TheLaw
Well-known member
Hmmm.... this news is hard to believe. The fact that VBSI brought a preliminary injunction more than 6 months after they knew about the "urgent problem" was highly unusual to begin with.
For those of you who don't know what an "injunction" is, it is a request for a court to do something that either restrains or permits something. In this case, VBSI was trying to claim that if XenForo wasn't stopped immediately, the damages would have been so devastating to almost render going through the case a needless exercise. For example, if you don't bring a lawsuit before a one of a kind priceless bottle of alcohol is drunk, then there is nothing a court can do to turn back the clock once imbibed or that a company had the right to a customer list but another party has stolen the list and is now migrating all of their customers to a service that is difficult to migrate to other providers. This never happens this late in the game because who will wait 6 months and then insist to the judge that he/she has to step in to stop a defendant - who has not yet been proven to have done anything wrong - from doing something such as selling their product to make a living? That's why the court has to also know that the plaintiff has a stupendous chance of winning the case before it can even consider granting the motion. Don't want to make such a drastic decision without good reason.
So here we are today and XenForo was about to put VBSI's witnesses under oath to talk details instead of vague claims without any actual proof. Understand that this motion for a preliminary injunction was not cheap - it cost serious bucks, perhaps more than some people make here in a year. The press release implies that questioning ("depositions") were also suddenly wiped away with the withdrawal of this motion. This means that IB's declarants (the people making statements and accusations under oath that you've read about) have temporarily escaped from having to answer questions regarding their accusations of copyright infringement, business practices, etc.
What is odd is that usually a plaintiff wants to get a case done as quickly as possible. The plaintiff comes to court saying "the defendant is screwing me - they are infringing upon my rights, stealing customers, etc." The longer it takes to settle the matter, the worse the situation gets. Here it seems the plaintiff is taking its time, filing motions, withdrawing them, etc. Perhaps this case may go on for another year, maybe two with the other case in the UK. The cost of these trials is astronomical.
That's what I see without drawing any firm conclusions. Take it FWIW.
For those of you who don't know what an "injunction" is, it is a request for a court to do something that either restrains or permits something. In this case, VBSI was trying to claim that if XenForo wasn't stopped immediately, the damages would have been so devastating to almost render going through the case a needless exercise. For example, if you don't bring a lawsuit before a one of a kind priceless bottle of alcohol is drunk, then there is nothing a court can do to turn back the clock once imbibed or that a company had the right to a customer list but another party has stolen the list and is now migrating all of their customers to a service that is difficult to migrate to other providers. This never happens this late in the game because who will wait 6 months and then insist to the judge that he/she has to step in to stop a defendant - who has not yet been proven to have done anything wrong - from doing something such as selling their product to make a living? That's why the court has to also know that the plaintiff has a stupendous chance of winning the case before it can even consider granting the motion. Don't want to make such a drastic decision without good reason.
So here we are today and XenForo was about to put VBSI's witnesses under oath to talk details instead of vague claims without any actual proof. Understand that this motion for a preliminary injunction was not cheap - it cost serious bucks, perhaps more than some people make here in a year. The press release implies that questioning ("depositions") were also suddenly wiped away with the withdrawal of this motion. This means that IB's declarants (the people making statements and accusations under oath that you've read about) have temporarily escaped from having to answer questions regarding their accusations of copyright infringement, business practices, etc.
What is odd is that usually a plaintiff wants to get a case done as quickly as possible. The plaintiff comes to court saying "the defendant is screwing me - they are infringing upon my rights, stealing customers, etc." The longer it takes to settle the matter, the worse the situation gets. Here it seems the plaintiff is taking its time, filing motions, withdrawing them, etc. Perhaps this case may go on for another year, maybe two with the other case in the UK. The cost of these trials is astronomical.
That's what I see without drawing any firm conclusions. Take it FWIW.
