Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

PhantomViper wrote:

Knights-Abhorrent wrote:
Okay, fair enough but disproven how exactly?
Keeping in mind this is the interwebz and that disproving something could just mean if enough people debunk it then it's not truthz.
Seriously though, on what grounds was this disproven?
I doubt the guy who told me would have lied to me.

You are correct in the fact that those kits are made and have been held back from release for quite some time now.
You are also correct in saying that the reason that they were held back was because GW was advised not to release them on the grounds that because CHS had released a Tervigon conversion kit and a Thunderwolf conversion kit, then CHS had a claim to those kits and could sue GW.

This was a blatant mistake on GWs legal team (if indeed it was advice by their legal team that lead to this). GW has since procured new and better legal advice and under that advice released these kits.

CHS had nothing to do with any part of this decision making process since it was all GWs internal dealings, and neither has any agreement been reached on the case as far as I can tell (from reading all the legalese court rullings), or if it has it hasn't been made public in which case I highly doubt your friend would be aware of it (unless he is a personal friend of Mister Kirby for instance).

Well, as I said, he's no liar and visits HQ as it's only a couple of hours from our hometown.
What he told me is solid logic any any case and I believe him. Maybe he's been drawn into a rumour floating around HQ but until GW makes something public, I'll take his word for it :3

Knights-Abhorrent wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

Knights-Abhorrent wrote:*IMPORTANT*

Didn't feel like going through 70+ pages to find out if this has been covered but:

I was told by one of guys down at my local GW that the lawsuit fell through due to CH being such a small company compared to GW and the fact GW are Brits and CH are American (different judgment system).
GW can't sue them, but they did reach an agreement regarding copyright and that's why GW have only now released the Hive Tyrant with Wings and the Thunderwolves.

In reality, GW have had the 2nd wave Nids and Space Wolves sat on a shelf for quite some time now whilst the lawsuit was being filed.
Chapterhouse claimed that the intellectual property regarding Tyrant wings and Thunderwolves was written and only existed in written-form. Using this loophole, they *created* both items and claimed intellectual property on the models/model parts they'd created which is why GW couldn't release their versions as CH could then counter-sue them for using their intellectual property.

That's why the lawsuit fell through, considering the fact intellectual property isn't a patent or signed document stating what it actually regards.

Keep in mind, that's what I was TOLD by an inside source who visits HQ quite often as HQ is actually quite near my hometown.

Another piece of evidence that confirms this is the fact the Tyrant and other 2nd wave Nids are multi-part plastic and not Finecast. Same with the Thunderwolves. That's because they've been sat on a shelf since before Finecast was implemented which also matches the time CH have been selling Thunderwolves and Tyrant wings.

Again, sorry if this has been covered but there it is.

It was already covered and disproven.

Okay, fair enough but disproven how exactly?
Keeping in mind this is the interwebz and that disproving something could just mean if enough people debunk it then it's not truthz.
Seriously though, on what grounds was this disproven?
I doubt the guy who told me would have lied to me.

As of a few weeks ago GW was still looking at a few major law firms here in the US to resume the IP infringement cases.

CageUF wrote:As of a few weeks ago GW was still looking at a few major law firms here in the US to resume the IP infringement cases.

Source please?

Knights-Abhorrent wrote:Well, as I said, he's no liar and visits HQ as it's only a couple of hours from our hometown.
What he told me is solid logic any any case and I believe him. Maybe he's been drawn into a rumour floating around HQ but until GW makes something public, I'll take his word for it :3

http://chapterhousestudios.com/index.php?route=product/category&path=81
Can you show me the Tyrant wings chapterhouse has that stopped that kit from being released?

Regardless - what you've said has been covered in this thread, and debunked in this thread. Your source probably heard a rumor and has latched onto it like gold.
The lawsuit hasn't fallen through. It hasn't been dismissed.
You should probably actually read the 70+ pages of this thread.

rigeld2 wrote:You should probably actually read the 70+ pages of this thread.

<Seconded.>

The thread has made it this far because it has remained topical & informative. Part of that is avoiding the need to repeat conversations every few pages.

The lawsuit hasn't "fallen through" - it's an ongoing legal dispute. If and when it does terminate, there are legal mechanisms in place that will make that clear.

SPARKEYG wrote:

biccat wrote:You're free to follow the case at recap the law.

I'm not going to bother posting updates or anything else in this thread anymore, for personal reasons.

