[Barcham]

Originally Posted by BirdOPrey5

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.

I find that surprising. Here in Canada, non-compete clauses are common in the IT realm. I have signed many in my lifetime and generally they include a clause that states any product design based on the intellectual property or product line of the former employer within 'X' years becomes the property of the previous employer. I have always found that to be a reasonable term of a contract. But the law is the law and it there have been precedents set, you have to live with them.

Originally Posted by katie hunter

...

Just as i describe it, opportunists.

I don't consider that to be opportunistic, I consider it to be good business sense and a smart move. If you are skilled in a certain thing and you know what you can put on the market, and you know that you can do so legally and above board, I see nothing wrong with doing so. If you find yourself in a dead end, where you have no room for growth or advancement and the conditions of employment have deteriorated to be not in your favour, there is nothing wrong with branching out on your own. Without such 'opportunists', technology would have ground to a halt decades ago.

I still think their forums are very poorly moderated and more like a kindergarten than a place for adult discussion, however. And that does reflect poorly on the company as a whole in my eyes.