You make the presumption (sorry) that this doctrine applies to all court cases. It only constitutionally applies to criminal courts. In civil court, the burden of proof is on the defendant - always has been, even in English common law. That's why OJ owes the Goldman family a bazillion dollars or something like that.
In a similar vein, that "free speech" "right" applies only to "Congress shall pass no law...". In a private corporation, there is no such thing, so if you say the CEO is a cheatin' lowlife who steals from the company, you can be fired, and he can sue you for libel, which is in a civil court, so it is up to you to prove that he is a cheatin' lowlife who is stealing from the company. (Of course, you might get lucky and have proof, in which case you should have contacted your local district attorney first and presented the information.) Later, Ray -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Moulder Sent: Thursday December 21 2006 13:02 To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: IBM sues maker of Intel-based Mainframe clones One thing I keep thinking about through all of this --- What about the American tradition of presumption of innocence? Don't we pride ourselves as a country on presuming that a person is innocent until proven guilty? Has there been a trial of PSI or IBM's claims yet? Maybe in Phil's mind, but not in a court of law. If we put them out of business because of IBM's claims that never result in a trial we have done exactly what IBM wanted in the first place. If we presume them innocent, then they must have the right to continue business as long as they can as legal as they can. Tom Moulder ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
