3 ms·
Extraordinary claims, though, require extraordinary proof. And the onus is on Apple to prove what they allege. Somehow I don't think the judge will agree with y
by m0zg 7y ago
Extraordinary claims, though, require extraordinary proof. And the onus is on Apple to prove what they allege. Somehow I don't think the judge will agree with your rather lax definition of "company time". I'd define it more reasonably as "time during which company resources were used or company work was claimed to be done", i.e. you're in the office, or using company hardware at home, or specifically claim to be working from home, stuff like that.
- alpha_squared 7y agoEven _that_ can be dicey, though. I can imagine being at a meeting with coworkers and concluding with, "hey, I'd like to talk to you about something later," to one of them. Later could've been outside the office -- it's unknown. That sounds like company time, but feels a little wrong. I think this case is going to be very heavily dependent on technicalities.
- akiselev 7y agoIANAL but this is a civil suit so the standard is going to be a "preponderance of the evidence." Both Apple and Williams could have solid, equally valid arguments for their side and one small detail could tip the scales to either direction. Beyond demonstrating the basic facts of the case, Apple doesn't have to prove that Williams was 100% doing it on his own time, just muddy the waters enough for some other detail like using a company device or recruiting coworkers to put them over the top. That doesn't preclude the jury deciding in Apple's favor but then awarding them something symbolic like $1.