The outcome of the proposed injunction, this June will either spread glory or doom, in a manner.
I need to reply to your PM now . I'm off the plane
California Case Update
- Thread starter Shamil
- Start date
- Status
The outcome of the proposed injunction, this June will either spread glory or doom, in a manner.
I need to reply to your PM now . I'm off the plane
Nasr
Well-known member
It means if the injunction is granted then the case goes in favor of VB. However, if it's denied that means the judge is not buying the BS IB is trying to feed him/ her.
None was submitted.
Exactly.
I wonder what this is:
Plaintiff’s claims for misappropriation of trade secrets are mooted by Plaintiff’s public disclosure of its alleged trade secrets long before the release of XenForo software.
I'll get some coffee now.
Edit: oooh: One or more of Plaintiff’s copyright registrations is invalid for failure to comply with the requirements for copyrightable subject matter set forth in 17 U.S.C. § 102.
that reminds me, who are Does 1 though 10? VBSI are keeping this closed.
TheLaw
Well-known member
A PI is a very drastic measure. It essentially asks a judge to decide the case immediately because if it's allowed to go on further, there might not even be a point in litigating. As such, most good attorneys believe and common sense dictates that filing for a preliminary injunction is the equivalent of "swinging for the fences." It's either home run or strike out. If you analyze the mechanics, it's easy to understand why.
The plaintiff insists that the judge should effectively end the case now as the outcome is obvious. It usually asks the court to demand that the defendant shut down business, hand over the most damaging items, etc. and then the smaller details will be filled in later to rubber stamp this decision. Typically this is also done when money damages would probably not be sufficient to compensate the plaintiff, e.g. the defendant is about to sell the private 5 million customers list of the company we bought to a third party and unless we get that list now, all of them will buy what we sell from another company.
Now the plaintiff is called to task to provide best evidence to show why the outcome is obvious - and it usually needs to use the best swing the plaintiff has. The cost of putting together your best offense is significant. If the offense fails, they better hit the ball to the warning track and not miss by much. If not, the judge will probably be convinced that the case is speculative and be disgusted that significant court time has been wasted frivolously by a far overreaching plaintiff. I don't have numbers but suffice it to say that whomever wins at this stage will very likely win if the case even goes to trial.
Without talking about details, a plaintiff usually needs to meet two burdens: (1) a substantial likelihood of winning the case, and (2) proof that money damages at a later stage wouldn't be enough. Typically a preliminary injunction is brought at the earliest stage a plaintiff knows about the defendant's conduct as it mitigates/minimizes the potential damages and allows the court to "nip the issue in the bud." It is logical to assume that if a plaintiff waits a long time before bringing a PI, a court might question why the plaintiff waited so long and then suddenly wants to court to do all the dirty work. In order to get a PI, usually a plaintiff must help themselves by going to the court in a timely fashion to request intervention.
I hope this explains things. Have a great weekend everyone.
The plaintiff insists that the judge should effectively end the case now as the outcome is obvious. It usually asks the court to demand that the defendant shut down business, hand over the most damaging items, etc. and then the smaller details will be filled in later to rubber stamp this decision. Typically this is also done when money damages would probably not be sufficient to compensate the plaintiff, e.g. the defendant is about to sell the private 5 million customers list of the company we bought to a third party and unless we get that list now, all of them will buy what we sell from another company.
Now the plaintiff is called to task to provide best evidence to show why the outcome is obvious - and it usually needs to use the best swing the plaintiff has. The cost of putting together your best offense is significant. If the offense fails, they better hit the ball to the warning track and not miss by much. If not, the judge will probably be convinced that the case is speculative and be disgusted that significant court time has been wasted frivolously by a far overreaching plaintiff. I don't have numbers but suffice it to say that whomever wins at this stage will very likely win if the case even goes to trial.
Without talking about details, a plaintiff usually needs to meet two burdens: (1) a substantial likelihood of winning the case, and (2) proof that money damages at a later stage wouldn't be enough. Typically a preliminary injunction is brought at the earliest stage a plaintiff knows about the defendant's conduct as it mitigates/minimizes the potential damages and allows the court to "nip the issue in the bud." It is logical to assume that if a plaintiff waits a long time before bringing a PI, a court might question why the plaintiff waited so long and then suddenly wants to court to do all the dirty work. In order to get a PI, usually a plaintiff must help themselves by going to the court in a timely fashion to request intervention.
I hope this explains things. Have a great weekend everyone.
Take a look at he case Blizard Entertainment vs MDY Industries.
A PI was brought in against MDY, but the case lasted 3 years afterwards, whereby MDY actually won the majority of the claims.
mrGTB
Well-known member
So from what your saying then, it looks like Internet Brands are not trying to drag the case out to involve a lot of cost for the XenForo developers anymore like we first thought, but in fact now want a fast decision made from what your saying. Very much the opposite of what most people have been thinking, including myself. Hmm, what's changed?
I suppose they might be looking at how things have not gone their way with vBulletin sales, and how the popularity of XenForo has progressed further to the point of getting them worried that they need to try and stop it fast.
Of course VB want a quick resolution. The sooner they can "kill off" the competition the sooner they can get back to not providing a quality product. However a PI puts a massive burden onto XF as even if the claims make it to court (which they will), it can be weeks or months (or years) later that XF wins and the PI is lifted, in all that time they would not be alowed to sell their product.
Peggy
in memoriam 2016
IMO, it's more that they know (or fear) they'll lose if this goes to a trial (jury), so they'd rather try their luck by getting the lone judge to decide the case sooner. That worries me.
Yup
PJ = Preliminary injunction.
'Very large camera' was a term Michael Grace and I came up with, as we didn't want to bore the Court with 'A Canon EOS-1D Mark III fitted with an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM', which is what I had with me on that day. A very inconspicuous little ensemble
PJ = Preliminary injunction.
'Very large camera' was a term Michael Grace and I came up with, as we didn't want to bore the Court with 'A Canon EOS-1D Mark III fitted with an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM', which is what I had with me on that day. A very inconspicuous little ensemble
I call real life hacks. How do you take a picture of your camera with your camera?!
PJ = Preliminary injunction.
'Very large camera' was a term Michael Grace and I came up with, as we didn't want to bore the Court with 'A Canon EOS-1D Mark III fitted with an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM', which is what I had with me on that day. A very inconspicuous little ensemble
Why not PI, actually, I'll leave it with PJ. Pre Judicata sounds better for me with PJ.
That's a nice set there!
Image for illustration purposes only
Actually, that camera was stolen from me in November 2008, and is currently residing with the Crown Prosecution Service pending sentencing of the grubby little oik in whose possession it was found last year.
Image for illustration purposes only
Actually, that camera was stolen from me in November 2008, and is currently residing with the Crown Prosecution Service pending sentencing of the grubby little oik in whose possession it was found last year.
Ah, so you'll get it back sometime in 2015
It should be PI, but you asked what The Law meant when he mentioned PJ
- Status