28 ms·
If you then went to work at a competitor and the competitor claimed that you were copying their trade secrets, then it would certainly be relevant.
by gameshot911 10y ago
If you then went to work at a competitor and the competitor claimed that you were copying their trade secrets, then it would certainly be relevant.
- komali2 10y agoHow? A competitor is obligated by capitalism to do everything they can to level the competition. An accusation doesn't make fact. This is such a classic justice tale I'm sure it's memorialized in fable. You get accused of witchcraft: well that's weird, you sure have a lot of herbs around, huh? (bay leaves and garlic) What's that giant kettle for? (making soup. With bay leaves and garlic) Etc. The mere accusation can turn normal things into another incriminating "fact" when that is just not the case.
- dragonwriter 10y ago> An accusation doesn't make fact. An accusation with even a tiny bit of evidence supporting it can rightly be the basis of a conclusion of fact when the standard (as is generally the case in civil court) is preponderance of the evidence, and no evidence is presented on the other side.
- komali2 10y ago>preponderance of the evidence has not been demonstrated yet. Only the accusation. Furthermore, there's been no judgement.
- dragonwriter 10y ago> has not been demonstrated yet. No kidding. However, the present issues with a request for a preliminary injunction I require the court weighing, based on the information provided by the parties, a number of factors, including likelihood of success on the merits. As the "preliminary" part of the name hints, that's not a final assessment of the evidence, however deliberately wotholding exculpatory evidence now has adverse consequences.
- matt4077 10y ago> How? A competitor is obligated by capitalism to do everything they can to level the competition. An accusation doesn't make fact. There's no principle in capitalism, nor law, that would require(!) you to level false criminal accusations against competitors. The opposite is true. If Google's case were found to be entirely without merit, and intentionally so, they'd be liable for criminal prosecution themselves. Even the whole you-must-everyting-to-increase-shareholder-value-shtick is mostly a myth, by the way(mo).