decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
It's possible Dr. Mitchell does view it as a game... | 225 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Regarding PJ's comment on Hello World tweet/news pick
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 02:40 PM EDT
I think it is safe to say that he knows Hello World is not a game. He'd have to
be a non-programmer, let alone a non-export, not to know.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

It's possible Dr. Mitchell does view it as a game...
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 10 2012 @ 02:51 PM EDT

Not the "Hello World" part... but the part about being an expert in a trial where you take your marching orders from the Lawyers even if you disagree with them and produce the "testimony" the Lawyers want you to say even if you disagree with the conclusions.

At least, from the "expert" witnesses we saw supporting SCOG, that seems to be the case.

And if that really is the case, it's one core reason I'll likely never be an expert witness for such litigation tactics:

    I won't testify to something that I know is not actually supported. Too many ethical values!
Perhaps that's how some individuals get passed their ethical values - assuming they have some - they treat the situation as a game... after all... it's ok to cheat in games, right? At least to some individuals it seems to be, even if not to myself.

It really is a shame - I think - that purgery isn't applied more. It seems the bulk of the situations are more commonly handled via the process of discrediting the witness and their testimony. Considering the more common "punishment" witnesses face is having their testimony discredited, that's a pretty low weighting factor on the scales when compared with being paid $500 an hour.

Caveat: due to my lack of wisdom with regards individual behavior and testimony, applying purgery the moment someone is identified as having offered an opposite testimony to what they previously applied could very well lead to even greater injustice. So while I may think it's a shame that purgery isn't applied more often, there is also certainly enough doubt in my mind that I wouldn't necessarily want my thought applied in practice.

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )