Stuart Wright
Well-known member
Me too
California Case Update
- Thread starter Shamil
- Start date
- Status
robdog
Well-known member
I would have to check my local cache, but I didn't save a copy.
If anyone has or can find a copy, send it to me & I'll make it available. Once a document is made available through our government or courts, it is a public record protected by our First Amendment.
F
Floris
Guest
I support Shamil's decision, seems Google Cache hasn't caught up yet though.
Reeve of Shinra
Well-known member
Your not really missing anything in that document from what I remember. Sorry, didn't save a copy - read it on my ipad.
Pope Viper
Well-known member
Floris - Does that mean it's still available?
Pope Viper
Well-known member
Probably because he had it, and then discovered it was sealed.
I found XF when Randy Peterson, founder of FlyerTalk.com which had been sold to IB, came back with MilePoints.com running on an XF beta. I immediately recognized XF as greatly superior, if not yet full-featured platform. I was already past the point of buying any additional vB licenses and had been looking at IPB for future projects.
The need to get something going rather quickly arose last June when a bunch of us actively posting in the travel security area needed a new home, and I set up TravelUnderground.org with XF. The ease of installation clinched the switchover for me -- no more vB again, ever. Not having to use a separate product (vbSEO) for SEO purposes is a major bonus.
XF does still need to be fleshed out a bit. For me the stumbling block is thread tagging, but some solutions seem to be just around the corner. At that point I will convert two of my vB boards and probably just shut the other two down.
Whatever "customer list" I was on, I never heard from them. I've purchased six XF licenses on its own merits.
With regards to the UK case information, Petitioning the High Courts of Justice Chancery Division for information is not a simple process as we do not have a system similar to the US PACER. Requests often take months and as such the information Shamil posted was months "out of date" (aka the suspension of the US case has been agreed months before).
Given no official statement from XenForo (on what would seem to be an important announcement) he thought it was best to check first to make sure they were happy with that information being handed out publicly.
Given no official statement from XenForo (on what would seem to be an important announcement) he thought it was best to check first to make sure they were happy with that information being handed out publicly.
Pope Viper
Well-known member
Curse not being fast enough to see it.
Taylor J
Well-known member
Once it's public in that manner, it's public. Period. Stop. End of story.
We have a right under our First Amendment to report on it, blog it, discuss it, whatever. Once they let it out of the bag in that manner, there is NOTHING that Pacer or the Court can to un-release it. They can make it harder to find the information by removing it from their web site, which they've done, but once released the information remains public.
Moreover, the attorneys aren't idiots. They KNEW what they were doing when the file those documents. They just didn't realize how "interesting" a bunch of us would find them to be.
Since this web site is hosted in the UK and there is a parallel lawsuit in the UK courts, there might be legal consideration in play that are unique to the UK vs. the US; I'm not prepared to argue that. But from the point of view of those of us in the US, the information in those document is now public.
We have a right under our First Amendment to report on it, blog it, discuss it, whatever. Once they let it out of the bag in that manner, there is NOTHING that Pacer or the Court can to un-release it. They can make it harder to find the information by removing it from their web site, which they've done, but once released the information remains public.
Moreover, the attorneys aren't idiots. They KNEW what they were doing when the file those documents. They just didn't realize how "interesting" a bunch of us would find them to be.
Since this web site is hosted in the UK and there is a parallel lawsuit in the UK courts, there might be legal consideration in play that are unique to the UK vs. the US; I'm not prepared to argue that. But from the point of view of those of us in the US, the information in those document is now public.
And I have said any links to those files will be removed. Period. Stop. End of story.
Regardless of if you are right or not, if those files were intended to be AEO the last thing we want to do is give VB (who are actively watching these forums) more ammunition to throw at XF by claiming XF is supporting the release of AEO files or some other farfetched claim... even if the First Ammendment arguement clears the allegation, that would still be 2-3 hours of lawyer time XF would have to pay to have Grace and Grace defend the point which is another $400-$1200 bill they could probably do without.
I did read those documents when they were available... and to be honest theres nothing of overwhelming interest in there. However im sure the google cache will catch up soon enough so you can read them yourselves
Caliburn
Well-known member
Howdy fellas,
Been a while since I've been able to dive into xenForo. Can someone give me the bullet points to the current situation of xenForo vs. IB? I've read over the linked .PDF's and Slavik's blog thing but can't be arsed to read 176 pages on content. I need the short, concise, and clear version. Please.
Any updates from Kier on this? How is the case going no BS? Is xenForo secure in the future or is it iffy?
Been a while since I've been able to dive into xenForo. Can someone give me the bullet points to the current situation of xenForo vs. IB? I've read over the linked .PDF's and Slavik's blog thing but can't be arsed to read 176 pages on content. I need the short, concise, and clear version. Please.
Any updates from Kier on this? How is the case going no BS? Is xenForo secure in the future or is it iffy?
US case still being argued and thus far IMHO lacks merit and is a spurious attempt to destroy a competitor.
UK case still exists but is on hold probably pending the outcome of the US case.
Cost of XF is very reasonable and once you have it you can use it until you feel you have had value for money. If it works when you buy it then no one will remove aspects of it, so what have you got to lose.
No one has a crystal ball but if IB thought they would win the case they would have been in court by now instead of changing the story and witness list continually and admitting their aim was to drag the case out.
Whilst the information had been previously released to the public domain, the situation is that there is cause for it to be withdrawn - and that it the case.
Whilst you retain that right, I have revoked and removed the privilege of maintaining access to the relevant document(s). I am not sure how many people have actually kept a copy of the file. I should note that a court can order you to destroy data if it wishes so. Given that the court has ordered that the data can be refiled under seal, it's a matter of respect to the court and the case that we do not increase access.
It is possible that due diligence was not taken and they had inadvertently talked about matters for Attorney's Eyes Only. That said, I do find it concerning that the relative attorney(s) failed to recognize their issues prior to filing with PACER. It appears that Plaintiff's attorney has made filing mistakes again, the first being filing an incomplete document, later called to as the Third Amended Complaint. That said, if attorney(s) had not revoked docket 113 and petitioned the court to refile same documents under seal, there would be a significant breach of Title 2 rules, (2.551) I believe stating that a record which is filed publicly may not disclose material related to, including, etc. record or data under seal.
Now, I wonder if someone outside the case were to petition to court to release the documents under seal, as a matter of business practice, especially if this were taken to class-action level, should anything arise the subject of anti-trust.
The website is hosted on servers located in the United States. Furthermore, I currently reside in the United States. Additionally, I have assets in California which places me under personal jurisdiction of a Californian court.
- Status