2 ms·
Nothing wrong with that, but a common sense explanation by an expert witness ought to be enough. Does Apple need to be dragged into each and every case to testi
by _djo_ 5y ago
Nothing wrong with that, but a common sense explanation by an expert witness ought to be enough. Does Apple need to be dragged into each and every case to testify as to how pinch to zoom works, as was demanded here?
Courts have established mechanisms for handling technical questions around evidence. It's not like any of this is new.
- jtbayly 5y agoAll that was required was an expert witness, right? So what’s the problem?
- _djo_ 5y agoThe judge did not give the prosecution time to find an expert witness, did not ask his clerks to search for similar usage of iPad zooming in previous cases, and did not require the defence to provide expert testimony of their own to substantiate their claim. In the end the iPad was not used. Instead a 4K TV was used, which ironically probably upscaled the image too.
- vorpalhex 5y agoThe judge does not provide clerks for research. The party introducing the evidence does that.
- _djo_ 5y agoThis wasn’t a new evidence exhibit being introduced. Did you actually read the transcript, or are you reacting to this story based on what you’ve read elsewhere?
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago"In the end the iPad was not used. Instead a 4K TV was used" Okay, so what's the issue then?