I believe that actually will happen, because the judge has specifically provided that Ms. Foster can supplement her fee application after the RIAA is done with its fake 'discovery' on 'reasonableness', and denied the RIAA's application to change that provision.
You're 100% on target. If they stipulate to the reasonableness of Ms. Foster's fees, then the issue becomes moot. Which is what I'm betting they will do, rather than let their adversary know the financial details of the relationship with the attack dogs... I mean attorneys.
You are so wrong. The last thing in the world the RIAA wants is for an opponent like Marilyn Barringer-Thomson to know (a) how much they pay their lawyers and (b) what the financial arrangement is with the lawyers. I imagine that they will stipulate to the reasonableness of Ms. Foster's fees now, rather than actually disclose the billing records.
Well actually I thought this experience was beneficial to him, and that I did him a favor. He has perhaps learned that he's been playing a game he shouldn't be playing, and now he can go back to trying to find some honest work.
You're wrong. There are lots of certified forensic examiners who are fully qualified to do a hard drive forensics examination. Dr. Jacobson only became certified to do that in 2004, and has never been called upon to testify in court or a deposition. So he is, in that area, a novice marginally qualified to testify. However, he has testified that the hard drive does NOT support plaintiffs' case.
As to his other professed 'expertise', the ability to discern from some printouts supplied to him by MediaSentry whether a defendant uploaded or downloaded copyrighted files without permission, he has no qualifications which would permit him to testify in court on that.
Most people, no matter how smart they might be, are not permitted to give expert opinion testimony in federal court.
If someone is going to hold himself out as an expert to testify in federal court, it is a basic requirement that his methodology have gained acceptance in the scientific community, and that he have tested and verified the materials upon which he's based his opinion. You wouldn't want your life to be affected by some quack or crackpot using a self taught method that no one's ever heard of before, and who has applied that method in an utterly careless manner. Neither should Marie Lindor, or any of the other thousands of victims of the RIAA's bought and paid for junk science.
Slashdot Mirror
It is blackletter law that the bills, invoices, statements, and retainer agreements are not privileged.
I believe that actually will happen, because the judge has specifically provided that Ms. Foster can supplement her fee application after the RIAA is done with its fake 'discovery' on 'reasonableness', and denied the RIAA's application to change that provision.
You're 100% on target. If they stipulate to the reasonableness of Ms. Foster's fees, then the issue becomes moot. Which is what I'm betting they will do, rather than let their adversary know the financial details of the relationship with the attack dogs... I mean attorneys.
I doubt it. My guess is that the lawyers they're using are 'low bidders'.
You are so wrong. The last thing in the world the RIAA wants is for an opponent like Marilyn Barringer-Thomson to know (a) how much they pay their lawyers and (b) what the financial arrangement is with the lawyers. I imagine that they will stipulate to the reasonableness of Ms. Foster's fees now, rather than actually disclose the billing records.
Well said.
Well actually I thought this experience was beneficial to him, and that I did him a favor. He has perhaps learned that he's been playing a game he shouldn't be playing, and now he can go back to trying to find some honest work.
Thanks, Some_Llama.
Thanks, bbernard. Much appreciated.
Yes, it's only because it wasn't being challenged. This is the very first time he has been examined.
Don't worry. After I learned about law from Perry Mason as you did, I then learned about law from real lawyers.
This witness isn't going anywhere.
Prof. Jacobson flunked not some, but all.
I was trying to teach you something about law, but I guess you're resistant to learning.
In fact he gets paid $200 an hour.
Good one.
I had to read it a couple of times before I got it.
These 'foundation' objections were way over the top, and not at all normal or usual. They were entirely baseless.
If you don't think there is a difference between /. and expert testimony in court, perhaps you could explain why?.
As to his other professed 'expertise', the ability to discern from some printouts supplied to him by MediaSentry whether a defendant uploaded or downloaded copyrighted files without permission, he has no qualifications which would permit him to testify in court on that.
If someone is going to hold himself out as an expert to testify in federal court, it is a basic requirement that his methodology have gained acceptance in the scientific community, and that he have tested and verified the materials upon which he's based his opinion. You wouldn't want your life to be affected by some quack or crackpot using a self taught method that no one's ever heard of before, and who has applied that method in an utterly careless manner. Neither should Marie Lindor, or any of the other thousands of victims of the RIAA's bought and paid for junk science.
Good observations. Give me a list.
In case you're interested, that quote contributed by dan of the north is from my March 2, 2007, letter in Elektra v. Schwartz .
Good point. Thanks.
Interesting. Thank you.
Excellent observation.