5 ms·
You have no evidence of that. More likely the plaintiff had their own scientific experts who were more persuasive, that's how all technical matters are adjudica
by user3939382 4y ago
You have no evidence of that. More likely the plaintiff had their own scientific experts who were more persuasive, that's how all technical matters are adjudicated in courts.
- NovemberWhiskey 4y agoNonetheless, surely the point is well-made that just because 12 jurors or 1 judge decide that a presentation is more persuasive does not say anything about the truth value of the underlying science. Just look at the junk science of the FBI crime labs - and that stuff is being measured at the higher "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.
- user3939382 4y agoAnother factor that makes Monsanto/Bayer look really bad here is that they lost despite having basically an unlimited legal budget with a huge team of lawyers versus this school groundskeeper and their case was so bad they still lost.
- gruez 4y ago>having basically an unlimited legal budget with a huge team of lawyers no, their budget is capped at the amount that they're suing for. If you're getting sued for $1M there's no point in spending more than $1M on lawyers. >versus this school groundskeeper and their case was so bad they still lost. According to the court filings for the appeal, Johnson was represented by >The Miller Firm, LLC Michael J. Miller, Curtis G. Hoke, Jeffrey A. Travers; >Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, P.C.; R. Brent Wisner, Pedram Esfandiary; >Audet Partners LLP, Mark E. Burton Something tells me that he wasn't paying for all of this out of pocket.
- fomine3 4y ago> no, their budget is capped at the amount that they're suing for. If you're getting sued for $1M there's no point in spending more than $1M on lawyers. If it affects future worldwide business, they can spend more to protect overall business.