|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 11:22 AM EDT |
It's hard to say there's a preponderance of evidence for
infringement if you don't know what infringement is. And I'm
fairly sure the presumption is still non-infringement - the
plaintiff has to prove guilt, not the other way around.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 02:05 PM EDT |
... ok, how's this:
Did Oracle prove the defendant's product practices
Claim X?
Hmm... Since I don't understand Claim X... I can't see how
Oracle proved that so: No!
Seems like a "default in favor of defense"
situation to me.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: xtifr on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 06:09 PM EDT |
Presumption of innocence (and the associated concept of burden of proof) still
applies in a civil case. It's true that the standard for that burden shifts
from "beyond reasonable doubt" to "preponderance of the
evidence", but that doesn't remove the underlying presumption of
innocence.
If you can only present evidence whose meaning and relevance is completely
unclear, I don't think you have a case.
---
Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for it makes them soggy and hard to
light.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
