maneuvering of changing hands, companies, etc that will circumvent that.
Exactly, the specifics force VB into the UK system where this crap isn't tollerated. I know your point in general about IP, but im just pointing out VB arn't the only ones who can play the system.
BGL
Well-known member
At that point, VB has won. It would have put XF out of business. And the lawsuit is suing people so it does nothing for the XF principals named personally. Would VB care about pursuing them after it has put XF out of business, who knows but liquidation of XF is VB's goal.
BGL
Well-known member
BGL
Well-known member
Separated by a common language. Sounds like "Liquidate" is like Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in US where company is bankrupt, can't pay bills and goes for court protection to pay off it's debts.
Chapter 7 Bankruptcy is liquidation, the companies assets are sold and the proceeds distributed to the creditors.
VB is not a creditor at this point, it is a contingent liability for XF. So it doesn't do much for XF vs. the lawsuit, only helps them pay their bills. Lawyer's will want their money no matter what.
If XF liquidated, Chap 7, there's no more company and the software product's ownership is in legal dispute. If the authors of the software don't come with the product, it's not worth much. Even if they came with it, what company would buy the product knowing it faced a roomful of suits working for another roomful of suits with deep pockets.
Kevin
Well-known member
So... how would it be any different from the lawsuit IB already filed in the UK?
Similar,
In the UK, many companies in debt decide it's more beneficial to start again by creating a new company, often referred to as a 'phoenix' company. In business terms this will mean liquidating a company as the only option and then resuming under a different name with the same customers, clients and suppliers. In some circumstances it can be ideal for the company. It can be a way to start trading profitably having left unfavourable lease agreements and historic debt behind.
The point being, if XenForo were to liquidate they could force VB into the UK courts where this whole dispute would probably* have been finalised months ago.
We know VB and Xf came to an agreement to put the UK case on hold, now what terms that came with none of us know, however it would be fair to assume that 1) VB doesn't want the UK case to proceed and 2) XF probably couldnt of afforded to defend 2 suits at once. So it was the lesser of 2 evils. Face 2 crippling lawsuits at once and probably have to close down, or only have the cali case... but know VB are going to drag it out as long as possible...
*depending on many factors
It wouldn't be, the factor being if this case had been continued in the UK it most likely would have been finished by now.
The UK system takes an exceptionally dim view on the games VB's lawyers are playing.
Kevin
Well-known member
Then XF playing any kind of business games like liquidating would be a exercise in futility, especially considering that Kier & others are named as individuals in the cases and not just the XF corporate entity.
We'll be finding out if/when the US lawsuit is over.
- Status