Usefulness of Expert Witnesses in Trade Mark Disputes

All things in law and life are decided upon facts or evidence, at least what we view to be facts or evidence, or the absence of same.

Throughout our professional life, we have been very skeptical of “experts”, especially if this involves any of the humanities. In the physical sciences, an engineer’s motor is subject to testing. Either it runs or not. This is often not true for expert testimony in other less exact fields, however, where witnesses seek to exert their alleged “authority”, without any better proof for their opinions than those held by normal citizens.

In this regard, it is thus interesting to read Lady Justice Arden’s UK ruling in Judge says expert witnesses are rarely useful for trade mark disputes. As the ruling clearly demonstrates, it is all really rather a matter of opinion…but there are SOME facts.

Hat tip to Out-Law.com.

OK, this posting ends our experiment with Zemanta. Some interesting ideas, but not yet that useful to us in terms of links or the photo gallery provided.

UPDATE ON EXPERT WITNESSES

Martha Neil at the ABA Journal News may have the “down under” solution in her posting today, When Expert Witnesses Disagree, ‘Hot-Tubbing’ is a Possible Solution, where she writes:

When expert witnesses have opposing views of the same evidence, even the judge can be daunted…. Australia, however, has successfully pursued a different path toward resolution: “hot-tubbing.” Putting the experts together and allowing them to question each other, rather than making their reports in isolation, can eliminate many disagreements. The Australian approach also accords with the established American system of allowing each side to present its own case.

Sounds good.

A SECOND UPDATE ON EXPERT WITNESSES

It is sometimes remarkable how some topics seem to surface concurrently on media. Adam Liptak at the The New York Times also has an article on expert witnesses, as his article In U.S., Partisan Expert Witnesses Frustrate Many targets the major weakness of the US expert witness system, which is that expert witnesses tend to take the side of the party who is paying them, leading to biased testimony on both sides of a legal case.

Again, we think that “hot tubbing” would also be a recommended solution for the problem we see in peer-reviewed academic journals especially in the humanities – but also in the physical sciences, which is that there is primarily a one-sided presentation of issues, rather than a balanced handling of important scientific questions.

Email Archiving and Hosting Outsourcing Solutions for Firms and Businesses in Compliance with Legislation : SEC CFTC Sarbanes Oxley NASD NYSE FRCP

Is your professional, firm or business email archiving in compliance with legislation in force? SEC? CFTC? Sarbanes-Oxley? NASD? NYSE? And what about the FRCP? And what about email hosting outsourcing?

GFI Software, a software company specializing in content and network security, messaging and compliance solutions for SMBs, at very competitive prices, has compiled various documents focusing on email archiving laws affecting businesses in the United States.

One such particular document by GFI is a short article on Email archiving in the US : The key laws that affect your business covering the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (SEC), the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) and the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE).

One of the products of GFI is the GFI MailArchiver, designed to comply with legislation covering email archiving, and we find that it can be downloaded on a trial basis at ZDNet. It claims to be the number one email archiver for SMBs.

ZDNet also has an interesting article on Email value management, referring to InBoxer, which has on its website several white papers on: FRCP IT Obligations for Email, Email Harassment, Email Retention, Email Archiving for Schools and Local Governments, and Discovery involving Email.

ZDNet also links to Arcmail, a higher-end and pricier solution, which also points to the need to comply with email archiving requirements of Sarbanes-Oxley, the new Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, HIPAA, the Freedom of Information Act and other regulations.

Business.com lists not only GFI Software as an email archiver, but also refers to Symantec email archiving as also to FuseMail, the latter of which offers high quality email hosting outsourcing with e.g. sync clients for Outlook and Blackberry at a very reasonable price. See their blog posting about their New HTML Editor in Webmail v2.0.

That is not an exhaustive treatment of the subject, nor are we expressly recommending any of the email services linked above, but they are a good place to start for those in need.

Zemanta Pixie