Re: companies like microsoft and telia...
From: "Peter Galbavy" <peter.galbavy@knowtion.net> Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 12:36:02 +0100 Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Paul Vixie wrote:
consider microsoft-yahoo-aol's big fad of the moment which is suing spammers and blaming asia. the number one (#1) contributor to spam
And then: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3020566.stm
Not in that report, but on TV last night a M$ spokedroid was quoted as saying something like "... if Mr. Grainger offers definative proof he is innocent, we will drop the action."
Erm, I thought that both the US and the UK subscribed to a doctrine of burden-of-proof on the accuser ?
You confuse civil and criminal law. In criminal law the accused is considered innocent until proven guilty (unless he's someone you don't like or member of a group or class you don't like). Conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil law the only requirement to sue is that you legally exist. (Both people and corporations may sue.) It's not even clear that the party being sued has to legally exist. (God has been sued.) Of course, many suits are immediately dismissed for lacking merit. But, if you can present any real indication that you have been wrongs, you can sue. Even if the defendant can present clear proof that he is not guilty, he must present it in court. So they actually are showing a bit of flexibility by saying that they will drop the suit if they are given evidence. Also, civil suites don't require a heavy burden of proof. Instead of "beyond a reasonable doubt", they only require a "preponderance of evidence". Even if you think the accusation is clearly unfounded, you can lose if you don't waste the time to show up and present evidence that the case is unfounded. This is true in the US (except, possibly, in Louisiana) where British common law is the basis of the system. Louisiana law is based on the Napoleonic Code and is supposed to be very different, but I can't say for sure. I assume that the UK has similar common law since ours come from there. (IANAL, I just play one on the net.) -- R. Kevin Oberman E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634
At 7:59 -0700 26/6/03, Kevin Oberman wrote:
This is true in the US (except, possibly, in Louisiana) where British common law is the basis of the system. Louisiana law is based on the Napoleonic Code and is supposed to be very different, but I can't say for sure. I assume that the UK has similar common law since ours come from there.
UK law is not a single homogenous entity. There is English common law which is what you are referring to as British common law, Scotland has its own seperate legal system that is based on Roman law. There is no UK common law just English common law. f
Fearghas McKay wrote:
... Scotland has its own seperate legal system that is based on Roman law.
But that's OK - no one want to go there anyway, eh Fearghas and Neil ? Look, even most of the UK cabinet have left to be corrupt in London instead... :-) <- for the humour impaired from north of the border. Peter
At 22:37 +0100 26/6/03, Peter Galbavy wrote:
Fearghas McKay wrote:
... Scotland has its own seperate legal system that is based on Roman law.
But that's OK - no one want to go there anyway, eh Fearghas and Neil ? Look, even most of the UK cabinet have left to be corrupt in London instead...
better they corrupt London than Edinburgh;-)
:-) <- for the humour impaired from north of the border.
is that the Mason Dixie line or the 49th Parallel ???? f
participants (3)
-
Fearghas McKay -
Kevin Oberman -
Peter Galbavy