Current Litigation

[EQnoble]

How funny would it be if Kier and Mike show up to court with the whole exploded architecture of XenForo on a laptop-->projector and explain how it is nothing like vB by giving them an in depth tutorial to fully illustrate the blatant differences of the two running side by side.

Short PowerPoint presentation
Slide 1. This is XenForo. (examples of XF coding)
Slide 2. This is XenForo on drugs. (examples of vB4 coding)
Slide 3. Any questions?

Given the lack of any similarity between the code, slide 2 wouldn't exist.

What some people who are actually technical could possibly be more likely to believe/see would be :

Slide 1. This is XenForo - examples of XF code & architecture
Slide 2. This is vB4 - examples of vB3 code - wearing some mascara and a pretty hat with a selection handbag accessories
Slide 3. Any actual evidence?

That was my point of vaguely describing my dream ...no matter how you interpret it...it sounds ridiculous to say the least...

 

[ManagerJosh]

That was my point of vaguely describing my dream ...no matter how you interpret it...it sounds ridiculous to say the least...

Let us all remember we can not use geek, leet, or tech speak in the court. We must assume that the judge and jury are both non-technical people, and the average knowledge of using a computer does not go beyond turning on the computer and using it to check email.

We simply can not be throwing all these fancy technological terms. The second we say MySQL or PHP, their eyes are going to roll into the back of their heads and ears will go deaf.

A non-technical jury may very well believe that seeing the words "IF, SELECT, WHERE, WHILE, ELSE, ELSEIF" is copyright infringement. Why? Because it uses the exact same words.

 

[EQnoble]

Well it is not the defendants fault if judgment is passed against them without observing the facts of which comprise the basis for the original allegations in the first place. On those grounds it would be a sure motion for a mistrial as per the logic of - you must be familiar with the principles of which you are using to pass judgment with or the judgment is merely an unsubstantiated claim. This could go back and forth forever...but remember in the end...when the defendants can show they are free from the burden of accusation they can always sue for legal fees, time/earnings lost, court costs etc....

EDIT:
I don't see how a judge could make judgment without really knowing if the parties accused have actually committed any undesirable acts. Therefor the burden of proof would fall completely up to the accusing party to make the judgmental body understand what has been violated..if they can't there shouldn't even be a case...like I said before tedious and disgusting tactic.

 

[EQnoble]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Rules_of_Civil_Procedure

In most, but not all states (California and New York are significant exceptions), the state supreme court or a related administrative body has the power to write the rules of procedure that govern the courts through a rule making process. In a few states, court procedures are largely dictated by state law.
Most states model their general jurisdiction trial court rules closely upon the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with modifications to address types of cases that come up predominantly in state practice, and model their professional ethics rules closely upon models drafted by the American Bar Association with minor modifications. A minority of states, however, have idiosyncratic procedural rules, often based on the Field Code in place in many states before the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were adopted. Importantly, neither California nor New York State follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure model.

How convenient that California doesn't follow this procedure model or any of the substantiating rules...

Chapter VI deals generally with the trial of civil actions, although some other topics are also included. Rules 38 and 39 deal with the parties' right to a trial by jury and the procedure for requesting a jury trial instead of a bench trial. These rules must be construed in light of the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, which preserves a right to jury trial in most actions at common law (as opposed to equity cases). Rule 40 deals in general terms with the order in which cases will be scheduled for trial and has little significance in practice.

again crappy tactics....

 

[Kier]

Just noticed, that IB removed the paragraph about Kier soliciting Scott Molinari to join him from the FAC.

No, it's still there. Page 11, paragraph 32.

 

[Slavik]

No, it's still there. Page 11, paragraph 32.

No news on Mondays documents yet Kier?

 

[grant sarver]

How convenient that California doesn't follow this procedure model or any of the substantiating rules...

The case is not in the California state court system. It's in the U.S. federal court that just happens to be in California.

 

[TheLaw]

Something happened... I just saw all these new posts suddenly appear.

The bottom line is this -- the only thing that happened was that what seemed like a complete "no-brainer" decision to allow another court to hear the case didn't happen. That's it and the judge wants to hear this case too, I'm not sure of the reasons. The merits or lack of merits haven't changed. Nor has the ability of XenForo to go on and create more great software, for amazing talent here to develop more add-ons, themes and other goodies. With each passing day I look forward to what new magic comes out in this place. The feeling of seeing neat new stuff excites me.

 

[ManagerJosh]

Something happened... I just saw all these new posts suddenly appear.

