On 9/19/15 11:08 AM, John McCoy wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote in news:5bKdnfMmtNye8mDInZ2dnUU7-
:

There is a lot of speculation in this tread, but unless you read
the patents and looked to see if Bosch is the same or different, it
is meaningless.

It's meaningless if you have read the patents and looked at the Bosch
too. As krw and I have both said (and we've both at least skimmed
over the patents), what any of us thinks doesn't matter - it's what a
judge and jury think, and they are impossible to predict.

John


Add to the mix the complexity of information and you quickly realize
that the jury in most cases isn't comprised of the defendant's "peers."

In this case you're talking about an in depth understanding of
electrical and mechanical engineering about which most of the general
public are severely ignorant.

The same thing has happened with music copyright cases. There have been
cases of blatant, outright plagiarism than anyone with a couple college
courses in music could easily decipher in one listen of each song, in
which the jury/judge dismissed.

Then you have cases in which a good, persuasive trial attorney performed
in court well enough to convince the musically illiterate that one
musical artist "stole" another artist's song. In the latter, most
musicians would shake their heads and say, "There are only 12 notes on a
piano and only so many ways to arrange them, so if you dissect a song
enough you'll soon come to the conclusion that there hasn't been an
original song written in 500 years."

In both examples, it usually comes down to which lawyers and witnesses
the jury members trust more, rather than any real understanding of the
facts in the case.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply