I didn't want to confuse the previous thread so started this one
Does this resolution mean that David McOwen was found guilty?
Where does that leave the claim of costs re the use of computing time.
Is the principal adopted by the state that they are entitled to charge a "reasonable" amount for loss of computing time still intact? (I know it's not lost, but when does that stop lawyers for making a case).
Are we now in the situation that any person running any unauthorised software on any PC not their own is facing similar prosecutions?
Don't get me wrong here, I am not taking a doom and gloom view, I am curious as to the ramifications of this case.
My understanding is that the case wasn't dropped, in fact it could be argued and probably will, that it was succesfully prosecuted by the state. In essence the state laws were inacted and found to be just and correct?
Maybe i am just seeing a half empty glass
JWT
Does this resolution mean that David McOwen was found guilty?
Where does that leave the claim of costs re the use of computing time.
Is the principal adopted by the state that they are entitled to charge a "reasonable" amount for loss of computing time still intact? (I know it's not lost, but when does that stop lawyers for making a case).
Are we now in the situation that any person running any unauthorised software on any PC not their own is facing similar prosecutions?
Don't get me wrong here, I am not taking a doom and gloom view, I am curious as to the ramifications of this case.
My understanding is that the case wasn't dropped, in fact it could be argued and probably will, that it was succesfully prosecuted by the state. In essence the state laws were inacted and found to be just and correct?
Maybe i am just seeing a half empty glass
JWT
Facebook
Twitter