California Case Update

Status
Not open for further replies.
Anthony Parsons said:
Go offer Brin or Page at Google a trillion $$$ to sell Google. I expect they will turn you down as well... especially considering the pay themselves $1 as an income, as money is not important to them... Google is important to them.

Everyone cannot be bought... it is an un-factual statement.
Click to expand...

Expand your mind :) Who said the price would be in dollar notes.
 
Ok... offer them the solution the world hunger for their company! Oh wait... they're actually already one of the major companies in partnership with others currently working on that problem, along with Apple, Exxon and many others.

Sorry... you're being argumentative for the sake of it. A price does not factually outweigh morality, that is factual because you only need one person in the world to disprove everyone has a price... and there are plenty of people who cannot be bought in any circumstance.
 
D.O.A. said:
I'm behind 7 proxies, wearing a fake beard, baseball cap and sunglasses. Do I look worried?
Click to expand...
lulzsec said the same, you're probably also the first to snitch to the feds when they put you in the white van to safe your own butt.
 
Forsaken said:
I wonder what IB will think when they see this: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/04/code-not-physical-property

Doesn't this pretty much negate one of their false claims of Kier accessing and stealing code from their servers?
Click to expand...
It has no bearing on it at all.

In discussing whether the code qualified as a product of commerce under the EEA, the judges wrote in their opinion this week that contrary to Goldman Sachs’ source code being something the company distributed in the commercial realm, the company “went to great lengths to maintain the secrecy of its system.
Click to expand...

VB is distributed in the commercial realm, therefore it would be considered a product of commerce.
 
Forsaken said:
I wonder what IB will think when they see this: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/04/code-not-physical-property

Doesn't this pretty much negate one of their false claims of Kier accessing and stealing code from their servers?
Click to expand...

It would take a long time to explain why this is not that relevant to the IB v. XF case. I will try to give a short synopsis anyway.

1) Most importantly, this was a criminal case based on National Stolen Property Act. Different type of case (criminal vice civil- though, there are some derivative civil issues based on allegations about criminal law in IB v. XF case; I don't think the Goldman Sachs case touches on the same issues, though.

2) Also very important, the linked case was in the 2nd Circuit. The IB v. XF case is in the 9th Circuit. To the extent the 2nd Circuit case is relevant, it is not binding but only persuasive authority.

All that said, for reasons I have written about before, I think the entire case is garbage and IB should lose. Essentially, I think the case linked to is not that important to this case, but that does not change that XF should clearly prevail. We have not seen one bit of evidence produced that shows otherwise.
 
Anthony Parsons said:
Go offer Brin or Page at Google a trillion $$$ to sell Google. I expect they will turn you down as well... especially considering they pay themselves $1 as an income, as money is not important to them... Google is important to them.

Everyone cannot be bought... it is an un-factual statement.
Click to expand...
They pay themselves $1 as income but the bonuses and other things, I'm sure they got TOOOOOOONS of money from other places, that's just marketing bullcrap. :)
 
digitalpoint said:
That's assuming they actually did "steal corporate data" of course. lol
Click to expand...

But it would also nullify vbulletins claim even if they did.

As by VB's own admission, Kier had "unfettered access". So all the claims relating to that would be moot.
 
Slavik said:
Thats pretty substantial in XenForos favor.
Click to expand...
It has nothing to do with the case at all. If you read the ruling, it states if you are already permitted inside a network, then stealing data does not fall under computer fraud because you didn't get data through fraudulent means. Of, if someone inside the network sends it to you. But if you hack into the network, and that steal data, it is computer fraud.

In all three examples, the court is not ruling that it isn't theft or not illegal in and of itself, but that unless you actually hack into the network as part of the theft, it isn't computer fraud.
 
Fred Sherman said:
It has nothing to do with the case at all. If you read the ruling, it states if you are already permitted inside a network, then stealing data does not fall under computer fraud because you didn't get data through fraudulent means. Of, if someone inside the network sends it to you. But if you hack into the network, and that steal data, it is computer fraud.

In all three examples, the court is not ruling that it isn't theft or not illegal in and of itself, but that unless you actually hack into the network as part of the theft, it isn't computer fraud.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what Internet Brands is claiming though. Internet Brands is even citing the CFAA too.
 
Fred Sherman said:
It has nothing to do with the case at all. If you read the ruling, it states if you are already permitted inside a network, then stealing data does not fall under computer fraud because you didn't get data through fraudulent means. Of, if someone inside the network sends it to you. But if you hack into the network, and that steal data, it is computer fraud.

In all three examples, the court is not ruling that it isn't theft or not illegal in and of itself, but that unless you actually hack into the network as part of the theft, it isn't computer fraud.
Click to expand...

You are so pessimistic and possibly you don't even realise that with each of your message that try to defend the case , you are trying to pin more guilt to us. Incredible , i just hope a more happier life for your future.
 
Like I said months ago....this is just a tactic...

When there is no way to prove wrong doing, and accusations are made anyways...

It is easy to see that it is a personal attack under the guise of legal recourse and also in my opinion giving it any shred of validity makes a complete mockery of the legal system...

The purpose (the intention) of this case is clear to me and as an independent person this is how I see it...



For it to be a legitimate claim (I would not have anything against anyone or group making a claim with a basis in any form of reality) the plaintiff should actually be able to state what they lost and are trying to recuperate, and they should be able to properly address why a group or individual is responsible and those requirements in normal-people-ville are things anyone should be able to do before justifying the act of bringing someone to court or even be able to accuse anyone formally.

This to me is a dishonorable attack against a couple of guys, slashes made with malice in broad unskilled strokes of pens and papers with the intent to halt advancement on what one group viewed as a threat to their lapsed product.

It would seem to be the opposing logic that one can just accuse someone of everything in the book and hopefully after enough time spent in court the other person just can't sustain the charade.




I think of this as another example of why the general population needs to re-evaluate what should constitute a criminal act.

It would be nice if every person could act human even once in a while.....
 
Fred Sherman said:
It has nothing to do with the case at all. If you read the ruling, it states if you are already permitted inside a network, then stealing data does not fall under computer fraud because you didn't get data through fraudulent means. Of, if someone inside the network sends it to you. But if you hack into the network, and that steal data, it is computer fraud.

In all three examples, the court is not ruling that it isn't theft or not illegal in and of itself, but that unless you actually hack into the network as part of the theft, it isn't computer fraud.
Click to expand...

Have you even read the claims made against Kier...?

Just asking....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom