Biased Expert Witnesses: Apple-Samsung Patent Trial
Expert witnesses play a key role in providing the court with a platform to better comprehend information. To do so, experts must remain unbiased and not rely solely on what attorneys say, rather they should take all given information to draw their own conclusions.
In the Apple-Samsung patent trial, Samsung has filed court documents asking that testimony from some of Apple’s expert witnesses be excluded on the grounds that they were biased.
Apple’s damages expert, Terry L. Musika, writes in his report that ‘Apple has built a considerable and at times a cult-like following to all things Apple,’ -Samsung’s attorneys wrote in a court filing, according to FOSS Patents.
Samsung attorneys believe Apple’s expert witnesses, like Henry Urbach, are Apple devotees, and have even used the term “iSheep” when describing them. Urbach has referred to Apple Co-founder Steve Jobs as St. Eve. This information sits atop Urbach’s substantial reputation as an Apple devotee, having written an essay about the design of Apple retail stores calling them chapels of the Information Age.
“That cult-like following apparently includes several experts who are appearing on Apple’s behalf in this case, and may explain why they have cast aside established scientific methods and governing legal principles in favor of slavish adoration of their client and platitudes about its alleged magical and revolutionary products, issues that are of no relevance to the claims and defenses at issue.”
Opposing counsel aim to have the other sides expert witness dismissed as well as the evidence the expert provided to the case. When an expert witness is required to be unbiased in nature, Samsung found ground to call out a few of Apple’s experts who have an established loyal background to the company.
Check out Courtroom Insight to read reviews about expert witnesses, and see what other legal professionals thought of their testimony in past cases!
Source: click here
Google v. Oracle or Alsup v. Boies?
As promised, we are tracking the Google v. Oracle trial with some excitement!
U.S. District Judge William Alsup was not only a litigator before sitting on the bench, but is also knowledgeable in technology and has been engaging with highly technical questioning of computer programers throughout the trial. To back up his understanding of technology, Alsup has an undergraduate degree in mathematics along with some experience coding. Although he admits he does not have experience in Java language, he announced to the court that rangeCheck (which is the nine lines of infringed Java code Google argues were mistakenly put in a version of Android) is “simple”.
“I could do it. You could do it,” the judge told Boies. “It was an accident.”
This comment came after Mr. Boies, and attorney for Oracle, argued in court that Oracle deserves a segment of Google’s earning Android because the infringed Java code allowed Google to push Android to the market sooner than would have otherwise been feasible.
“Timing was critical,” Boies argued. “They wanted it faster, faster, faster.” So Google copied Oracle-owned Java technology, he said.
After being torn down by Alsup, Boies responded with his own retort:
“I am not an expert on Java,” Boies said. “I couldn’t program that in six months.”
This back-and-forth continued, but towards the end of the day Boies suggested Alsup put off the damages phase of the trial until Alsup answers whether or not 37 API packages are copyrightable. He followed with some “if, then” propositions, but after all was said Alsup seemed to consider Boies’ suggestion.
For more details, refer to the source article here
Verdicts for Google v. Oracle Trial, Phase 1
According to reporter Ginny LaRoe, who has been following the Google v. Oracle case in court these past few weeks, the verdict of the trial’s first phase plays to both sides. Neither Google nor Oracle reign victorious, but each win parts of the battle.
The jury trial disputing copyright infringement for smartphones is conducted in the courtroom of U.S. District Judge William Alsup. On Monday, the jury found that Google infringed the structure, sequence and organization of copyrighted works. However, Google’s lead counsel moved for mistrial because the jury did not come up with a definitive verdict of whether or not Google made fair use of Java technology in its Android operating system
“Given the law on fair use and affirmative defenses, you cannot receive a partial verdict on question one,” said Van Nest, of Keker & Van Nest. Oracle lead counsel Michael Jacobs of Morrison & Foerster said he would save his arguments for the briefs, which will be filed this week. He will be asking for Alsup to rule, as a matter of law, that Google’s fair use defense fails. Google also is seeking judgment as a matter of law.