I'm sad to hear that biccat, I've found your posts to be highly informative and helped me to understand the legal wranglings behind this case.

I'm going to second SPARKEYG's position here, biccat - though thanks for the link.

Last downloadable document seems to be from January, so it doesn't look like there's been much movement recently.

biccat wrote:You're free to follow the case at recap the law.

I'm not going to bother posting updates or anything else in this thread anymore, for personal reasons.

This I am really upset at hearing this, yours and Weeble's posts have been some of the best posts I have ever read. Thank you for putting your two cents in on this I have really enjoyed reading your thoughts and interpritation of the law.

Knights-Abhorrent wrote:
Well, as I said, he's no liar and visits HQ as it's only a couple of hours from our hometown.
What he told me is solid logic any any case and I believe him. Maybe he's been drawn into a rumour floating around HQ but until GW makes something public, I'll take his word for it :3

I think it'll be very widely known if the case 'falls through', not a rumour creeping out of HQ to your mate.

Knights-Abhorrent wrote:*IMPORTANT*

Didn't feel like going through 70+ pages to find out if this has been covered but:

I was told by one of guys down at my local GW that the lawsuit fell through due to CH being such a small company compared to GW and the fact GW are Brits and CH are American (different judgment system).
GW can't sue them, but they did reach an agreement regarding copyright and that's why GW have only now released the Hive Tyrant with Wings and the Thunderwolves.

In reality, GW have had the 2nd wave Nids and Space Wolves sat on a shelf for quite some time now whilst the lawsuit was being filed.
Chapterhouse claimed that the intellectual property regarding Tyrant wings and Thunderwolves was written and only existed in written-form. Using this loophole, they *created* both items and claimed intellectual property on the models/model parts they'd created which is why GW couldn't release their versions as CH could then counter-sue them for using their intellectual property.

That's why the lawsuit fell through, considering the fact intellectual property isn't a patent or signed document stating what it actually regards.

Keep in mind, that's what I was TOLD by an inside source who visits HQ quite often as HQ is actually quite near my hometown.

Another piece of evidence that confirms this is the fact the Tyrant and other 2nd wave Nids are multi-part plastic and not Finecast. Same with the Thunderwolves. That's because they've been sat on a shelf since before Finecast was implemented which also matches the time CH have been selling Thunderwolves and Tyrant wings.

Again, sorry if this has been covered but there it is.

Although many of the issues you have raised have been discussed previously, I will rehash the facts succinctly for the convenience of readers.

The lawsuit was filed by Games Workshop Limited in US Federal court, Northern District of Illinois. As the alleged copyrights asserted by the plaintiff are for the most part not registered US copyrights, UK law controls proof of ownership, as per the Berne Convention. In any case, US and UK copyright laws are very similar.

According to the public record, to date Chapterhouse Studios has no causes of action against Games Workshop. Additionally, the lawsuit is ongoing and has not been resolved. The Court's most recent scheduling order is as follows:

“Fact discovery closed 3/15/12. Rule 26(a)(2) by 5/1/12. Rebuttal to 26(a)(2) by 6/15/12. Expert discovery closed by 7/13/12. Dispositive motions with supporting memorandum to be filed by 8/14/12. The final pretrial order to be filed 10/19/12. A final pretrial conference is set for 11/20/12 at 3:30 p.m. Trial is set for 12/3/12 at 9:45 a.m. These are real and final dates.”

The questions regarding Games Workshop's most recent product releases have to do with the nature of trademark law. This is how trademarks work:

Trademarks identify a good or service. They mark goods for trade.

In the US, trademarks are registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. However, trademarks exist as soon as they are used in commerce, to the extent that they are valid and enforceable marks. Thus, one can attempt to enforce an unregistered trademark so long as the mark is being used in commerce. In advance of actually offering a good or service, a party can file an intention to use a trademark, thus putting the public on notice that the mark will shortly be used in commerce. This provides a period of protection even when the mark has not yet been used in commerce.

The word "Tervigon" is not a registered trademark. The word "Tervigon" is currently being used in commerce by both parties in the lawsuit. Neither party has claimed that a "Tervigon" mark has been infringed. Games Workshop has accused the Chapterhouse Studios "Tervigon Conversion Kit" product of infringing a copyright. This claim has only to do with the visual appearance of the product as a sculptural work of art, and has nothing to do with the mark under which it is sold.

