|
|
|
| Authored by: Gringo_ on Saturday, May 12 2012 @ 01:23 AM EDT |
...and I thought Dr. Parr was really cool! What a difference
from that other boring guy, McFadden.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 13 2012 @ 12:54 AM EDT |
Think Again about the judge's viewpoint; especially if he is concerned about
getting a result that is both legally and factually accurate.
Here he and his jury are, listening to conflicting testimony about technology
that seems to require a very large amount of background knowledge to understand.
Worse, its not going to be detectable whether his jury has understood, or
misunderstood the factual testimony.
Compounding that, by now he has to have a strong suspicion that Oracle's
testimony is at least badly warped, if not outright deceptive.
Worst of all, he has to by now, realized that he thinks he is understanding
factual matters, but like the jury, he has no way to verify that what he thinks
is correct is actually true.
This has now become an extremely high stakes case for the judge.
If one side or the other (Oracle cough) sucessfully peddles a fact set that is
blatently false, it will make a laughing stock of his court.
There is a an army of technical experts, computer science Ph.ds, and career
programmers, who are going to stomp all over his trial, if he gets the tech
facts wrong. Especially if those wrong tech facts determine the outcome of the
case.
It is not going to matter to the outside world that one side lied, or the other
side was inept in presenting its case, all the outside world is going to see is
a judge that declared (or allowed his jury to declare) that the world was flat.
He has got a real problem and there doesn't appear to be a lot he can do about
it.
Not a lawyer,
glad I'm not the judge
JG
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
