California Case Update

[Digital Doctor]

Interesting.

In a painful way.

The judge obviously wants this case to be settled between the two parties

There is nothing to settle.
Settlement talks would be worth it if guilt or innocence was legally obvious and the offending party was willing to accept that the end result is likely inevitable.
Prediction: settlement talks fail.

 

[Morgain]

If settlement meant IB withdraw their claims and pay all costs that'd be OK.
I don't see why a settlement like that couldn't be agreed.
The alternative for IB is go to court and lose, and pay costs. Agreeing to withdraw is slightly less loss of face.

Stand stromg XF.
Nothing less than all claims dropped and all costs paid.
Or go to court.

 

[Jake Bunce]

so another 2 yrs it is...

You do realize this is the end game for the lawsuit?

Unfortunately, it would appear that the judge does not see a clear cut judgement as it is.

Why do you say that? The fact that he didn't deny the motion for summary judgment (rather he deferred it pending the settlement conference) suggests he reserves the option to issue a summary judgment if there is no settlement.

"Settlement" meaning the parties need to compromise.

What compromise is there? Assuming both sides want money, do they split the difference and each pay each other half of what they want? That makes no sense. There is a winner and a loser. If the parties can't agree then it goes to summary judgment or trial.

There is nothing to settle.

You forgot about the lawsuit. That's what the settlement is about.

Settlement talks would be worth it if guilt or innocence was legally obvious and the offending party was willing to accept that the end result is likely inevitable.

The fact that the judge has deferred (not denied) summary judgment suggests the outcome is obvious. Also the fact that the judge is so adamant that there be a settlement.

A settlement will hurt xF no matter what, because it says they did something wrong. I don't care what it means "in the eyes of the law", people are going to think they did something wrong and having to pay out ANYTHING in any way says just that.

I think you are confused. A settlement is not a one-sided affair. The settlement could be in favor of XF. Obviously the judge sees the outcome as obvious, and he wants the parties to draw up a settlement to reflect that. Which side is favored? That is the question. But to say that a settlement hurts XF is ignorant because you can't know that.

 

[Lucas]

Good things come to those who wait.

 

[Jake Bunce]

Prediction: settlement talks fail.

Then the judge will probably issue a summary judgment after the talks fail. That's the indication anyways since he deferred a ruling. It seems he wants to give settlement a chance before issuing a ruling on summary judgment.

 

[vVv]

You do realize this is the end game for the lawsuit?

Well, supposedly the end game.. haha. I was just being sarcastic really lol. It took 2 or so years to get to this "end game"... and trying to do settlement, is most likely not what IB wants either, so more stalling of time (sarcastically saying = another 2 yrs) lol. And then with what you say below here:

Then the judge will probably issue a summary judgment after the talks fail. That's the indication anyways since he deferred a ruling. It seems he wants to give settlement a chance before issuing a ruling on summary judgment.

Means, possibly even more time for IB to use in their favor to stall (more yrs) lol. Anyway, I was just being sarcastic haha..

 

[DRE]

Jake is so optimistic it lightens the mood.

 

[Jake Bunce]

Jake is so optimistic it lightens the mood.

Are you implying that I am being unreasonable? If you have a different interpretation of the documents I would like to hear it. I am only stating inferences that are supported by facts. Everyone else is stating paranoid fear that doesn't seem to be supported.

 

[Digital Doctor]

The fact that the judge has deferred (not denied) summary judgment suggests the outcome is obvious.

If that is true, it's unlikely to be damaging to Xenforo.
Especially when you read the Statement of Facts.

 

[Morgain]

No IB cannot delay this for long. The judge will only allow a certain amount of time for settlement before he closes that down and takes action.
Deferring summary judgement suggests to me he is holding summary judgement in reserve as his next step.
.
If he intends to cut off settlement delays by going to court as his next step, he would have ordered it to go to court anyway. Because that would allow time for settlement before court date.

So he has chosen not to order to go to court. Instead he has ordered a settlement meeting - with his power to issue summary judgement as the big stick to stop any messing about.
Nice strategy.
It holds IB firmly in the hot seat to produce a good offer. If they don't the judge rules.
If they do make a fairly good offer it has to be good enough for XF to accept - if they refuse the judge rules.
IB is caught.

 

[EQnoble]

I haven't speculated based on my surroundings lately and I have been a good boy and shut my damn mouth for a long time in the lawsuit matter....however...this case has stressed me out even when just randomly helping around here when I can and that pales in comparison to the level of stressful interference this lawsuit has placed on this community, the company, the product and it's developers so I am going to babble here.

My take on this (speculation of course...), the judge is being a fair person and giving a large company a chance to make right for what they have done to a smaller upcoming company in the form of an attack against the company and individuals masquerading as a legitimate lawsuit.

 

[vVv]

Everyone else is stating paranoid fear that doesn't seem to be supported.

no no, wasn't intending for that though, although, 2 or so years later.. all this "underwear changing, if one doesn't fit right and nicely" is what makes more time tack on to it though lol. the whole.. "he's going to try this once, and if that doesn't work, then we'll do summary judgement" only means more and more time. IB has been using "time" in general, in their favor since day one.. and it continues to this day now.. the proof is in pudding lol.