Those are the facts. They conflict with the objectively erroneous inferences that you posted.

Thanks for the summary, weeble! The dates are good... I can't believe how long these things take. But this means we'll see a trial before the year is out, IF it's going to go to trial, or they'll have to settle before that date- right?

Fact discovery closed 3/15/12. Rule 26(a)(2) by 5/1/12. Rebuttal to 26(a)(2) by 6/15/12. Expert discovery closed by 7/13/12. Dispositive motions with supporting memorandum to be filed by 8/14/12. The final pretrial order to be filed 10/19/12. A final pretrial conference is set for 11/20/12 at 3:30 p.m. Trial is set for 12/3/12 at 9:45 a.m. These are real and final dates.

I am no lawyer as you will soon see...

In 147.0 SECOND AMENDED complaint by Games Workshop Limited agains... it states
"Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiff demands a trial by jury as to
all issues so triable in this action.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests judgment against Defendants as follows:"

If I am correct GW is the Plaintiff, why good is trial by jury for them?

Wouldn't trial by Jury see it as a large corp trying to pick on a little guy, you know with all the 1% stuff and the slow rebuilding economy that is going on here state side?

Is this a stall tacit? Is it a way for them to be able to file for an appeal later? Is it reverse psychology, does GW think by saying "We demand it" the judge will just say no?

Should have gone for trial by combat.

Bex wrote:If I am correct GW is the Plaintiff, why good is trial by jury for them?

Wouldn't trial by Jury see it as a large corp trying to pick on a little guy, you know with all the 1% stuff and the slow rebuilding economy that is going on here state side?

Is this a stall tacit? Is it a way for them to be able to file for an appeal later? Is it reverse psychology, does GW think by saying "We demand it" the judge will just say no?

A Jury is more likely to be swayed by testimony regarding 'fairness' than a judge. They're not experts on IP law, and depending on the quality of each party's counsel, they could be persuaded (despite what the letter of the law says) to think "wow, those do look similar, obviously CHS is copying"... like many people in this thread.

Weeble, correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't GW still not stated which specific works are allegedly being infringed upon? And has GW even shown proof of copyright to any of their works?

Furthermore, if GW has no valid copyrights in the US, can I go out and copyright one of these Doombulls sitting on my desk?

Knights-Abhorrent wrote:*IMPORTANT*

Didn't feel like going through 70+ pages to find out if this has been covered but:

I was told by one of guys down at my local GW that the lawsuit fell through due to CH being such a small company compared to GW and the fact GW are Brits and CH are American (different judgment system).
GW can't sue them, but they did reach an agreement regarding copyright and that's why GW have only now released the Hive Tyrant with Wings and the Thunderwolves.

In reality, GW have had the 2nd wave Nids and Space Wolves sat on a shelf for quite some time now whilst the lawsuit was being filed.
Chapterhouse claimed that the intellectual property regarding Tyrant wings and Thunderwolves was written and only existed in written-form. Using this loophole, they *created* both items and claimed intellectual property on the models/model parts they'd created which is why GW couldn't release their versions as CH could then counter-sue them for using their intellectual property.

That's why the lawsuit fell through, considering the fact intellectual property isn't a patent or signed document stating what it actually regards.

Keep in mind, that's what I was TOLD by an inside source who visits HQ quite often as HQ is actually quite near my hometown.

Another piece of evidence that confirms this is the fact the Tyrant and other 2nd wave Nids are multi-part plastic and not Finecast. Same with the Thunderwolves. That's because they've been sat on a shelf since before Finecast was implemented which also matches the time CH have been selling Thunderwolves and Tyrant wings.

Again, sorry if this has been covered but there it is.

See weebles post for information about the Chapterhouse situation. However one thing to note which might have caused this mistake would be Paulson. He got dragged into this mess as well, but got separated out. There was some deal made between GW and him which he cannot write about. GW did post to their website a blurb which seemed to be just marketing "we proved our IP and cut things from the other side".

d-usa wrote:Should have gone for trial by combat.

Winner!

Trasvi wrote:

Bex wrote:If I am correct GW is the Plaintiff, why good is trial by jury for them?

Wouldn't trial by Jury see it as a large corp trying to pick on a little guy, you know with all the 1% stuff and the slow rebuilding economy that is going on here state side?

Is this a stall tacit? Is it a way for them to be able to file for an appeal later? Is it reverse psychology, does GW think by saying "We demand it" the judge will just say no?