As for Oracle’s victory, nine lines of computer code made all the difference:
The jury found that Google’s use of something called rangeCheck method infringed Java copyrights. Oracle acquired Java’s creator, Sun Microsystems Inc., in 2010.
To reach these verdicts, the jury deliberated for over four days. Minutes after delivering the verdict, Judge Alsup kept the trial moving, with Oracle’s lead counsel giving a 45 minute opening on the two patents Oracle says Google infringed.
Source of article: click here
Like this:
The debate involving whether Texas Womens Health Program participant, Planned Parenthood, should be banned by the state appears to be an uphill battle. Federal appeals judge of the Fifth Circuit Appeals, Judge Jerry Smith, lifted the order granted by an Austin federal judge just 24 hours earlier.
“We are disappointed in the stay granted last night,” said Sarah Wheat, interim CEO of Planned Parenthood of Austin Family Planning. “When presented with both sides, the District Court agreed the rule was likely unconstitutional, and that implementation would cause a serious problem with health care access for Texas women.”
The state argues against Planned Parenthood, citing it does not agree with the state’s policies:
“Planned Parenthood and its affiliates have every right to hold that belief and advocate for elective abortion, but they are not entitled to receive taxpayer subsidies from a government program that is designed to encourage preventative birth control and discourage abortion.”
Texas lawmakers do not want state funding to go to clinics affiliated with abortion providers, clashing with Planned Parenthood’s belief that their constitutional rights should not have an impact on their position as health providers in a state program. The federal government had funded 90% of the program but effective last month, have withdrawn funding. As a $40 million program, Planned Parenthood provides 13,000 women with health care, such as routine check-ups, and only roughly 3% involve abortion services.
With more judges stepping into the debate to hear both sides, we will have to watch and see what the final verdict is.
For the source of this article, click here
“Red Flags” to Look for in Expert Witnesses
Expert witnesses exist in the courtroom as valuable resources of knowledge, and with such expertise may alter the verdict of a given case if the expert witness is persuasive, or not persuasive enough. As proof, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals described what it called the “red flags” a trial judge should look for when certifying an expert witness. And if judges are watching for these, you can be sure attorneys should too!
In its review of a case on appeal, the 6th Circuit noted that the Supreme Court’s decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), requires the trial judge to evaluate ‘whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid.’
The 6th Circuit mentions that judges should be mindful of these red flags that could identify potential weaknesses in an expert witnesses reasoning:
“anecdotal evidence, improper extrapolation, failure to consider other possible causes, and, significantly, a lack of testing.”
“Red flags that caution against certifying an expert include reliance on anecdotal evidence, improper extrapolation, failure to consider other possible causes, lack of testing, and subjectivity. … In addition, if a purported expert’s opinion was prepared solely for litigation, that may also be considered as a basis for exclusion.”
Judges can challenge an experts reliability to provide testimony, and if they find that an expert is not qualified or objective enough, the expert witness in question will not be able to be a part of the case in trial. This point is significant for attorneys looking to hire an expert witness for a case, and can even be embraced by deposing counsel. Attorneys can make more educated decisions when hiring experts by knowing their past experiences in trial, the success of their testimony, or even lack of testimony.
Courtroom Insight was created for attorneys to learn about the history of an expert witness from reviews posted by colleagues, along with profiles highlighting the experts credentials and information about litigation experience. The reviews assist attorneys in finding these red flags before a judge challenges them in court, and can clue opposing counsel of weaknesses in an expert’s methodology before deposing the expert in trial.
