tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post2440885965557432584..comments2023-10-24T14:45:41.342+02:00Comments on K’s Law: T 2339/09 – Balance Actorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07992102028406713066noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-19526966144476659752012-01-09T10:18:42.578+01:002012-01-09T10:18:42.578+01:00T 1134/06 was (one of) the first decision(s) regar...T 1134/06 was (one of) the first decision(s) regarding internet citations. In reasons 4.1 it calls for the standard of proof to be "beyond any reasonable doubt". Later it was considered that this was excessive and the standard was a bit relaxed to "the balance of probabilities" (as explained in OJ 2009, pp 457, 458).<br />In reality, as with any other piece of prior art, the face value of the internet document is assessed and it is to be decided whether the presented facts (eg. a publication date) are to be taken as correct or not and whether further investigation/evidence is needed.<br />The reliability of the source plays a role in assessing the presented facts and deciding whether further investigation/evidence is needed, as Myshkin said.Manolisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-6152211972362675662012-01-06T09:04:39.955+01:002012-01-06T09:04:39.955+01:00@ Myshkin: I completely agree with your reasoning....@ Myshkin: I completely agree with your reasoning.pat-agoni-ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14383461539323071512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-83004793806429178102012-01-06T02:12:20.047+01:002012-01-06T02:12:20.047+01:00To my understanding T 1134/06 certainly did not fo...To my understanding T 1134/06 certainly did not follow the practice that was (later) laid down in OJ 2009, p. 456-462. T 1134/06 quite explicitly called for a higher standard of proof to be applied to internet documents than to documents from a "reliable source" such as patent documents.<br /><br />Personally I don't see much logic in the reasoning of T 1134/06. Why should the reliability of the source have anything to do with the standard of proof to be applied? Instead, the reliability of the source should play a role in the application of the standard of proof. If a document is from a reliable source, then it will more easily pass the "balance of probabilities" test than when it came from an unreliable source.Myshkinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-80763855588701645912012-01-05T17:32:19.859+01:002012-01-05T17:32:19.859+01:00So as long as patent cases do not become criminall...So as long as patent cases do not become criminally relevant, the balance of probabilities is the relevant criteria? Is that the conclusion of your example?pat-agoni-ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14383461539323071512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-77434001926011545182012-01-04T21:05:25.849+01:002012-01-04T21:05:25.849+01:00A famous (admittedly non-patent) example I have he...A famous (admittedly non-patent) example I have heard of is the O. J. Simpson case. Simpson was tried for the murder of his ex-wife and her boyfriend. He was acquitted in the criminal trial (where the “beyond reasonable doubt” criterion is applied) because his attorney was able to persuade the jurors that there was reasonable doubt about some DNA evidence. It was not absolutely certain that Simpson was the killer. He then had to face a civil trial (where something like the “balance of probabilites” applies) ; the jury unanimously found there was a preponderance of evidence to hold Simpson liable for damages. Simpson very likely did it. So at least for Simpson, the difference between the two criteria was quite sensible.oliverhttp://k-slaw.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-40072279280676845562012-01-04T20:43:14.495+01:002012-01-04T20:43:14.495+01:00Balance of probabilities vs. beyond any reasonable...Balance of probabilities vs. beyond any reasonable doubt. Can anybody give me an example of a situation in which one "standard" is satisfied but the other not? I see nice little words, but fail to recognize the meaning behind them.pat-agoni-ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14383461539323071512noreply@blogger.com