|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 03:33 PM EDT |
The parties may be able to pay for whatever experts they
like, but if the court pays for an independent expert (panel)
from the relevant academic field(s) then they can at least
get a baseline for sanity.
Some of these claims wouldn't even pass the basic sanity test
to unpaid experts, but they could at least provide commonly
accepted definitions in cases where the parties disagree on
terminology.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 22 2012 @ 05:08 PM EDT |
Where is the bogofilter which would allow Alsup to find out the liar
and penalize him in a way that will be sustained on appeals? Can he openly tell
who is right without being called biased by the losing party AND the appeal
court?
When I read your comment, the first thing that lept to my
mind was what happened to Judge Jackson in the United States v. Microsoft case.
Perhaps that or something similar is also in the back of Judge Alsup's mind? Or
maybe there is no similarity.
Speaking of appeals, if (however unlikely) 1)
the jury decides Google did infringe the 104 patent and 2) the USPTO does
not invalidate that patent, on appeal could it be a valid issue for
Google to argue that questions from the jury indicate they were hopelessly
confused by the tech and therefore their judgement should trusted? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 03:35 PM EDT |
| The liar was found. It's Mitchell. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
