3 ms·
The professor is leveraging the reputation of the institution to augment their own in the eyes of the jury, and they're being paid a handsome fee for doing so.
by ModernMech 4y ago
The professor is leveraging the reputation of the institution to augment their own in the eyes of the jury, and they're being paid a handsome fee for doing so. This fee won't be paid to the institution at all. Any organization on the planet has standing to sue you if you use their name for your own profit, whether you are affiliated with them or not. Maybe that's unconscionable, but I'd be far more concerned if that weren't the case; where anyone could use anyone else's name and not be liable for fraud, impersonation, or defamation.
- omniglottal 4y agoYou apppear to be missing or obscuring basic facts. "I am employed as a university professor at <X>" should never be a forbidden statement wherein it is (a) not fraud (b) not impersonation and (c) not defamation.
- ModernMech 4y agoWell the thing you're missing there is also (d) a for-profit enterprise while under employment. Please point out any employer who would allow you to go around using their name to make money on the side. Does your employer allow this?
- gopher_space 4y agoI'd argue that our need for expert testimony in the courtroom outweighs the desire of a company to manage their brand.
- ModernMech 4y agoPerhaps. But the way juries are conditioned to gauge expertise is by using the brand as a proxy. That’s why “Vanderbilt” professor can make $200k giving expert testimony, whereas professors at no-name schools aren’t even asked the time of day. If prosecutors want expert testimony in encumbered by brand dynamics, they are free to ask anyone. But they ask for the brand-names because they have more weight in the eyes of jurors.