In law lingo, ‘burden of proof’ means that the accuser should prove an assertion of fact or have proof of the crime committed. Now if you want to have ideas about burden of proof concerning piracy of software patents, ReadWriteWeb has that.
The primary question about intellectual piracy is this:
How can you be accused of stealing another’s intellectual property when you didn’t even know the company or patent existed? -ReadWriteWeb
pochp
[...] Plato On-Line Software Patents and Intellectual Piracy [...]
Thank you for your correction bl1.
WRONG!
‘Burden of proof’ just means who has the burden and to what degree something must be proven. We ordinarily put the burden on the plaintiff, but not necessarily. It also doesn’t mean you need proof. In most civil actions the burden is only a preponderance of the evidence, meaning it’s just more likely than not that you’re right; that’s hardly proof. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is closer to proof.
As for not knowing that a patent exists, you’re stealing intellectual property as soon as your ripoff someone. It doesn’t matter if you knew they had a patent, or even if there is one. You’re a thief as soon as you steal.
(It’s cute when lay people try to do law.)