A Jury is more likely to be swayed by testimony regarding 'fairness' than a judge. They're not experts on IP law, and depending on the quality of each party's counsel, they could be persuaded (despite what the letter of the law says) to think "wow, those do look similar, obviously CHS is copying"... like many people in this thread.

Very true; juries are notorious for being swayed by appeals to emotion and the logically fallacious arguments that are so common in courtroom preceedings (such as pointing out that someone has lied in the past, thereby attempting to impune their current testimony. This is an argumentum ad hominem; their past lies do not address the veracity of their current statements, much as we emotionally think they should.).

I have to wonder if GW has requested a jury trial because GW actually believes their case to be weak. I wonder if the jury request was made because they believe they have a better chance to win by pursuading an uninformed group of "peers" rather than convincing a judge who is an expert in copyright law.

Saldiven wrote:

Very true; juries are notorious for being swayed by appeals to emotion and the logically fallacious arguments that are so common in courtroom preceedings (such as pointing out that someone has lied in the past, thereby attempting to impune their current testimony. This is an argumentum ad hominem; their past lies do not address the veracity of their current statements, much as we emotionally think they should.).

It does bring into question their integrity and it is not unreasonable test of a jury of Peers to think on whether their testimony is worthy or not.

But how can a case that should ultimately be decided by precise interpretations of a highly technical law be fairly tried by 12 (13?) people that have absolutely no expertise on that law?

Aerethan wrote:Weeble, correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't GW still not stated which specific works are allegedly being infringed upon? And has GW even shown proof of copyright to any of their works?

Furthermore, if GW has no valid copyrights in the US, can I go out and copyright one of these Doombulls sitting on my desk?

GW has few copyrights registered in the US. Copyright is an intrinsic right and must specifically be abandoned or transferred by the author of a work. Lack of registration requires the plaintiff to prove ownership. As the works were allegedly created in the UK, it means one would go to UK law to determine ownership. UK law and US law are slightly different regarding ownership, but I am not familiar enough with the details to adequately explain it.

So no, you couldn't get a copyright on the Doombulls on your desk, or at least you wouldn't be able to enforce it very well as you aren't really the author of that work. The works were protected by copyright the moment that they were "fixed in a tangible medium of expression." Who owns the copyright, and the extent of what is protectable would be issues that would come up when the rights were asserted.

As to what specific works GW has asserted against CHS, discovery is largely not a matter of public record. The Court ordered GW to produce the best available exemplars of the asserted works, so presumably GW will be limited to the works for which it has produced an exemplar. The best you have on the public record right now is Games Workshop's claim chart, which was produced many months ago. That chart lists the accused works in one column and the asserted copyright it has infringed in the other. However, the chart is not very enlightening as it lists things such as "Games Workshop sells products decorated with piles of skulls." The chart has been attached as an exhibit to several motions from both parties. You can find a copy in document 83.2, Exhibit 3. The chart was allegedly responsive to one of the defendant's interrogatories, but I do not recall which one specifically. That information is in the public record because it has been referred to by both parties and even quoted, but you'll have to dig it out if you are interested.

As for proof of ownership, that issue has been discussed by both parties in many of the most recent motions to the court. The short version is that CHS requested discoverable documents demonstrating proof of ownership. GW says that it produced responsive documents. CHS does not think the documents that have been produced are responsive. I believe the judge ruled on the issue at some point. You'll have to consult the public record. In any case, on Feb 23rd the Court ruled that:

"Both sides are to serve sworn verifications of completeness of responses to written discovery by 3/2/2012."

Those have obviously been served by this point and are in the record.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hena wrote:However one thing to note which might have caused this mistake would be Paulson. He got dragged into this mess as well, but got separated out. There was some deal made between GW and him which he cannot write about. GW did post to their website a blurb which seemed to be just marketing "we proved our IP and cut things from the other side".

Good call Hena. The guy might have been confusing the Paulson situation with Chapterhouse Studios.

PhantomViper wrote:But how can a case that should ultimately be decided by precise interpretations of a highly technical law be fairly tried by 12 (13?) people that have absolutely no expertise on that law?

Welcome to US law.

rigeld2 wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:But how can a case that should ultimately be decided by precise interpretations of a highly technical law be fairly tried by 12 (13?) people that have absolutely no expertise on that law?

Welcome to US law.

