Kim
Well-known member
Serious i really need to learn to read with glasses (there right beside me put i don't like it).
http://www.wikihow.com/Use-There,-Their-and-They're
Serious i really need to learn to read with glasses (there right beside me put i don't like it).
Or leaving the subject open and summarize all relevant information in the first postit's probably easier to just extract the actual updates and lock them all in their own thread.. with link to this 200 some page thread for discussions.
Or more likely vBSI knew they would loose in the UK Courts
It is also possible In many cases, the courts have favored local companies. Just look at the Apple-Samsung lawsuit.
Thanks for explanationsNo they would lose here because in the UK a litigant has to satisfy the prosecution service that they have at least some solid evidence for their complaint. They can't just make lists of any old whinge like IB did in California.
No they would lose here because in the UK a litigant has to satisfy the prosecution service that they have at least some solid evidence for their complaint. They can't just make lists of any old whinge like IB did in California.
I believe in some other USA Statues there are similarly tighter requirements like the UK.
But this is why IB was desperate to set the case in California because they had no evidence. Which is finally becoming clear to the Judge.
(in summary) as long as there is a prima facie case (that is, on first look, it seems like there could be a case to answer)
In the UK, in the vast majority of instances, the principal is very much that the loser has to pay the legal costs of the winner. As such, it got to a certain point where XF said "they have no assets, their case is weak, so please make them deposit money with the court to cover our legal fees if they lose". IB decided not to put that money up, and so the case (at last update) is paused.
That's it - what I said. It has to show a basic case.
I thought they did deposit the £100,000 required? Otherwise the UK case would be defunct by now.
No, VBSI has not made the required deposit, if they wish to proceed with the lawsuit in the UK they must make it, however I imagine they are waiting for the outcome of the cali case before doing anything with the UK one.
Thanks Slavik.
Is there a time limit on when they can make the UK deposit? Surely it can't just wait there forever?
I wonder what XF could get for damages. I believe a lot of revenue has been lost. And with this lawsuit in the US where huge sums are often asked and given maybe the case could actually turn out to be a good thing for XF. Wouldn't that be nice, some poetic justice for IB.
No they have not.Did XF win already? That's great news if that's the case
Did XF win already? That's great news if that's the case
yet.No they have not.
That's not really applicable at present though. The case would have to first be dismissed, lacking evidence. On that basis, XF would ask that IB pay legal costs / a percentage of legal costs.I wonder what XF could get for damages. I believe a lot of revenue has been lost.
That's not really applicable at present though. The case would have to first be dismissed, lacking evidence. On that basis, XF would ask that IB pay legal costs / a percentage of legal costs.
XF would be lining themselves up for a much worse time trying to counter sue IB for alleged lost sales. You would have to prove that from a history... which doesn't exist, as IB got in before sales begun, not after a history was established, showing a decline in sales. Taking individual declarations would not necessarily hold much sway either, as each person could then be asked to swear under oath and be available for individual cross-examination. The costs would be enormous.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.