3 ms·
Dunno about him, but it would have to be a hell of a lot better than what they presented. They accuse Carmack of securely wiping evidence, so they had better pr
by chris_wot 10y ago
Dunno about him, but it would have to be a hell of a lot better than what they presented. They accuse Carmack of securely wiping evidence, so they had better present evidence that adequately proves it. And they haven't, so tough for them.
- rayiner 10y agoWhether anyone wiped evidence was not a fact that Zenimax had to prove. That data was deleted from Carmack's hard drive after he received a litigation notice is simply a piece of evidence the jury considered alongside all the other evidence (including testimony about alternative explanations for why data was deleted). From that evidence, Zenimax just had to prove that it was more likely than not code had been copied.
- graedus 10y ago> Zenimax just had to prove that it was more likely than not code had been copied. Isn't the standard in the US that one must "prove beyond a reasonable doubt", which seems like a higher standard than "more likely than not"?
- stock_toaster 10y ago"beyond a reasonable doubt" is only required in criminal cases. a "preponderance of evidence" is the requirement for civil cases.
- chris_wot 10y agoYup, and it's not a preponderance of evidence. As has been shown, it's quite possible the things they state are quite innocent.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]