Exactly!

Unfortunately, it happens all the time.

I used to work in the highly litigious field of Golf Ball R&D and the LAST thing we wanted was for a case to have to go to a jury trial.

Most juries don't do well with anything 'highly technical'...

PhantomViper wrote:But how can a case that should ultimately be decided by precise interpretations of a highly technical law be fairly tried by 12 (13?) people that have absolutely no expertise on that law?

Ah, that's an interesting question. The Court will instruct jurors as to the law and it will make rulings prior to trial to limit the presentation of evidence to that which is material to the issues and not unfairly prejudicial. Counsel for both parties will likewise explain the law to the jury.

The jury is charged to apply the law to the facts as they find them. The Court can overturn a jury verdict that is inconsistent with the law. Additionally, before trial the Court will hear dispositive motions and may decided some issues as a Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL). Such a determination finds that no reasonable person appropriately applying the law to the facts could come up with a different decision.

Conceptually, a jury is able to bring collective wisdom to bear on an issue. As a whole, the group is able to make fair, informed decisions of greater value than any single member of the group would be capable of. So too, the jury system encourages a group of unbiased individuals to serve. Those with biases that would unduly influence their opinions about a case are in theory culled. Finally, counsel from both sides are typically allowed a certain number of peremptory challenges, that is, they can dismiss a juror without having to explain why.

These processes are intended to result in a group of uninterested, unbiased peers that will come to an objective decision by appropriately applying the applicable law to the facts as they find them.

However as a trial consultant I can fairly tell you that this process never functions in a perfectly ideal manner. This is one reason why I have a job. Even so, the jury system in the United States is one of the best in the world. As an attorney friend of mine is wont to say, it works correctly 95% of the time. While that remaining 5% may be scary to consider, it is a very low margin.

Complicated cases, such as patent cases, place a great deal of strain on the system. They don't break the system, but they are significantly more difficult to present to a jury because in many cases, few of the parties involved are experts in the subject matter and there is often a great deal at stake. For example, like copyrights, a patent must be interpreted. An inventor is allowed to use terms in the patent how he or she wishes, so long as there is a basis in the patent for that definition. I hope you can see how this has the potential to cause a significant amount of problems.

Before trial, the claims of a patent must be interpreted. This is inevitably a mixed issue of law and fact. The scope of a patent claim is a matter of law, but to define that scope one must interpret the facts. The Court is responsible for defining this scope as a matter of law, but the Judge is often not an expert in the field. Therefore each party typically suggests interpretations to the Court, supported by expert testimony, which is in many ways an interpretation of the facts, and thus the province of the finder of fact; the jury. And yet the jury should not be defining the scope of the patent. The scope of the patent has already been defined by the claims, sanctioned by the USPTO when the patent was issued. The claims stand as they are written...but what that language means within the context of the patent is at issue. Should the plain and ordinary meaning of a word be used, is the word understood by a person skilled in the art to have a certain meaning apart from the plain and ordinary meaning, or did the inventor use the word in a particular way and give it a particular meaning apart from the plain and ordinary meaning? And once the Court construes a claim, the finder of fact is left holding that baggage.

I once saw a jury spend more than an hour discussing the meaning of one word in the Court's claim construction, which was itself an interpretation of one phrase in the patent intended to make the meaning of that phrase clear to the jury. In many ways, the whole case came down to this discussion because this was the only claim element with which the parties had a dispute. The defendant admitted that the accused product met all other elements of the claim. Now, this is not unusual in the world of patent law because the invention is often an improvement over existing technology. Thus, many elements of a claim describe things already in the prior art. The invention may simply be the one part that is new and useful. You can invent a better mouse trap, but to describe how it works will likely require you to describe many parts that are common to all mouse traps.

weeble1000 wrote:Lots of interesting and pertinent stuff

Thanks for your reply weeble.

So, in your opinion, what does GW have to gain by making this a trial by jury? Is their case really so weak from a technical standpoint that at this point they are willing to throw it all on a "roll of the dice" so to speak?

Well that was an abrupt departure by biccat...

rigeld2 wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:But how can a case that should ultimately be decided by precise interpretations of a highly technical law be fairly tried by 12 (13?) people that have absolutely no expertise on that law?

Welcome to US law.

I would like to see the court case on Judge Judy. I bet she could make a good decision.

