From: ad@dcs.st-and.ac.uk (Tony Davie)
Subject: Re: NUTEK FACES APPLE'S WRATH (article!!!!!!) READ
Nntp-Posting-Host: bruichladdich.dcs.st-and.ac.uk
Organization: St.Andrews University
Lines: 24

In article <1993Mar31.221104.21890@leland.Stanford.EDU>, tedebear@leland.Stanford.EDU (Theodore Chen) writes:


> there isn't any copyright equivalent of the res ipsa doctrine,
> but there's something kind of similar.  to show infringement, one
> element you need to show is that the defendant copied from your work.
> if you're lucky, you'll have direct evidence of copying - the smoking
> gun.  normally, you do this through circumstantial evidence, by showing
> evidence of access from which one might reasonably infer copying.
> this evidence of access is considered along with the similarities
> between the two works in deciding whether you copied.  however, if
> the similarities are so strong as to be "striking", an inference of
> copying may be drawn even without any evidence that the defendant had
> access to your copyrighted work.
> 
> in that case, the burden will be on the defendant to rebut the inference
> of copying.  for example, evidence that he'd been on a desert island for
> the last ten years and had no contact with civilization.
> 

WOW! Now we know why lawyers are rich and computer scientists are poor!
Lawyers have to (sound as if they) understand this stuff.


