California Case Update

Status
Not open for further replies.
To be honest, the main threat to XF as far as I comphrend it is the copyright infringement which as a claim is about credible as as the statement "George Bush Jr was a first rate, intelligent, peaceful world leader".

The main area that I honestly don't know about is more the contractual disagreements, but those are with KAM, not XF as a company.

Fundamentally, I suspect IB are kicking themselves that they didn't include a 3 year non-competitive clause, rather than 12 month.
 
MGSteve said:
Fundamentally, I suspect IB are kicking themselves that they didn't include a 3 year non-competitive clause, rather than 12 month.
Click to expand...
Judging from how things have turned, even if they did have a 3-year non-compete clause (which is pure insanity), I don't think IB would have acted differently.
 
MGSteve said:
Fundamentally, I suspect IB are kicking themselves that they didn't include a 3 year non-competitive clause, rather than 12 month.
Click to expand...
Do they hold any weight in the UK though? What is their value in the US?

They don't here in Australia, which is also Commonwealth law. You can include them in your employment contracts, however; as our lawyer stated, when you hit a court of law you cannot stop a person from earning a living within their field of experience that they know, of which they can earn monies to afford to live.

The only time it would apply, as we're told, from a legal perspective, is that if the employee took a customer/s with them upon termination, that is where that period of time would apply with legal enforcement, as they used inside knowledge and influence to cause damage to the company.

Whilst that is one of IB's claims, I believe XF opened after there contractual period, thus they didn't steal anyone away from VB that wasn't awaiting something better to escape VB's product, and whom didn't like what IPB was offering.

I remember a lot of people flocked to IPB after VB4.x was released, and that ensuing year or two. Then when XF hit the market, even more left because XF was simply superior as a product and a much better replacement to the forum product than VB4.x. Whilst I left because I felt IB stepped over the line with launching legal action against a startup who was doing it better than them, at the end of the day, I and my community have benefited from the decision in lower server and software costs, and post count going through the roof due to the addictive nature of XF software.
 
Anthony Parsons said:
Do they hold any weight in the UK though? What is their value in the US?
Click to expand...
California law specifically holds non-competes invalid except in very limited circumstances (that don't apply to this case).

I have written at length before and cited a case from the Ninth Circuit that basically shoots down anyone "losing their license" or having it "confiscated." If you want to read up on it, follow this link:

What happens to ppls forums if the worst comes from the legal accusations?
 
Anthony Parsons said:
You're baiting an argument IMHO, which is typical Joey posting style.

I suspected exactly what I thought from your question, as you continued your line of questioning, which is pushing towards an argumentative area of hypotheticals and "what if's," none of which anyone, including yourself Joey, can answer or pass judgement upon.
Click to expand...

Actually, that was not my intent, although the conversation kinda went that way on its own, not suprising here. Many only want to believe that KAM can do no wrong, and IB is evil and will get beaten in court. Niether has been proven true or false. What I am wondering is what people will think and/or do IF it ultimately proven that KAM did something improper. I am not saying they did or didn't, thats for a judge and jury to decide. But not contemplating the possibilities is bad business, dont you think?

Jadmperry.... Great write up. However, let me ask you this..... In your write up you quote:
In summary, Plaintiff's interpretation of 17 U.S.C. § 503(a) is incorrect; the statute does not permit the impoundment of infringing items in the hands of innocent purchasers who are not themselves liable for infringement. Count III will be dismissed with prejudice."
Click to expand...

Do you think an argument be made that because of this thread: https://www.vbulletin.com/forum/showthread.php/363883-Internet-Brands-claims-against-Xenforo and the various discussions here and elsewhere in the admin community, that purchasers were at least somewhat warned and as such are no longer completely "innocent", since they may have knowingly purchased software that may have been infringing?

We trust that software purchasers understand the risks of infringement of copyright law and act accordingly. We have requested that Kier, Mike and Ashley refrain from selling the software while the issues, inclusive of our infringement claims, are heard in the courts.
Click to expand...
 
Joeychgo said:
Jadmperry.... Great write up. However, let me ask you this..... In your write up you quote:


Do you think an argument be made that because of this thread: https://www.vbulletin.com/forum/showthread.php/363883-Internet-Brands-claims-against-Xenforo and the various discussions here and elsewhere in the admin community, that purchasers were at least somewhat warned and as such are no longer completely "innocent", since they may have knowingly purchased software that may have been ?
Click to expand...

In no way would their being "warned" or being aware of the controversy transform a person into an infringer based on those facts. I understand the thought process, but, no. There is nothing in the Copyright Act that would turn someone into an infringer based on having knowledge that someone has asserted a claim....also, there is a three year statute of limitations, so unless IB hops to suing mass amounts of folks now, the people who bought when XF first came out, they are likely to be outside the statute of limitations before any suit is filed....making them essentially unable to be found to be an infringer.
 
