California Case Update

Status
Not open for further replies.
Johnny Large said:
. But being fair here, if there was privileged access to that supposedly über valuable information, wouldn't IB be entitled to some relief? IB has misconducted itself on many issues, and we bear witness. But this particular issue is worth debating.
Click to expand...

Short answer, No.

Having access to "valuable information" is not a problem. That information would have to be a Trade Secret. Under California law, a trade secret is
"(d) "Trade secret" means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that: (1) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to the public or to other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and (2) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy." CA Code 3426.1.


The complaint alleges this:
45. Asusedherein,"TradeSecretMaterial"referstodocuments, informationandotherconfidentialmaterials,includingbutnotlimitedto, manufacturing,marketing,anddistributionmethodsandprocedures,business methods,andfutureplansandfeaturesforthevBulletinsoftware.


The problem, as answered by XF, is that future plans and features for vB were promoted extensively and were well known in 2009, years before the launch of XF. Therefore, they are not trade secrets because they were publicly known AND IB actually disclosed these features. I have my doubts that the features themselves would constitute Trade Secrets even had IB not promoted them publicly. Why? Because the features were in use on the market already. Examples:
  • SEO- This was well known and in use by vBSEO. The techniques used were discussed publicly on their website, as well as many internet communities. Oh, not to mention that Google Webmaster Central talked about the techniques. rel="nofollow" is not a tradesecret. Nor is user friendly URL's.
  • CMS- Joomla, WordPress. Not a Trade Secret. Oh, an not an XF feature.
  • Facebook/Twitter integration...using fb or Twitter API's? Not a Trade Secret.
  • Improved Search- Well, disregarding that the search was not improved, "search" is not a Trade Secret.
....You get the idea
IB would need to show that there was an actual Trade Secret AND that it was used by XF. Could be they are holding back for the courtroom scene where IBs attorney get to live out their A Few Good Men fantasy and, like Lt. Kafee, shout "I want the truth." But, if that is not the case, it makes no sense that IB has not alleged any concrete Trade Secrets or shown the use of Trade Secrets by XF.

So, long answer is also, No.

 
Based on what I've seen and read, I would also say no. There is nothing about xenforo that dozens of us have not thought about doing already.

SEO? -- vbseo and others already been there and done that.
CSS? -- check
Like? -- been around since the UBB days (Karma hack anyone)
Even the thread preview like pop up for the forum descriptions was something I wanted to do nearly 2 years ago but never had the time to get around to doing.
 
That makes a lot of sense jadmperry. I mean in every organization there is privileged information. And I guess I was fairly impressed with statement that vB made available millions worth of assets for development. But what you're saying makes sense, they have not made a more specific claim of what those trade secrets are, or proof that they were obtained.
 
All files upload as of time and date of post.

No new files on CM/ECF->PACER.

Principle post updated to reflect current information.
 
Johnny Large said:
That makes a lot of sense jadmperry. I mean in every organization there is privileged information. And I guess I was fairly impressed with statement that vB made available millions worth of assets for development. But what you're saying makes sense, they have not made a more specific claim of what those trade secrets are, or proof that they were obtained.
Click to expand...

Kier and Mike are the trade secrets...
 
turtile said:
Kier and Mike are the trade secrets...
Click to expand...

Hehehe...so true. Why doesn't IB just sue them for leaving IB? Or even better! Why doesn't IB send in a court order now requesting a labotomy of the two to extract the parts of their brains with the many years of experience they took with them? That isn't too far off from the rediculousness of the actual complaint either, from my perspective. Semantic HTML and SEO trade secrets. OMG!:o:p

xenDach
 
xenDach said:
Hehehe...so true. Why doesn't IB just sue them for leaving IB? Or even better! Why doesn't IB send in a court order now requesting a labotomy of the two to extract the parts of their brains with the many years of experience they took with them? That isn't too far off from the rediculousness of the actual complaint either, from my perspective. Semantic HTML and SEO trade secrets. OMG!:eek::p

xenDach
Click to expand...
They also used php to create XenForo, which is obviously a trade secret as well..
 
jadmperry said:
  • SEO- This was well known and in use by vBSEO. The techniques used were discussed publicly on their website, as well as many internet communities. Oh, not to mention that Google Webmaster Central talked about the techniques. rel="nofollow" is not a tradesecret. Nor is user friendly URL's.
  • CMS- Joomla, WordPress. Not a Trade Secret. Oh, an not an XF feature.
  • Facebook/Twitter integration...using fb or Twitter API's? Not a Trade Secret.
  • Improved Search- Well, disregarding that the search was not improved, "search" is not a Trade Secret.
....You get the idea
Click to expand...
I made this arguement at vBulletin, and here, too... nobody listened.
Sador said:
They also used php to create XenForo, which is obviously a trade secret as well..
Click to expand...
If that's true, then they [iB] should sue IPB and other major "paid" forum software already on the market.
 
I'm not sure IB's goal is to "Win" the suit.
Their arguments just don't constitute reasonable examples of violations of the law.
Sure ... I bet they hope "one of them sticks" ... but this isn't about winning.
It's about spending a bit of IB "chump change" hassling a new direct competitor who doesn't have the resources you have. Dragging it out forever would be a win for IB.
 
Digital Doctor said:
I'm not sure IB's goal is to "Win" the suit.
Their arguments just don't constitute reasonable examples of violations of the law.
Sure ... I bet they hope "one of them sticks" ... but this isn't about winning.
It's about spending a bit of IB "chump change" hassling a new direct competitor who doesn't have the resources you have. Dragging it out forever would be a win for IB.
Click to expand...
This is pretty obvious, and I think this reasoning has been posted a few times by others.
 
Digital Doctor said:
I'm not sure IB's goal is to "Win" the suit.
Their arguments just don't constitute reasonable examples of violations of the law.
Sure ... I bet they hope "one of them sticks" ... but this isn't about winning.
It's about spending a bit of IB "chump change" hassling a new direct competitor who doesn't have the resources you have. Dragging it out forever would be a win for IB.
Click to expand...
Uusually tactics like that don't work for shoddy businesses like iB. If you're a good company, you can bankrupt a direct competitor the same way iKonBoards was when they were sued. I know first-hand that you don't really need money to take out the direct competitor.

xenforo will survive this "bleeding" tactic that iB is employing. Most likely, a settlement would occur by the end of summer.
 
Fufu said:
idk, Internet Brands have a lot more employees that still need to give testimony.
Click to expand...
Problem is, half of them are lying, so that won't fly in court.

And 5% of the employees are no longer with the company in some form or capacity that they were in when the event(s) took place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom