Juries think like regular people. They want explanations for things that don't make sense to them...and they want the pieces to fit together in a manner they can accept. We are looking for a preponderence of the evidence here, not absolutism. I am not aware (correct me if I am wrong) that Mr. Crisp is on record stating:
a) On behalf of Rambus corporation, we hereby state that our technologies cannot and willnot cover SDRAM or DDRDRAM technologies.
b) I, Mr. Crisp, am an expert in patent law as well as being an engineer. I am totally familiar with all patents which now or may in the future deal with all form of memory technologies and their logical derivations. Therefore, although I am an engineer, not an attorney, I felt totally capable of expressing my personal opinion back in 1992 on behalf of my corporation, of which I was not an officer, regarding all its future IP possibilities.
Crisp's deposition (what I have read of it) reads honest and straightforward. A jury will probably like him, but they will not give him extra weight, expecially in light of his current opinions. And, since he was not an office of the corporation, his "opinion" or lack of any stated belief (isn't that the issue) is hardly a binding matter. As I said, Mr. Crisp vs. any impeached statements by Mr. Schumacher will be no contest.
I'm not delusional. I've participated, as an attorney or an expert witness, in over fifty jury trials. I may be wrong...but I'm not delusional (most days). |
