[BirdOPrey5]

Originally Posted by Barcham

If the founders of XF were former employees at VB, why were they not bound by a non-disclosure/non-competition clause in their contracts? I've been working in the computer business as a hardware specialist for 35 years and such contracts are a standard thing, especially in the software end of the business. If they were bound by such a contract, VB needs better lawyers who would make certain they were enforced. IF they were not bound by such a contract, VB/IB made a serious error and tough luck - deal with it.

As we saw from the documents released during the lawsuit they were bound by a 1 year non-compete clause.

XenForo didn't become a thing until the day the non-compete expired.

Part of the lawsuit was the fact VB felt this meant they were competing / breaking the agreement by working on XenForo (before it had a public name.)

The reality is however that the precedent set in both the State of California (where Internet Brands is based) and the UK make non-compete clauses unenforceable as a practical matter. Had those been the only charges in the lawsuit IB may have had the moral highground they would have easily lost the case.