California Case Update

Status
Not open for further replies.
Shawn, I original pointed out the Alstom and Bird bit to Kier a long time ago.

What I do believe though, is that Ervin, Cohen and Jessup are better equipped to deal with this case. I am not sure if IBSL use ECJ in other cases, but I suspect that they might do.
 
Could have been a conflict of interest. If there were any kind of case that may have involved them advising Kier, could have been on a contract or something similar, then they would have to excuse themselves from the case.
 
It's clear based on the discovery process and the motions granted/dismissed earlier that the Judge wants to see things through to get the facts, I doubt he will grant a motion to dismiss. Sorry if that's not what you guys want to hear. And boy do I hope I am wrong.
 
Floris said:
It's clear based on the discovery process and the motions granted/dismissed earlier that the Judge wants to see things through to get the facts, I doubt he will grant a motion to dismiss. Sorry if that's not what you guys want to hear. And boy do I hope I am wrong.
Click to expand...

I share the exact same thoughts as you.
 
Since this is taking place in California, may I suggest the defense lawyers have Kier use a vBulletin mouse that is either too big or too small for Kiers hands and say "If it doesnt fit, you must aquit". Hopefully its not judge Ito at the helm, fool me twice, shame on me!
 
The issue of personal jurisdiction is much different from (most) of the issues the court has already addressed. I would not look at the past as a good indicator of how the court will rule on this issue.
 
jadmperry said:
The issue of personal jurisdiction is much different from (most) of the issues the court has already addressed. I would not look at the past as a good indicator of how the court will rule on this issue.
Click to expand...
Agreed... just because a person works for a company, does not mean any country has jurisdiction over that person in a court of law. Even with selling things across borders nowadays through the web, it is very difficult to actually do anything to a person in another country, because jurisdiction is not a right of another country.

I get that XF are playing the game for image and so forth with VB in the US... me personally, I would have told them to stuff it in their backside and I will only deal with the country I am legally bound by which has jurisdiction over me.

The US do not own .com registration. VB can't stop Google spidering a .com purchased from another country, as all countries have access to .com TLD. Even Paypal... they won't achieve much by trying to stop sales through them, because Paypal have a UK branch in which XF can still accept payment via for US customers.

It isn't up to XF who buys their software and from what country they reside. VB can't do a damn thing under such circumstances of ignoring them... it would force them to the UK courts.
 
Anthony Parsons said:
Agreed... just because a person works for a company, does not mean any country has jurisdiction over that person in a court of law. Even with selling things across borders nowadays through the web, it is very difficult to actually do anything to a person in another country, because jurisdiction is not a right of another country.

I get that XF are playing the game for image and so forth with VB in the US... me personally, I would have told them to stuff it in their backside and I will only deal with the country I am legally bound by which has jurisdiction over me.

The US do not own .com registration. VB can't stop Google spidering a .com purchased from another country, as all countries have access to .com TLD. Even Paypal... they won't achieve much by trying to stop sales through them, because Paypal have a UK branch in which XF can still accept payment via for US customers.

It isn't up to XF who buys their software and from what country they reside. VB can't do a damn thing under such circumstances of ignoring them... it would force them to the UK courts.
Click to expand...

This might be an interesting read then. It came across my desk the other week.


Have a .com web address? Know the legal risks
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/have-com-web-address-know-legal-risks-ck-113355
 
That doesn't surprise me, but that talks about the US Government and specifically about a site that conducted gambling to US citizens. A US company who takes a person to court from another country, or another countries business, that is a completely different kettle of fish. The court does not have that jurisdiction in the US... the courts are not the US Government in civil cases such as VB vs. XF compared to the Government itself.

And even with TVShack, "links to, rather than hosting, copyright infringing material hasn’t stopped the extradition process" there was illegal actions being taken... even if just linking, they were intentionally supporting copyright infringement.

Keeps coming back to, if you don't do illegal crap you have nothing to worry about. The US Government is no different to any Government. Do something illegal and a Government is taking you on, chances are you aren't going to like the outcome.

Again though... vastly different when talking Government vs. US business.

IMHO, the way Xenforo has taken off across the world, I'd stick it on a .co.uk domain, host it internally within the UK, stop answering all IB's nonsense and make them come to me in the UK.
 
I think X hundreds of licenses sold into the US would give the US an arguable jurisdiction legally.
 
much like copyright issues with downloading movies, I think the world is moving towards blocking U.S. IP's from accessing their content for that exact reason. The U.S. will come after you in your country if their residents are breaking the law. For that reason alone, Im no longer buying .com domain names
 
I have written at length about this earlier (I think here, but also at the "other site"). There must, under the US Constitution, be at least "minimum contacts" with a jurisdiction in order for that jurisdiction to have personal (or in personam) jurisdiction over a defendant. A separate issue is whether there is correct service of process on the person (which can be a tricky thing in some cases, but I don't know how service was- or was not- accomplished in this case).

It is not a straight-forward issue, i.e., just because you are in another country does not mean- or really have much bearing- on the question of personal jurisdiction if otherwise there are minimum contacts. But, if you have never been present in a jurisdiction and have taken no active steps to "act" in a jurisdiction, then you probably do not have sufficient minimum contacts to trigger personal jurisdiction (this is, of course, a super-simplified analysis...just trying to give the gist of the law. How it plays out in the real world is obviously more complicated). The Supreme Court case is International Shoe, Inc. v. Washington.
 
jadmperry said:
Just read this: http://shamil.la/pdf/vbsi-xfl/105.pdf

To my eyes, this makes a compelling argument that there is no personal jurisdiction over Ashley.
Click to expand...
I would have to ask one question before making that decision. Did Ashley ever log on to VBSI/IB servers located in California?

I think that's the missing statement. Perhaps it was on oversight, but its curious that this wasn't addressed. If I'm the judge and he did log on to servers in CA, then I would reject the motion.
 
I don't think logging on to servers, wherever they are located, would do it...I highly doubt that that reaches the "minimum contacts" threshold. That said, it is always a highly fact intensive analysis (i.e., if he knew they were in CA, specifically meant to log on to "CA located" servers, etc....well, that might do the trick...I don't know for sure and am not going to research this issue, but my strong hunch is that between mirror servers and most folks not knowing where servers are physically located, that wouldn't meet "minimum contacts." Plus, that would be very hard to show via admissible evidence).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom