California Case Update
- Thread starter Shamil
- Start date
- Status
F
Floris
Guest
Then delete them (or move to some offtopic junk thread), otherwise users just get away with it and spam more threads where we go and look for updates and information, clarifications and what not - just to read a bunch of bull and waste all our time.
This is a serious matter, the suits, and while some light humor is obviously welcome, it's not the reason of the thread. We invest money and time into this product and company. Some people might just do it for a hobby, others make 2500/month in ad revenue, having a bunch of offtopic bull in here doesn't help anybody and ruins the mood more than it improves. People that are interested in what something means, can not ask it, as the answer is perhaps given somewhere in 65+ pages, but buried under a pile of toooooo offtopic stuff. Every 3 pages it ends with the mods here saying "ok lets go back on topic". When does the quarter fall?
Ah yeah, I am sure by now you're writing in quick reply already 'dont troll floris' or whatever, rather than discuss internally what the best action is to take in regards to this thread, and that action shouldn't be to constantly tell people to go back ontopic .. Obviously it isn't effective.
Would you like me to also delete your off topic post too Floris?
Whatever we do, someone always complains.
Delete posts and we get called nazis/over zealous.
Leave them in place and we get accused of being slack/not doing our job/not allowing threads to flow.
Quite frankly I've had just about enough of people telling me how rubbish I am at this job.
Thanks as always for your helpful support.
Whatever we do, someone always complains.
Delete posts and we get called nazis/over zealous.
Leave them in place and we get accused of being slack/not doing our job/not allowing threads to flow.
Quite frankly I've had just about enough of people telling me how rubbish I am at this job.
Thanks as always for your helpful support.
DoctorWatsOn
Well-known member
Oh, thanks for clearing that up, I was a bit puzzled there - lol.
Yeah, I was thinking that could be the reason.
Probably played by someone with an America accent too.
And these two posts cracked me up!
whynot
Well-known member
Brett Peters
Well-known member
I really didn't want to contribute to the off topic part of this thread... But when Brogan seems to have hit a brick wall then I would say that we have a serious issue on our hands. I am sure that most would agree that Brogan does a fantastic job to the point that sets a standard for all forum Mods.
Brogan if you would like a contribution for either beer or a nappy fund (congratulations buy the way) please post or pm me your paypal addy as I will be more than happy to contribute, and if not, feel free to delete this post.. I figured I may as well have my say as this thread has gone so far off topic.
Peggy
in memoriam 2016
My question was overlooked, I think, so just bringing it to the current page.
Awesome-o
Active member
Is there any idea when this can be expected to be over? (the lawsuit)
I have to justify moving forward with XF on a couple sites and my partners will hear nothing of using a software package that is engaged in litigation like this.
http://www.thenewblackmagazine.com/view.aspx?index=2624
I have to justify moving forward with XF on a couple sites and my partners will hear nothing of using a software package that is engaged in litigation like this.
I know that is a commonly accepted notion but it is quite disputed by linguists. Just the first example I came across, but rather detailed.
http://www.thenewblackmagazine.com/view.aspx?index=2624
Nobody is 'covered' by the Does. They are 'placeholders' for parties as yet unknown to the case, and are a common element of US litigation.
Peggy
in memoriam 2016
Thank you.
F
Floris
Guest
It is not directed at you personally, it's just my dumb feedback to the team. I just express myself more than others. You're a great person.
Yes, my post is as offtopic as the ones people were talking about.
That's what it will come to, unfortn.
jmurrayhead
Well-known member
From what I understand, IB has abandoned the motion for preliminary junction, which, if granted, would prevent XF from pursuing a particular course of action. In this case, I'm assuming that course of action would be selling XenForo licenses.
This post may (or may not) help: http://xenforo.com/community/threads/california-case-update.10037/page-56#post-210313
This thread essentially covers it all: http://xenforo.com/community/threads/a-statement-regarding-the-current-litigation.7567/
I'm not sure I follow your question... there are as many motions as the parties choose to bring until the cut-off-date for motions comes around (which is not yet set).
well as far as i read on the pdf file provided by shamil there are several statements, the the hacking violatin which has 2 motions dismissed, and this one which has been dismissed days ago when ib didnt want to produce any vitnesses. i remember ib filed lawsuit in us for several motions or did i get it wrong?
TheLaw
Well-known member
It's not like there are 10 motions and then it's all done. We are in the phase called "pre-trial" which means exactly what it says - pre/before trial. What is trial? Trial is where a case gets heard before a judge or jury and a decision is made.
Most cases are settled pre-trial because that is the time when each party can request information from the other party ("discovery" of evidence) to be used as trial to show the judge or jury "proof" that they are right. Evidence can include email correspondences, digital data, the employment contracts in question, the code of XenForo and work done in preparation, etc. It is also an opportunity to ask questions of witnesses who are to appear at trial to get answers (depositions.)
During the pre-trial phase, the strength of each party's case (or weakness) becomes clearer as a result of the evidence and proof they obtain that either strengthens or weakens their case. The actual trial date is usually set at least several months after the complaint is filed (perhaps even a year) since (a) it can take a long time to perform discovery, and (b) the court wants the parties to settle if they can.
At this point, VBSI requested the court enjoin (prevent) XF from doing business before trial (motion for a "preliminary injunction".) No judge will grant that motion without a fair trial unless it appears certain the plaintiff will win the case and if it doesn't do so, the plaintiff will be harmed without remedy. For example, if VBSI claimed XYZ was about to drink the only bottle of champagne bottled by King Edward II, if it didn't stop XYZ from doing it, that prize champagne would be gone forever so it has to step in.
XF had a right to defend itself and requested that it be able to question VBSI's witnesses under oath and make them swear that what they are saying is the truth and also ask more inquiring questions about specific facts. For example, if a witness for the plaintiff vaguely claims that XF contains copied code then XF can ask "now that you've sworn code is copied, tell us, exactly what code specifically are you alleging has been copied?"
Just before XF was to question VBSI's witnesses, VBSI withdrew its preliminary injunction and now appears to want to continue discovery and wait for a trial date, at least on the surface. That could happen or, with more discovery, a settlement may take place. That doesn't mean that both parties suddenly become friends. It could mean that one party has decided to cut its losses realizing that it will not win its case, prosecuting or defending.
I hope this clears things up and look forward to the same spirited but "civil" conversation (pardon the pun.)
- Status