Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Q8tfreebe who wrote (147636)	1/12/2007 5:01:30 PM
From: DanD	Respond to of 152472

To the extent the experts book is already out there refuting the claim that the Q's IPR [isn't] being infringed, doesn't that dictate that you put that same expert on the stand to restate his prior claim ? And doesn't the fact that he is testifying for the Q and not for BRCM -- who would have paid him the same for his expert testimony -- carry more weight than a clever cross? Dan D.

To: Q8tfreebe who wrote (147636)	1/12/2007 5:05:36 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

I'm not sure I follow, but I'll try to respond. Richardson apparently already testified under cross-examination - after already testifying for Q - that he had written a book saying whatever it is he said, which appears not to be helpful to Q's case. At the end of the cross-examination, Q gets a second chance to get him to explain what he meant - this is re-direct examination. The judge then has discretion to allow BRCM one more bite at the apple - re-cross. On re-direct, Q will not be able to go into all aspects of his testimony, only matters brought up on cross-examination. Thus, I would expect the judge to allow Q's lawyer to go into the reasons for what he wrote and why things are now different, i.e., he explains what he "really" meant. Two things generally happen here, i.e., the witness rehabilitates himself beautifully or he digs a deeper hole for himself. If there is time, the re-cross can be choreographed and prepared, robbing the cross-examiner of some of his points unless they are unassailable. If there is no time to prepare for it, a very dangerous thing because the witness generally does not have any idea why it is happening and why the re-direct is taking place. But there won't be any wide-ranging discussion of the points that were brought up originally on direct examination. No repetition, in other words. As to what to do on re-direct, well, that is really a judgment call. If the Q team thinks the testimony on cross-examination about the man's book needs to be explained, they'll do so. If not, they'll leave it alone. If Q has a technical paper he wrote before Q hired him as a witness in which he says "I was wrong about Q's processes not being fundamentally different...", then I would definitely expect Q to bring that up and make BRCM look bad for not bringing up the full record of what the witness has written. A judgment call which involves a number of considerations, i.e, how big an impact the testimony seems to have made, how the expert dealt with the question under cross-examination [if effectively, then best to leave it alone; if not, some explanation may be required], whether there are other witnesses who will deal with the issue, perhaps in a better way than the witness who is testifying, etc. The key is credibility and consistency.