To view source of article from BullseyeBlog, click here
Rising Status of Forensic Handwriting Expert Beth Chrisman
Forensic document examiner Beth Chrisman has appeared in court, both on and off the television set. For the past two years she has appeared on the courtroom television shows Swift Justice with Nancy Grace, Judge Karen, Swift Justice with Jackie Glass, as well as consulted on Judge Joe Brown’s staff. Her fame picked up after she moved from Texas to Los Angeles four years ago, and she has become a court qualified handwriting expert in Ventura, Orange, Riverside and Los Angeles County Superior Courts as well as the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. Her skills as a handwriting expert are aptly applied to cases involving forgery, fraud, alterations, and “robo-signing” fraud from mortgage companies. Reviewers have noted her success as a handwriting expert come from her poise and assertiveness on the stand:
“Not only was Beth prepared ahead of time, she also was able to improvise and provide clear, articulated opinions on the spot… she always finds a way to convey complex ideas and give her expert opinion with simplicity and clarity. I will hire her again and again.” –Swift Justice Producer, Jessica Guerra
Ms. Chrisman’s ability to convey her detailed findings in a concise manner to an untrained jury makes her useful for day-time television as well as court cases with big law firms. Having an effective expert witness can be a crucial aspect to make an attorney’s case, or hammer home a key idea.
“I have to say the fact that the trial attorneys know I am a seasoned court qualified expert witness, is the key reason I get referrals and hired again by the same law firms.” Stated Beth Chrisman
If you have experience working with Ms. Chrisman, please feel free to leave a review on her profile. While you’re logged into your Courtroom Insight account, be sure to search the directory for other expert witnesses, mediators and arbitrators who have received reviews from colleagues and attorneys or create your own reviews!
Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/04/09/prweb9376024.DTL&ao=2
Federal Court To Decide On Graphic Cigarette Labels
On Tuesday, the Federal Appeals Court in Washington DC heard the case between the lawyers of tobacco companies versus the government to decide if cigarette cartons should contain graphic warning labels with images of diseased lungs or sewn up torsos.
In 2009 Congress gave the FDA the authority to regulate tobacco, after the FDA proposed to require tobacco makers to place stronger warnings and graphic pictures on the top half of cigarette packages starting in September 2012.
In February, Richard Leon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the graphic warning labels and images that would be put on cigarette cartons violated First Amendment free-speech rights.
The case rose again when the U.S. government appealed the February ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals District of Columbia. Now the fight continues between tobacco companies and the Obama administration about how far they can go in trying to stop people from smoking, with graphic labels serving as a public service announcement.
The case deals largely with issues of First Amendment Rights for both parties.
Patrick Reynolds, of TobaccoFree.org, said, “It’s been proven in study after study that these images deter young people from starting to smoke, from buying a cigarette package.”
Reynolds said, “It’s time to have some counter advertising right on the side of the cigarette packages to give consumers a voice and to give some balance to the glamorization of tobacco.”
On Tuesday, two out of three judges on the U.S. Appeals Court had questions about how the lower D.C. courts had previously handled the case based on constitutional grounds:
“You can’t use cigarettes safely. So what?” said Judge A. Raymond Randolph. “What’s that got to do with the First Amendment. I have a fundamental problem with the way both sides have approached this case and the district judge.”
Mr. Randolph said an important part of the case is looking at law involving agency rule-making procedures. On the constitutional issue involving the graphic images, the judge said, “We are in new territory.”
For now, the warning labels will not be placed on cartons until a decision is made.
Sources:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304587704577335974103054642.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57411688/big-tobacco-sues-over-mandatory-graphic-labels/
http://www.npr.org/2012/04/10/150319362/federal-court-to-weigh-graphic-cigarette-labels
The Trayvon Martin case is gaining national attention. The case concerns the Feb. 26 killing of an African American teenager by a neighborhood watch volunteer, George Zimmerman, in Sanford, Florida. The defense’s strategy is to argue Zimmerman acted in self-defense under the “Stand Your Ground Law.”
Two forensic voice identification experts weigh in on the matter and reveal their findings, and are prepared to testify in court. Recent evidence found in the 911 call taken just before 17 year old Trayvon Martin was shot suggests it was not the voice of George Zimmerman on the call.
Expert Tom Owen, of Owen Forensic Services LLC and chair emeritus for the American Board of Recorded Evidence, told MSNBC that he used software called Easy Voice Biometrics to try to match Zimmerman’s voice to the call.
“I’ve run it against 300 voices and it was better than 99 percent in all cases,” he told MSNBC when asked about its accuracy.
