Shelley
Well-known member
I think the words "No s-it" & "Sherlock" applies here.
California Case Update
- Thread starter Shamil
- Start date
- Status
I think the words "No s-it" & "Sherlock" applies here.
EQnoble
Well-known member
- SEO
C'mere, lemme help you find a mess...by the way I invented the #! ...shebang beeches.
- Facebook Connections and Like Buttons
yeah facbook doesn't provide any of that themselves....http://developers.facebook.com/docs/reference/plugins/like/ , http://developers.facebook.com/docs/reference/fql/connection/
- Style Variables
Yup everyone's site should look the same as the next...even if it is powered by software that came out befoe vb
- Content Specific Search
Yeah I have never seen a search parameter before....
- Inline video, or video embedding
Really...video embedding is provded by the media source (youtube for example provides the media and embed code)...and the embedding method is usually bbcode (if a member is doing it)...
http://php.net/manual/en/book.bbcode.php, http://pecl.php.net/package/bbcode ...yeah they probably invented php too...
- Improved CMS
LOL! is all I can say...well is all I will say.
- Following a user
In function...following, add as friend, ad as contact...all words describing almost the same thing...you stay in contact with and watch content from those you choose...yeah lol they must have thought of that first...let me throw out my rolodex so as not to dispute the point.
jadmperry
Well-known member
Not quite right...copyrights exist under common law once the original work is created. The filing of and granting of Copyright only serves to prove evidence of the ownership and to give rise to statutory damages for infringement.
Not trying to sharpshoot or nitpick- just trying to clarify.
Reeve of Shinra
Well-known member
No-,- summarythe vbulettin won the case does that mean? =/
Reeve of Shinra
Well-known member
Can a judge provide summary judgement that is partially in favor of both parties?
MikeJaquish
Active member
Exactly my understanding. I have many photos on line that are © at creation, and often I have to request others to not use them, which I can request without registering. But, if I wanted to collect compensatory damages, I would need to register the photos.
And the "mail yourself the documents and keep them unopened" is not a workable strategy.
jadmperry
Well-known member
The issue with "non-literal copying" is somewhat complicated. I started to write a thread on this point but gave up because of the complexities...I figured that people would not catch this point, but, actually, I think it is a very important issue- one that vB will lose on.
For some background, read this: http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol21/iss1/6/
One of the important issues that I think is missing in IB/vB's argument is that they own the copyright to the structure and sequence of the code in the first place. (Remember, the plaintiff has the burden to prove each element). Past that, though, I think there are substantial failings in separating idea and expression in the claims in the first place. I think it is a huge deal that IB has abandoned literal infringement and has shifted to "non-literal" copying as the basis for its claims. (I think they have made their case harder to prove, but have injected more technical legal issues into the case by doing so).
In looking at the tests applied by the courts, it boils down to a two step analysis on "intrinsic" and "extrinsic" copying and each have different tests as well as issues on whether expert opinion is allowed to support the point.
Overall, complicated legal issues; to sum up my opinion, though, it still resolves in XF's favor. This on two bases- first, I don't think IB can show it owns copyright to the structure and sequence of the code. Second, I don't think they can show the expression of the code is similar enough to warrant a finding of infringement.
ManagerJosh
Well-known member
While not patent law we are dealing with....
Flash of Genius ?
Flash of Genius ?
jadmperry
Well-known member
Anything can happen and I am not laying Vegas odds on anything. That said, the judge in this case has stated his intention to get this case to trial (he likely wants it done with and off his docket). There is only so much to be done in prepping for a case and once you are "there," the only thing to be done is to try the case.
I would be shocked if the case is not resolved or tried by March to May timeframe. Could go longer, but I doubt it.
erich37
Well-known member
Thanks Jadmperry!
Question:
Does the following sentence apply in this IB vs. XF case? Meaning, would IB needed to have filed their respective Copyrights for this lawsuit ?
You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.”
Many thanks for clarification!
jadmperry
Well-known member
Not sure if this will clarify things or not....because the answer is yes and no. IB could still sue under common law copyright bases. So, technically, the above statement in bold is probably not right. However, they have plead and alleged that they have filed and are suing based on their registration of vB code (I do remember seeing in an early exhibit a copy of their application for copyright ownership...not sure if it was granted or not or if it is still pending).
erich37
Well-known member
Many thanks for your expert analyses!
So - as per my understanding - the following questions still apply:
jadmperry
Well-known member
Yes and no (sorry I cannot give just a straight forward answer to these questions- nature of the beast in litgation).
The Copyright claimed would be as to the code. However, I think that the issue is whether XF infringed based on sequence, structure, syntax, organization of vB claimed code. I think the analysis of this issue can be looked at in two ways- whether IB properly claimed these elements as part of their lawsuit or whether the lack of these elements being met are a defense to a proper claim. These issues have to do with who bears the burden of proving the issue in question and to be honest, I have not looked at how the Ninth Circuit case law deals with this point. The issues on this point are highly technical and hypothetically I am not sure what the answer is; however, I did not spend any time analyzing this point because I think other easier questions resolve in XF's favor.
we_are_borg
Well-known member
Did any one read 168 page 10 and 11 and then fact 13:
13. Darby disagreed with the decision, because the "update" project would be extremely complex, expensive and would not likely satisfy customers' expectations. In response, Darby and the rest of the Jelsoft staff were soon informed that Internet Brands was taking vBulletin development "in house;" all vBulletin development would be managed by Internet Brands, and Jelsoft staff in England would be responsible only for executing Internet Brands' instructions.
The response was Undisputed, so they knew that people would not be satisfied with vBulletin 4.
13. Darby disagreed with the decision, because the "update" project would be extremely complex, expensive and would not likely satisfy customers' expectations. In response, Darby and the rest of the Jelsoft staff were soon informed that Internet Brands was taking vBulletin development "in house;" all vBulletin development would be managed by Internet Brands, and Jelsoft staff in England would be responsible only for executing Internet Brands' instructions.
The response was Undisputed, so they knew that people would not be satisfied with vBulletin 4.
ManagerJosh
Well-known member
Anthony Parsons
Well-known member
I can't believe they're still trying to claim any type of ownership over markup based on forum software. VB weren't first to the market with forum software, so in essence they have themselves copied another's idea already.
- Status