| |||||||||||||
Burden of ProofBurden of ProofPosted Jul 5, 2006 22:09 UTC (Wed) by GreyWizard (guest, #1026)In reply to: Patent infringement suit filed against Red Hat (No Lobbyists As Such) by JoeBuck Parent article: Patent infringement suit filed against Red Hat (No Lobbyists As Such)
He could. But Florian Mueller could say something more convincing than "a little bird told me Mark Webbink lobbied in secret for software patents in Europe" too. Place the burden of proof where it belongs.
(Log in to post comments)
Burden of Proof Posted Jul 7, 2006 10:45 UTC (Fri) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link] Its true, one should not claim such a thing without being ready to support the claim in some manner.But don't you still think it's strange ? If someone claimed you did something, which you never did, what response would you most likely give ? "They can't prove it." OR: "I never did that, and they offer no evidence to the contrary." The crucial difference is plainly stating that you did not. "You can't prove it" does tend to sound very much like something someone would say when they are guilty as hell, but think that they managed to avoid leaving all-too-obvious evidence.
Burden of Proof Posted Jul 7, 2006 16:27 UTC (Fri) by GreyWizard (guest, #1026) [Link] How one responds to such charges will depend on personality and professional disposition (for example, a lawyer might develop a habit of writing obliquely). Interpreting Mark Webbink's response as some kind of rhetorical flourish is simple. Interpreting it as a distraction from an attempt to undermine his own documented efforts and the interests of his employer is complex. Making the latter work requires something more than an anonymous source passed along by a person with a history of hostility toward the copyright interests of the free software movement in general and an admitted grudge against RedHat in particular.
|
|||||||||||||