Well Judge Judy is a law unto herself and is nothing but a low level Civil judge sorting out minor issues. That programme is a joke. Could you imagine it in the UK "Lord Justice Blinkington-Smythe" just wouldn't work would it, they could do it in Magistrates as a Justice of the Peace. That could be entertaining.

mwnciboo wrote:

Saldiven wrote:

Very true; juries are notorious for being swayed by appeals to emotion and the logically fallacious arguments that are so common in courtroom preceedings (such as pointing out that someone has lied in the past, thereby attempting to impune their current testimony. This is an argumentum ad hominem; their past lies do not address the veracity of their current statements, much as we emotionally think they should.).

It does bring into question their integrity and it is not unreasonable test of a jury of Peers to think on whether their testimony is worthy or not.

The problem with that line of court testimony is that, frankly, everyone has lied in the past. If the fact that someone has lied in the past means their testimony is suspect, then all testimony is suspect.

Additionally, if someone said, "1 + 1 = 2," an attorney would look pretty silly by saying, "Well, you can't trust them, they've lied in the past." The fact that someone has lied in the past doesn't address the statement they are making now; that's why it's considered a logical fallacy. However, it is often easier to prove someone has lied in the past than it is to prove their current testimony is inaccurate. Also, the ad hominem attack is a very seductive argument; if you can paint someone making testimony in an unflattering light, it is relatively easy to get an unsophisticated juror to view the testimony itself in the same light.

Saldiven wrote:

mwnciboo wrote:

Saldiven wrote:

Very true; juries are notorious for being swayed by appeals to emotion and the logically fallacious arguments that are so common in courtroom preceedings (such as pointing out that someone has lied in the past, thereby attempting to impune their current testimony. This is an argumentum ad hominem; their past lies do not address the veracity of their current statements, much as we emotionally think they should.).

It does bring into question their integrity and it is not unreasonable test of a jury of Peers to think on whether their testimony is worthy or not.

The problem with that line of court testimony is that, frankly, everyone has lied in the past. If the fact that someone has lied in the past means their testimony is suspect, then all testimony is suspect.

Additionally, if someone said, "1 + 1 = 2," an attorney would look pretty silly by saying, "Well, you can't trust them, they've lied in the past." The fact that someone has lied in the past doesn't address the statement they are making now; that's why it's considered a logical fallacy. However, it is often easier to prove someone has lied in the past than it is to prove their current testimony is inaccurate. Also, the ad hominem attack is a very seductive argument; if you can paint someone making testimony in an unflattering light, it is relatively easy to get an unsophisticated juror to view the testimony itself in the same light.

I agree with the distinction in principle, but their is a difference between lying to your children about Santa Claus and various little white lies and lying underoath or admitting under oath to have deceived people. This is a matter of public record especially if the witness in question has a criminal record and therefore is entirely relevant, reasonable and pertinent to the swaying of a jury of sworn impartial peers to make a decision about the veracity of someones testimony.

There is no real alternative to Jury's for complex financial cases and highly technical cases, we just have to put our faith in our own people and the ability of Legal Professionals to articulate their complex issues in a way that the lowest common denominator can understand.

Saldiven wrote:

mwnciboo wrote:

Saldiven wrote:

Very true; juries are notorious for being swayed by appeals to emotion and the logically fallacious arguments that are so common in courtroom preceedings (such as pointing out that someone has lied in the past, thereby attempting to impune their current testimony. This is an argumentum ad hominem; their past lies do not address the veracity of their current statements, much as we emotionally think they should.).

It does bring into question their integrity and it is not unreasonable test of a jury of Peers to think on whether their testimony is worthy or not.

The problem with that line of court testimony is that, frankly, everyone has lied in the past. If the fact that someone has lied in the past means their testimony is suspect, then all testimony is suspect.

Additionally, if someone said, "1 + 1 = 2," an attorney would look pretty silly by saying, "Well, you can't trust them, they've lied in the past." The fact that someone has lied in the past doesn't address the statement they are making now; that's why it's considered a logical fallacy. However, it is often easier to prove someone has lied in the past than it is to prove their current testimony is inaccurate. Also, the ad hominem attack is a very seductive argument; if you can paint someone making testimony in an unflattering light, it is relatively easy to get an unsophisticated juror to view the testimony itself in the same light.

However that type of trick can also backfire if you come up against someone who answers every question completely honestly, no matter how badly it paints them.

Go Omar! http://youtu.be/oYj7q_by_2E