Re: IBM bathroom patent symbolic of US patent ills

[James Arthur <dagmargoodboat@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mar 28, 2:05 pm, "Jim Hewitt" <jim.hew...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "James Arthur" <dagmargoodb...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>
> news:0325386b-0359-4d8d-93c5-001007756cac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> > On Mar 27, 4:17 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-
> > Web-Site.com> wrote:
>
> >> In the past I've done a lot of expert witness consulting.  This year,
> >> though, I've lost a lot of business by telling potential clients that
> >> their patent wasn't worth the powder to blow it to hell.
>
> >> Unfortunately I sure they found themselves an alternate "expert" who
> >> would swear to anything for a buck :-(
>
> > That's my experience too.  I call it "Newton's Third Law of Experts:
> > For every expert there's an equal and opposite expert."
>
> Absolutely!  I have to tell you the most bizarre story related to this.
>
> I was on a jury once.  Both the plaintiff and the defandent has their own
> 'expert' witness about a particular medical fact.  The opinions where
> diametrically opposed.  But it turns out that the two experts were partners
> in the same company.  We all had a good chuckle when that came out.
>
> So I agree with your Newton's law analogy but somehow it makes me sad.  In
> law it appears that the truth depends on how much you are willing to spend
> for it.
>
> Jim

It's a tough spot for a juror to be in--the court restricts the info
you're allowed to consider, often to expert testimony.  And we've all
seen a lot of wrong experts.

Our adversarial system allows giving only the info that supports your
position.  I call that lying.

The other side is supposed to notice and provide counterpoint.  It's a
good system, but the lawyers have turned it into a caricature.  It
still works amazingly well.  Could be even better, methinks, if both
sides aimed more for truthfulness.

But, then again, I've never been selected as a juror...

Cheers,
James Arthur