 

[JacquiiDesigns]

My take on this (speculation of course...), the judge is being a fair person and giving a large company a chance to make right for what they have done to a smaller upcoming company in the form of an attack against the company and individuals masquerading as a legitimate lawsuit.

That's optimistic. I like to join you in this belief.

 

[Morgain]

vVv if the judge decides IB is messing about he'll issue summary judgement. That's final judgement same as a court trial
If XF receive a fair offer and refuse it, the judge will issue summary judgement. That's final judgement same as a court trial.

It's clever.
Because offering them yet another chance to negotiate settlement - and with another legal authority (magistrate) to double check - it cuts off appeal potential.
Very difficult to find grounds for appeal if they have had 2 years to present evidence + pre-trial settlement negotiation (last summer) + a more formal settlement proceeding + a second judge.

 

[Carlos]

I think the judge is weak... seriously. A settlement will hurt xF no matter what, because it says they did something wrong. I don't care what it means "in the eyes of the law", people are going to think they did something wrong and having to pay out ANYTHING in any way says just that.

That's basically what I said a few pages back. A settlement isn't good news.

If settlement meant IB withdraw their claims and pay all costs that'd be OK.
I don't see why a settlement like that couldn't be agreed.

But you have to understand that the other party has to give up something in order for the settlement to be agreed to.

This can be anything from a full buyout to an amount of shares being bought. IB has more than xF, they have just about a lot of money, which makes it overwhelming for KAM to swallow. I say, fight this suit to the end.

My take on this (speculation of course...), the judge is being a fair person and giving a large company a chance to make right for what they have done to a smaller upcoming company in the form of an attack against the company and individuals masquerading as a legitimate lawsuit.

I would love to agree with you there, but I don't think IB, or the larger public will treat it this way.

 

[Jake Bunce]

That's basically what I said a few pages back. A settlement isn't good news.

I think you are confused.

What about a settlement which calls off the lawsuit and pays XF's legal fees? How is that not good news?

 

[Morgain]

That's basically what I said a few pages back. A settlement isn't good news.

Why not Carlos?

Settlement means XF can insist on IB dropping their claims, not bringing any more, and paying costs, in return for XF not suing for damages.
IB get to avoid the bad PR of the court case and the rest is no more than what they're going to have to do anyway.

Settlement discussions in the past were not useful I agree. When settlement was discussed before it had no more than a pretty weak long term - if you don't agree this is going to have to go to court eventually. No real pressure to use.
Now it's - if you don't agree the judge is going to issue summary dismissal very soon indeed so you better accept.

 

[Carlos]

Why not Carlos?

Because there's an element of risk.....

I think you are confused.

Nope. I quote:

You would think that a settlement is "worth it." Truth is, it's not. Usually, a settlement includes stipulations.

For example, if you got hurt at a club, and the lawsuit went in and out quietly, they ask you to keep hush-hush on the lawsuit.
Some others, like companies stipulate you to part ways with the company [with pay], or work for them.

A settlement can include an acquisition offer of a company like xenForo, it can include killing off the project entirely, and work for them, it can include just about anything. And the worst part is, the defender/plaintiff [both] has to agree to this agreement. So, if you find out that xenForo was acquired by IB, don't get mad at them. Because KAM agreed to that settlement.

I think I remember Kier or someone on the xenForo team asked "what would it take for a settlement." I didn't like the sound of that, because it just sounds like they're trying to take the easy way out. Then again, it's actually a test to see just how "gracious" IB is.

Source: Post #5559

What about a settlement which calls off the lawsuit and pays XF's legal fees? How is that not good news?

Every settlement that has ever been put forth has stipulations, so xenForo has to follow IB's lead... as in, kiss their baby's bottom.

Settlement means XF can insist on IB dropping their claims, not bringing any more, and paying costs, in return for XF not suing for damages.

Based on IB's behavior towards the settlement inquiry, I don't think IB will just bend their knees...They want something...

IB get to avoid the bad PR of the court case and the rest is no more than what they're going to have to do anyway.

They think they can easily square away that "bad PR" and spend more money on marketing.

Now it's - if you don't agree the judge is going to issue summary dismissal very soon indeed so you better accept.

I don't think IB will give two limey $#!^ based on their behavior in recent months or years.

2 Long. Years. of legal arm wrestling by IB should have pissed this judge off by now. I'm surprised he kept patient for this long. There was an episode of The Good Wife recently that presented this exact stalling tactic the IB lawyers has been using.

In fact, I thought of this lawsuit when I saw it. I was like... "This is exactly what IB is doing!"

 

[Jake Bunce]

So you are saying that settlements are bad because they always involve ass kissing. That's a strong position. I will leave you to it.

 

[Carlos]

So you are saying that settlements are bad because they always involve ass kissing. That's a strong position. I will leave you to it.

Well, ass kissing is a bit far, but basically yeah. Because the other party has to agree to your stipulations. So, if IB agrees to a settlement, they're going to ask for something in return. If IB initiates the settlement in "good faith" as in being the "better person" they are going to come with their own stipulations.

You wonder why half of these settlements companies make have "the terms of the deal are not disclosed"? It's because they don't want to anger their customers.