Owen told the newspaper that the software compared the screams to Zimmerman’s voice and returned a 48 percent match. He said he would expect a match of higher than 90 percent, considering the quality of the audio.
“As a result of that, you can say with reasonable scientific certainty that it’s not Zimmerman,” Owen told the Sentinel.
Experts confirm that it was not Zimmerman’s voice screaming for help in the background, shaking the strength of his defense strategy. This means that Zimmerman may have indeed actively pursued Marin even though the 911 dispatcher told him to stay in his car.
Experts play a crucial role in cases. The voice analysis of this specific 911 call can break Zimmerman’s case if they use the evidence on the stand.
For full article, go to:
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/01/10963191-trayvon-martin-case-911-call-screams-not-george-zimmermans-2-experts-say?preview=true
We’ve previously told you about the troubles prominent expert witness Craig McCann has faced against brokerage firm Morgan Keegan. As a reminder, in September a federal judge ruled that McCann gave a fraudulent testimony against the firm. Well, late last week a district court judge ruled that McCann will not be allowed to become a party in a case against Morgan Keegan. According to a recent Thomson Reuters article,
Houston U.S. District Court Lynn Hughes recently found that Craig McCann was “only a witness” and had “no legally protectable interest” in proceedings that led to overturning a $9.2 million securities arbitration ruling against the Memphis-based brokerage.
McCann has been fighting the declaration that stated his earlier testimony was fraudulent and has stated that:
he was unaware of those proceedings and could not defend himself against a devastating conclusion that has damaged his reputation and his business, Fairfax, Virginia-based Securities Litigation & Consulting Group Inc.
The article goes on to note:
The opinion by Hughes, dated March 19 and filed last Thursday, leaves unresolved the question of whether the judge’s original ruling that McCann’s testimony was fraudulent, along with other factors, were an appropriate basis for overturning the 2010 arbitration ruling.
That $9.2 ruling was the largest against the brokerage by a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel for losses tied to troubled bond funds that became the subject of a $200 million civil regulatory fine.
According to McCann’s lawyer, John Clay of Ajamie LLP in Houston, McCann is considering his options for further legal action.
Source: “Court blocks witness from joining Morgan Keegan case”. Thomson Reuters. 26 March 2012. http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/2012/03_-_March/Court_blocks_witness_from_joining_Morgan_Keegan_case/
Settlement Reached in Madoff Victims v. Mets Owners
We’ve kept you updated on the drama surrounding the expert witnesses in the Madoff trustee’s case against the New York Mets’ owners. It appears the sideshow that saw three experts tossed from the trial over inadequate qualifications has come to a close. The owners of the NY Mets have settled with the Madoff victims’ court-appointed trustee for $162 million. The settlement, which was announced Monday just as jury selection was scheduled to begin, negates the need for the trustee to prove the Mets owners were “willfully blind” to the Ponzi scheme.
From CNN Money:
The Mets’ owners were among thousands of investors who had invested in the Madoff’s Wall Street firm, which was a front for his Ponzi scheme.
As part of the settlement, the trustee will now consider the Mets owners’ claim that they lost $178 million to Madoff’s scheme. The trustee’s firm released a statement that the Mets owners “will be entitled to recovery on the same basis” as other Madoff customers.
The trustee has sued hundreds of investors who allegedly profited from the scheme, even though many of them — including the Mets’ owners — deny knowing that it was a scam.
The figure of $162 million represents six years of “fictitious profits” that the Mets’ owners made as a result of investing in Madoff’s firm, which was a front for a massive Ponzi scheme that netted thousands of victims.
The trustee had originally sued the Mets owners for $1 billion, but Rakoff threw out the $700 million portion of the lawsuit last year.
We would love to hear your thoughts about the expert witnesses or the judge in this much hyped case. Expert Witness Harrison J. Goldin, Expert Witness John Maine, Judge Jed S. Rakoff and thousands of other expert witnesses, mediators, arbitrators and judges may be reviewed at www.courtroominsight.com.
