|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
RSS
|
||
|
||
|
||
| Print Version | ||
| ``... both parties chose to conduct the proceedings. They chose to deny the judge the assistance of the expert`s report which Master Bragge had directed. They chose to put the judge in the position where the only question which she could decide was whether Point had established on the balance of probabilities, by the evidence which it adduced, that it had developed the Acuo software without copying. Point accepted that burden. It might be said that it failed to discharge that burden because it failed to appreciate that there was a lacuna in that evidence. But to say that would be to speculate. There may have been sound reasons for not adducing evidence from those who had worked on the development in India. For whatever reason – whether through incompetence or design - Point did not fill the lacuna`` |
| Adv. Search | News | Articles | Court Decisions | Legislation | Online Resources | About Us | Terms | HomePage | לאתר בעיברית | Eilon Eghert Adv. |
| © All copyrights reserved to Aviv Eilon, Adv. 1999-2008, | Development : Expim Ltd., | Design : Yael Landau |  |