|
Authored by: Wol on Saturday, April 13 2013 @ 10:53 AM EDT |
Because they need sworn testimony.
It's all very well coming up with all this prior art. But unless they can PROVE
things like DATES, the Judge will throw the whole lot out as hearsay.
Sworn testimony, on the other hand, from someone who can say "I was doing
this twenty years ago, see here, these are my notes with dates on ...",
well that blows a nice big legal hole in the other side's case.
Yes I agree with you it's a horrendous waste, but that's the problem of the
American Legal System.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Saturday, April 13 2013 @ 06:25 PM EDT |
Well, the judge can't look for prior art herself.
It's an adversarial system. She is the neutral
mediator, so to speak, but actually less than that.
She can't solve the legal issue herself. It's up
to the parties to provide the evidence necessary
for her to rule. IF they fail to, it doesn't fall
to her.
And deposing a witness has a purpose, even if they
already know it is prior art. The deposition can
be played for the jury at trial. So, again, it
is evidence. The lawyers can't just tell the jury
that it's prior art. Nothing they say is evidence.
They need a witness to say it.
Them's the rules. Patent law is out of whack these
days, but not the way you thought. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|