Internet Brands claims against XenForo

[tickedon]

i must of gotten an old version of the article then.

I'm still getting the old copy in Firefox, loaded it in IE and got the new version. Odd.

Do love the update at the end, nice of them to help Kier, Mike and Ashley out. I guess drinks are collectively all on us tonight/tomorrow?

 

[Gravity]

I don't think they helped out intentionally, but gave a balanced view. The facts favour xenforo.

 

[jonsidneyb]

I got one at 4:22 PM Central time so almost 2 hours ago.

 

[tickedon]

I don't think they helped out intentionally, but gave a balanced view. The facts favour xenforo.

I was more thinking about the update with the link to the buy page at the end - they could have simply linked to the release anouncement (which would have been more normal I think).

 

[Beth]

Ah I thought you meant elsewhere in the article, sorry!

No, i was right - oops. It was corrected

 

[snowman]

Filing the lawsuit was the last straw for me insofar as Internet Brands goes. I was suckered into buying a license for 4.0 during the fake "gold" presale, but they will never get another dollar from me. Thank god I am still running 3.8x on my forum. I was hoping for a long time Kier and the other former programmers would get back in the game after IB bungled everything possible and I am so happy it actually came to pass.

I purchased 2 licenses a few minutes ago, one for my existing forum and one for another future website I have been thinking about! =)

 

[OSS 117]

Oh how I love that they included this in the article:

I have a feeling I know who posted that comment, LOL.

 

[Jerry]

if (!$alphaTester)
{
       $this->installXenForo();
}
else
{
       $this->watchTheSilence();
}

 

[mrGTB]

TheRegister.co.uk has published an article;

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/05/vbulletin_sues_ex_employees/

I think some more IB heads might go rolling down the garden path tomorrow, after their share holders get wind of that - Again!

 

[Hannah_M]

if (!$alphaTester)
{
       $this->installXenForo();
}
else
{
       $this->watchTheSilence();
}

Be careful, IB may sue you for posting that code because it looks awful suspiciously like the code in Impex.

 

[jonsidneyb]

Wonders....should I get a second copy?

 

[Jerry]

Be careful, IB may sue you for posting that code because it looks awful suspiciously like the code in Impex.

Ah yes the "patent to OO" ........ my mistake.

 

[DSF]

Ah yes the "patent to OO" ........ my mistake.

... then it's better to remove again

 

[Anthony Parsons]

Interesting to read the Register has already updated its article with the purchase location. Nice...

 

[jonsidneyb]

Interesting to read the Register has already updated its article with the purchase location. Nice...

Where?

 

[Floris]

Where?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/05/vbulletin_sues_ex_employees/

 

[Anthony Parsons]

Right at the bottom of the article....

 

[Shelley]

Where?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/05/vbulletin_sues_ex_employees/

 

[jonsidneyb]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/05/vbulletin_sues_ex_employees/

Shelly....you are about as cool as a person can be.

 

[TheLaw]

This may be too much like splitting hairs. But I’m concerned that everyone should be reassured. and Michael’s post may easily cause unnecessary anxiety.
It wouldn’t be valid.
You cannot sign away your rights under UK law even if you wish to.
Whatever gave them the greater rights, their contract, or UK law, would apply.
If they spent some significant time in LA under USA contract it would be possible for their status to come under USA law if they agreed to it. But they’d have to become US residents, or be on an explicit c ontract to work in the USA under American law for a set period.
But they are known to have been UK residents all through.

Anxiety? The problem is the anxiety is all the speculation based upon misinformation about which precious little has been provided. People can quote UK labor laws all they want but my point is that the wrongs are probably more about (a) separation agreements which are different, and (b) copyright infringement, which isn't really affected by whether it's UK or US law since the issues are the same. Instead of all this speculation, why not wonder why IB didn't provide some clear hard hitting details if this case was such a slam dunk? After all, those same details should be in the filing...

There is no court case to be about anything yet, nor likely to be. But if there were it would be whether ex employees used code they developed while employed by their old company.
So the issue is whether they used work prepared on paid time by the old employer, OR during a year’s contracted no competition period.

The issue is that no details are forthcoming as to the claims being made. I can think of a dozen possibilities. Hence I'm saying don't bother speculating and then concluding as a matter of law on claims of action that may not be in issue.

It could take a few days to appear online. But anyone could check the records at the local Court to XF’s registered address. The fact that no one has come up with any case reference speaks for itself.
Also if there was a saerious filing it would include an injunction to stop the sale. An injunction can be had within hours if necessary. The website here would shut down.

No and no. What if the case was filed 10 minutes before the court clerk or the equivalent closes? It takes some time to make it into the system anywhere. With regard to the injunction, seriousness has nothing to do with whether or not you qualify. In almost any jurisdiction, if money damages are sufficient, a court won't just hand you an injunction. They are expensive and, in this case, IB may not even think they are necessary. In some proceedings the strategy is that, after sales are made, they are targets for additional damages.
So in conclusion, why don't we wait a day or so and then make conclusive determinations? For now, it's unusual that few specific allegations were shared and I'm moving forward from that...