Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 01:09 PM EDT |
The court could have hired it's own expert, like it didi with the damages.
Although the damages thing didn't seem to work out well.
I've been thinking that hiring a technical expert would have been a good move,
to advise the judge and sort out some of the doublespeak.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 01:12 PM EDT |
This is why Alsup wanted, urged, pushed for a bench trial... [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: hAckz0r on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 02:07 PM EDT |
Maybe we need to create a registry pool of available technology experts willing
to confer with the court system to help streamline these kinds of cases. If the
judge had access to a good and non-biased Computer Scientist this case could
have been over a long time ago.
---
DRM - As a "solution", it solves the wrong problem; As a "technology" its only
'logically' infeasible.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 04:06 PM EDT |
You will never find a neutral technical person. Every
technical person in the world that would understand to the
degree needed has a stake in the game.
I'm probably in the minority, but I think that using a jury
this way is hellish on the jury, but is the best way to
figure this sort of thing out. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 09:05 PM EDT |
If a neutral technical person existed, he would also have to understand patent
law and copyright.
I think that such a person exists, but both sides in this case would have to
accept him/her which I think would be exceedingly unlikely. Both sides are
looking for an expert that biased in their favor.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 10:48 AM EDT |
.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|