Andrei's Google Talk

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 16:08:12 -0400, Walter Bright  
<newshound2 at digitalmars.com> wrote:

> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> The fact that the code is available does not make it likely that you  
>> copied it!  You can't just publish code and then claim any similar code  
>> *must* be yours because it's impossible for someone not to look at your  
>> code.  People aren't convicted on "possibilities" they are convicted on  
>> proof.
>
> Copyright infringement is a civil, not criminal, case, and so a decision  
> is based on a "preponderance" of evidence rather than proof "beyond a  
> reasonable doubt".

In these cases yes, but there are criminal copyright infringement cases.

I didn't exactly mean beyond a reasonable doubt, but I think the point of  
not ever looking at or touching another's source is equivalent to proof of  
the contrary, no?  I think they at least have to prove that you accessed  
the code :)  I don't think "because the source is available online" is  
evidence at all, that was my point.  Otherwise, you'd have to cancel your  
internet service just to be safe...

It's also possible that someone printed out all the code of a competitor's  
compiler and executed drive-by leafleting of the code at your house, and  
you accidentally picked up some code snippits out of curiosity, but we  
can't convict on the possibility that it could have happened.  I would  
think they'd have to show that the timelines match up, there's lack of  
evidence that you developed it internally, etc.  Just the fact that it  
*could be* downloaded isn't proof.

-Steve