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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

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


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
Ah, no | 398 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Ah, no
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 24 2012 @ 12:37 AM EST
The point being, that if the expert avers that the patent is strong and
defendable but the patent is then later, under re-exam, declared invalid, it
means that the expert has been shown to be wrong.

This wrongness could be the result of a misteak (we all make them from time two
time), but it does also possibly call into question how much of an expert they
really are, especially if they repeatedly make such "mistakes" - which
leads into the second question:

The second question is checking how biased they may be - if paid a lot they may
be inclined to forget the research they did which disproved the point the were
asked to prove and only remember the stuff that did. If you do 1000 random
samplings, it is quite possible, that one of them may fit your criteria; in
which case you'll ignore the 999 trials which do not fit and shout loudly the 1
that does [see "How to lie with statistics" by Daryl Huff - a very
easy read].

If they answer the first with "No", or refuse to answer, they have
undermined their own evidence as they don't believe their report which would
(presumably?) have been based on the patent being strong and defendable - what
they were being paid to show.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Ah, no
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 24 2012 @ 04:37 AM EST
A defense lawyer would not ask an opposing expert the question about the
strength of a patent because it does invite a speech by the expert telling the
jury in detail why he or she believes it is a strong patent. Most experts do
not stop with a just yes or no answer on cross-examination and wait for the next
question. Instead, an expert is more likely to answer by saying: "Yes, I
do believe this is a very strong patent because [insert here long explanation
with the expert talking directly to the jury]." Lawyers on
cross-examination look to control the witness so as to elicit favorable answers,
but with a question like this, an examining attorney would be powerless to stop
the full explanation. As to the second question, lawyers ask experts what
they've been paid all the time, including their own experts so as to deny the
other side the ability to ask it.

[ 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 )