Threats of violation: these are acts that directly breach the ethical principle of behavior. They do what the principle says should not be done. Threats of invalidation: these are arguments that the principle in question is baseless, unjust, misapplied in this case, or otherwise invalid....
The Victorian Workcover Authority is the Victorian state authority that manages Victoria's workers compensation scheme.
Explanation:
Victorian Workcover Authority is a body of the Australian government, which manages health and safety and the states's workers compensation scheme.
It provides workplace insurance and manages the workers compensation scheme. It provides the employees, with tools and tips on how to keep themselves safe at the workplace.
It also offers insurance covers to the employees, against work related injuries or illnesses. It also provides information to the employers, about employees returning to work after their injuries and illnesses.
Answer:
The burden of proof is the obligation to present evidence on the subject of the lawsuit or the criminal charge
Explanation:
When an individual files a civil lawsuit against another individual, the burden of proof would rest on his or her shoulder. When the case gets official response and the trail process begins, each of the two parties involved would be asked to narrate their own side of the story. However, the party who brought the case to the court, known as the plaintiff, would be the one to prove that the things alleged in the lawsuits are only but true and that the other defendant caused the said harm or damages being talked about.
Because the framers of the United States Constitution (written in 1787) believed that protecting property rights relating to inventions would encourage the new nation’s economic growth, they gave Congress—the national legislature—a constitutional mandate to grant patents for inventions. The resulting patent system has served as a model for those in other nations. Recently, however, scholars have questioned whether the American system helped achieve the framers’ goals. These scholars have contended that from 1794 to roughly 1830, American inventors were unable to enforce property rights because judges were “anticipate” and routinely invalidated patents for arbitrary reasons. This argument is based partly on examination of court decisions in cases where patent holders (“patentees”) brought suit alleging infringement of their patent rights. In the 1820s, for instance, 75 percent of verdicts were decided against the patentee. The proportion of verdicts for the patentee began to increase in the 1830s, suggesting to these scholars that judicial attitudes toward patent rights began shifting then.
To learn more about protecting property rights visit here ; brainly.com/question/28388414?referrer=searchResults
#SPJ4
