2011.06.06 TRIAL Day Eleven (Afternoon Session)

[strawberry]

Umm, I thought this was "junk science". Why aren't you attacking the science instead of Dr. Vass, JB? Huh?

 

[texaslb218]

Had to mute my sound.

 

[Mendara]

Why is JB asking questions that were already objected on and overruled?

 

[wvjules]

"Did you not?" Drives me batty! :banghead:

 

[sleutherontheside]

Oh snap.....he volunteered his time on this case. SLAM

 

[nursebeeme]

he is attacking the doctor not the science... just my observation

 

[Oakley]

You all are stronger than me....backing slowly away from the keyboard.....

I can't take this. I'm unplugging my keyboard. (Seriously)

:laughcry:

 

[greycoupon]

If someone from Vass's lab had referred to him as a "chemist", presumably on a press release or webpage, Baez would reference that instance specifically, right? Show the court a copy of whatever to try discredit him?

That was all so off the wall I half expected him to ask him if he had a WS account.

I think Baez could push the royalties angle without seeming so rude. He should have just left out the social network stuff. JB just doesn't seem to know when to leave something alone or back off.

 

[MissDiva]

This is unbelievable. I wish HHJBP would tell JB to just MOVE ALONG. I'm so tired of hearing about how much money Dr. Vass would get for anything.
:deadhorse:

 

[ami]

In this case, Vaas stated that he was not a biochemist. So what you are talking about would not apply in this case.

He answered based on the question of his accreditation through his degrees. He could have answered either way, considering his work. IMO, he was being modest. But it's his choice.

 

[Bittiness39]

OMG! JB and & Co. made more off of the death of Caylee than Dr. Vass will ever see from patents. Wow. I wish that the amount made off of Caylee's death could be shown to a jury. And the lack of payments to the IRS off of those funds.

 

[ahoyhoy]

I couldn't imagine a man LESS motivated by money than Dr. Vass! It's so obvious!

 

[mombomb]

Continued cross examination of Dr. Arpad Vass by JB

Objection overruled.

The database is not his to turn over. It was a "deliverable" to the organization who paid for the research. He does not know if it has been turned over. He actually thought it had been turned over. Without the grant money, there is no research. They are a research lab. Their product is research data. Part of his job is to bring in research money.

He holds the patent of the "Labradore" equipment which utilizes the compounds found in the 2008 paper. It is a hand held device that looks like a metal detector. His position requires him to file invention disclosures. This equipment was formulated thru a grant for the Department of Justice. It is the lab's decision whether or not to file a patent. He has no say in that decision at all. His goal is not to sell the equipment at all - rather to develop it. The goal was to create a technological tool that law enforcement could use to locate clandestine graves.

If a licensee licenses the patent, there is a royalty fee associated with that, but he considers it an insignificant amount. He doesn't know if the royalty is related to the number of units sold. 15% royalties is split between the inventors.

JB wanting to know if part of the process is to get verification in Court - objection by SA - sustained.

In 2006 there was an initial prototype. His CV shows other products.

Objection - improper impeachment -

Sidebar

 

[GiantPickle]

Are defense attorneys usually this rude to expert witnesses? I am asking a serious question.

I would say yes when they are working with so little. They have to discredit the witness somehow....disrespect is one way.

 

[Whimsigal]

Sidebar.

 

[wenwe4]

object overrule-
refused to turn over to defense....not mine to turn over.....part of a research - not turned over to defense Dr. V. thought it was turned over because had depo on this just the other day ....thought given the database...
...
used this database...turned over to people who gave grant.....research scientist must apply for grants....our product is research data...bring in suffiencent $ to maintain research....hold patent on Labradore....on patent disclosure.....uses compounds in 2008 paper.....partially - doesn't use every compound in data base...

devices to sell to police depts all over country.....required to file invention disclosure....Nat. grant from Institute of Justice..instrument to aid and augment clandestine graves...invention developed dutifiully and correctly filed invention disclosure....lab decsion whether to file a patent - Dr. V has no authority to


Dr. V is not to sell these at all...his goal is to develop - someone could come in and patent they could use to locate clandestine graves....prior to this being sold must have court of law (object- sustained) royalties if this device is sold? I don't understand the tech. resources @ lab....he understands there is a royalty fee associated with that but it is insignificant ..of.amt of $ you get depends on how many of these are sold.....I don't know I think it's licensee ......15% of royalties? split between the inventors....

built it with same funding source given for labradore?
no but done around the same time....

first patent disclosure on a prototype that did not end up being final product...in CV you have subsequent patents (object- impeach - sidebar)

 

[beachbumming]

Are defense attorneys usually this rude to expert witnesses? I am asking a serious question.

Yes, but you will see the SA being quite firm with the defense's experts.

 

[okiedokietoo]

JB:
Dr. Vass: labs decision to file or not file a patent on that device
JB: goal to sell these to police depts across country
Dr Vass: create tech tool LE could use to locate clandestine graves
JB: You get royalties if this device is sold?
Dr Vass: royalty fee is relatively insignificant
JB: amount of $ you get sir depends on how many devices are sold - you get 15%
Dr Vass: yes, split between inventors

JB:this "labrador" - applied patent in 2006
Dr Vass: original yes

JA object (? about impeach)
HJBP Aproach - sidebar

 

[dog.gone.cute]

:waitasec:

JB's line of questioning regarding "Royalties" is "absolutely" ridiculous !

This is just soooooo "insulting" to Dr. Vass ...

:great: I think it's great that Dr. Vass has invented and patented equipment !

There is nothing wrong inventing and patenting, JB.

 

[TiaM]

Oh Baez - I don't think you REALLY want to open a door to witness/expert billing now do you?

You <Unusual person>!!!