The bottom line is this -- the only thing that happened was that what seemed like a complete "no-brainer" decision to allow another court to hear the case didn't happen. That's it and the judge wants to hear this case too, I'm not sure of the reasons. The merits or lack of merits haven't changed. Nor has the ability of XenForo to go on and create more great software, for amazing talent here to develop more add-ons, themes and other goodies. With each passing day I look forward to what new magic comes out in this place. The feeling of seeing neat new stuff excites me.

Why do I get the feeling we're observers of history in the making and of new legal precedent?

 

[Floris]

Note the bolded text. EasyDNS NEVER did anything towards wikileaks, in fact they offered TO HOST the site on canadian servers, the company that turned off wikileaks was everydns, and then easydns offered to freely host them.

So well top sites are hating on easydns, they have been supportive of wikileaks.

http://blog.easydns.org/2010/12/15/...uk-is-on-a-mission-to-put-us-out-of-business/

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/easydns/

Ah, I remembered the wrong one then
I have only been following it half-eared.

 

[Slavik]

Well it has been said this judge is "creative" with the law. Perhapps he wil let it run through and ammount thousands in costs then give a judgement in favor of XF to give IB the middle finger and tell em to stop picking on the small guy

 

[TheLaw]

Why do I get the feeling we're observers of history in the making and of new legal precedent?

I haven't seen the justification for the ruling so I can't say for sure whether this is an astute, insightful decision for which the weight of precedent exists or it's the kind of case to be quickly reversed on appeal, should one take place. According to an article I just read, the judge is one of the most reversed, if not the most reversed, in this circuit. Take it for what it's worth.

 

[Itworx4me]

I haven't seen the justification for the ruling so I can't say for sure whether this is an astute, insightful decision for which the weight of precedent exists or it's the kind of case to be quickly reversed on appeal, should one take place. According to an article I just read, the judge is one of the most reversed, if not the most reversed, in this circuit. Take it for what it's worth.

Maybe they should file a motion to dismiss the judge....lol

 

[gfc]

Interesting. I can see how the providers can deny the payment to be sent, but what on Earth can the card-companies do? Anyway, this is getting a little off-topic.

I do have the bitter experience that with all my Non-US Credit Card as well all the Non-US Credit Cards of my friends it's not possible to buy stuff on many US Websites. For example amazon mp3 downloads, ticketmaster, iTunes US Store etc. etc.

It's quite easy: the first 5 Numbers of visa, mastercard and amex are unique to the bank or card service provider that sells the card to the customer. With that it's very easy to distinguish from which country the buyer is from..

 

[Ati]

It's quite easy: the first 5 Numbers of visa, mastercard and amex are unique to the bank or card service provider that sells the card to the customer. With that it's very easy to distinguish from which country the buyer is from..

It is highly unlikely that every UK citizen will be denied access because of Kier, Mike and Ashley.

 

[Floris]

Wow, where did all the posts come from !! suddenly 2 pages of posts, and mine appears way later :/

secret sauce

 

[gfc]

Please think a little bit further. If I want to sell something to customers via credit cards, I need to be a customer of a service company (paypal, bank etc.) who offers me such a service. And for that I need a customer account. So the service company can - and will for sure - just block all transactions from specific countries on just that customer account if a court says so.

As I said: I can buy whatever I want with my swiss visa card on 95% of us webstores, but am specifically blocked on some webstores (examples see above).

 

[Itworx4me]

Wow, where did all the posts come from !! suddenly 2 pages of posts, and mine appears way later :/

secret sauce

Definitely something weird going on. There are several posts in page 42 that were deleted. Not sure why. They just talked about automerge. Could have moved the posts to a new thread but were deleted.

 

[jmurrayhead]

Definitely something weird going on. There are several posts in page 42 that were deleted. Not sure why. They just talked about automerge. Could have moved the posts to a new thread but were deleted.

Somebodies moderator finger must be antsy again

EDIT:: nevermind...I just saw another thread where posts are missing...and they weren't likely deleted. Weird.

 

[Ati]

As I said: I can buy whatever I want with my swiss visa card on 95% of us webstores, but am specifically blocked on some webstores (examples see above).

YOU are not blocked. Your COUNTRY is blocked. If YOU were blocked, you would not be able to use your swiss visa card either.

On the other hand, I'm not talking about using the card, but accepting payments from other people's cards.

Can a US court order prohibit a UK company (such as Moneybookers) from accepting payments on someone's behalf? (xenForo's in this case.) Sure they can willingly choose not to have xenForo as their client, but can they be ordered to do so by a US court order?

If not, then how does anyone in the world (other than Moneybookers) know who I send my $140 to? All that's shown on my card-statement is that I sent money to Moneybookers. Whether it was for xenForo or Julian Assange or my mother, does not appear on the statement. If they have no idea, then I think there is no way they can block that transaction.