Anthony Parsons said:
The court can implement any number of things as it is a civil case, however; you keep forgetting one very important aspect of this entire case... being the US does not have overall jurisdiction over a UK company, and any US judgement can only affect US sales at the end of the day. IB would have to take it into a UK court to go after the UK directors and their assets (Xenforo being one such asset)... a US court does not have that jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
Correct me if I'm wrong but that would be a legal precedent and could heavily expedite and influence a British courts decision.
 
AlexT said:
Why would they have to come to your home? They simply tell your hoster (1&1) that you are running infringing software on their servers. End of story.
Click to expand...

..and I'd go to a new host....begin the story again? Boo hoo so my host lose a customer....it would stop us for what...an hour or two? It was an example.

IF that would solve the problem we wouldn't have so many issues with warez now would we? The obvious nail to the coffin of your counter point I might add. Nice try though. :rolleyes:
 
The simple answer is that we just don't know, but I'm sure we're all together in hoping for a positive outcome that allows XF to simply get back to normal and back to the business of trying to compete in the forum software market. (y)

It'll be quite nice having XF on an even footing with vBulletin and IPB - vying for pole position as the best forum software; good times for us forum owners with lots of innovation and new ideas/features coming our way. :D
 
AlexT said:
Well, there is no reasoning with you if you are willing to delve into illegal hosting or warez. Mind you, it's not an option for everyone.
Click to expand...

I'm not willing to be intimidated by big business. I choose to pay for Xen and play by the rules. I have no issue defying the iron clutches of IB. Not that they can seriously do anything anyways. Now drop it. This is a stupid thread diversion.
 
Lets give one thing to IB though, if it weren't for this lawsuit, they'd probably be crying themselves to sleep, no offense to the guys that work there, but it's the truth, from a client point of view.
 
AlexT said:
Well, there is no reasoning with you if you are willing to delve into illegal hosting or warez. Mind you, it's not an option for everyone.
Click to expand...
That's if they were able to revoke purchased licenses, which they wouldn't be able to do as far as I'm aware.
 
whyweprotest said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but that would be a legal precedent and could heavily expedite and influence a British courts decision.
Click to expand...
Not really, because the US legal system is completely different to the Commonwealth legal system. The US legal system is open to interpretation, it allows a lot of weight placed on precedence, it also basically allows a jury to decide in civil cases.

Commonwealth law does not work that way, and you MUST physically have proven all the proofs associated to a specific existing law, regardless of precedence, regardless of who has the best spin on things. If you cannot associate an actual law or ruling associated to the law (the only precedence acceptable), then you're screwed.

Commonwealth legal is not open to interpretation in civil matters. This is why IB had to put into escrow an enormous sum of money just to have that case sitting, awaiting, because Commonwealth law is not easy in civil proceedings. You can't just go around suing people in Commonwealth law because of accidents or incidents. If someone is at fault in a civil proceeding, courts don't issue ridiculous rewards to the other party, unlike the US courts do. There is no millions of dollars for being in a car accident, slipping in a shopping centre or such, not under Commonwealth laws.

You would likely offend a British court just by raising what happened in a US court... they literally wouldn't care and any judgement by a US court would have near zero weight on the Commonwealth system.
 
Anthony Parsons said:
Not really, because the US legal system is completely different to the Commonwealth legal system. The US legal system is open to interpretation, it allows a lot of weight placed on precedence, it also basically allows a jury to decide in civil cases.

Commonwealth law does not work that way, and you MUST physically have proven all the proofs associated to a specific existing law, regardless of precedence, regardless of who has the best spin on things. If you cannot associate an actual law or ruling associated to the law (the only precedence acceptable), then you're screwed.

Commonwealth legal is not open to interpretation in civil matters. This is why IB had to put into escrow an enormous sum of money just to have that case sitting, awaiting, because Commonwealth law is not easy in civil proceedings. You can't just go around suing people in Commonwealth law because of accidents or incidents. If someone is at fault in a civil proceeding, courts don't issue ridiculous rewards to the other party, unlike the US courts do. There is no millions of dollars for being in a car accident, slipping in a shopping centre or such, not under Commonwealth laws.

You would likely offend a British court just by raising what happened in a US court... they literally wouldn't care and any judgement by a US court would have near zero weight on the Commonwealth system.
Click to expand...
I concede.
 
Shamil said:
A backup is already being restored.

All I can say is "disgruntled employee" who authenticated without permission to perform alien operations.
Click to expand...
Shamil, nice to see you!

Could you please explain the actual situation in a few words? I´m not familiar with court words and that staff (I´m not an English native speaker) and for me is complicated to understand what is going on this case. I hope to see XF win, but there are many posts talking about "if XF lose the case"...so I would like to know how this is going.

Thank you!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom