http://www.p2pnet.net/story/5366 p2pnet.net - reader powered Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:11:09 -0300 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 http://www.p2pnet.net/story/5366/comment-page-1#comment-15851 Reader's Write Tue, 28 Jun 2005 18:33:59 +0000 #comment-15851 cool shit. cool shit.

]]> http://www.p2pnet.net/story/5366/comment-page-1#comment-15827 Reader's Write Tue, 28 Jun 2005 06:13:32 +0000 #comment-15827 In any form of argument, when a statement of some form is made, the burden of providing proof is always the responsibility of the entity that makes the statement. This is reflected in the requirement that the burden of proof rest upon the plaintiff or prosecution in court. If a product fits the Betamax case requirement of "substantially non-infringing uses" then the accusing entity must prove a lack of said non-infringing uses in the product; the only other option would be to show that the accused entity is promoting the potential infringing uses. In short, practically nothing has changed from Betamax with the exception of the likelihood of more lawsuits than ever before. In any form of argument, when a statement of some form is made, the burden of providing proof is always the responsibility of the entity that makes the statement. This is reflected in the requirement that the burden of proof rest upon the plaintiff or prosecution in court. If a product fits the Betamax case requirement of “substantially non-infringing uses” then the accusing entity must prove a lack of said non-infringing uses in the product; the only other option would be to show that the accused entity is promoting the potential infringing uses. In short, practically nothing has changed from Betamax with the exception of the likelihood of more lawsuits than ever before.

]]>