Friday, October 26, 2012
$VRNG $GOOG Dr. Ungar Does Poorly in 'expert testimony' (edvacourt update) Fri Oct 26th
"After the court opened to the public at 10:30 Attorney Frank Cimino Jr. cross examined Dr. Ungar. Let me start by saying that Google may have lost their case on his "expert" testimony under cross. Counsel asked Dr. Ungar whether he had read all the documents, gone through the data base, etc. Ungar said he did not do so because he did not get as much into the high level stuff. He said essentially that he presented the breakdown of the high level information that Google had given him. He said he met with Google approximately 100 times to discuss this. He said that only 2-3 of those meetings were with actual engineers and that he essentially took what they had given him about their system at face value. At one point Ungar literally turns to the jury clearly anxious and say's "its too much information, I was trying to simplify it to make it easily understandable. He is asked whether he actually looked at the code by Cimino and he says that he looked at the code a little bit and a little of the high level documents. Counsel appears to trap Ungar by saying that on one hand he claims that these high level documents should not be regarded and on the other that he was handed high level documents by Google Engineers which describe the system and they too should be disregarded. Cimino adds that Ungar is additionally saying Google's internal documents on the system should be disregarded. Should it all be disregarded suggests Cimino? Ungar does not answer this and instead starts to define what he thinks of the technology again. Cimino has clearly left an impression with the jury, with Ungar's help, that what is being presented by the defense was completely crafted by Google's attorneys and is divorced from their own detailed and specific high level documentation as well as other internal and external publications on the system. At this point the jury is very alert. One terrible thing for Google here is that it was established under direct exam that Ungar is an associate professor with no under graduate degrees in computer science or computer engineering. Google objected and said Vringo had already qualified Ungar as an expert and Cimino basically said sure, we have no problem with him as an expert...especially since Cimino had just established that Ungar basically had zero credibility. Cimino goes on to ask Ungar whether he had ever taught courses on databases, search, etc. and Ungar said no but that he was very familiar with them. The jury at this point may be wondering what kind of expert Dr. Ungar is. It is further established that Dr. Ungar took his sabbatical at Google for 9 months and was on their payroll. It is established that he is making $600/hr. for his testimony. This adds to the perspective that Ungar is simply regurgitating what Google is giving him. At one point Cimino asks about Ungar's previous testimony that runs contrary to the established claim terms of the Markman ruling. Ungar replies yeah "but the court could reasonably infer"...and then Cimino cuts him off and say the court has already determined this terms in its ruling. Ungar is asked whether he has done his own prior art search and he admits that he hasn't and that prior art was supplied entirely by Google. He is then asked to look at elements of his own testimony and is visibly flummoxed on the stand as he cannot remember his own testimony in several instances. Instead of saying he can't recall he argues with Cimino which looks very bad. Perhaps the morning topper is when Cimino does the exact search on Google referenced in Ungar's earlier testimony and comes out with a completely different result then the one Ungar states would result. Cimino actually puts Google slides up for jurors and the judge to see. Cimino shows that Google provides relevant data and does not interrupt the irrelevant data because someone bought more. This evidence is damning for Google's case. Ungar looks decidedly not credible. Since Ungar was Google's firewall against infringement it appears likely at this hour that Google will be found to have infringed."
Posted by Grand Central at 10:29 AM