Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Evaluating the Experts
The U.S. Supreme Court, in its landmark Daubert decision (Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)), established an empirical standard of evidentiary reliability to ensure that only those expert opinions predicated upon demonstrably valid knowledge would make their way into evidence. Daubert further instructed that when the expert testimony comes from a discipline that purports to be scientific, as does psychology, evidentiary reliability translates to a standard of scientific validity.
The Court delineated four factors to guide the trial judge when he or she, acting as gatekeeper, assesses the scientific validity of the principles and methods underlying the expert's opinion. The two primary factors, which require direct assessment of scientific validity, are testability/falsifiability, and error rate/practice standards analysis. Daubert also identified two secondary or indirect assessment criteria that may assist the court in discharging its gatekeeping obligation: 1) peer review/publication; and 2) general acceptance.
These secondary factors, though expressed by the Court in discrete terms, are interrelated. Peer-review/publication is, in effect, a gateway to general acceptance. Unpublished work that does not find its way before the larger professional community is not likely to achieve general acceptance within that community simply because its members largely would be unaware of its existence and, therefore, would be unable to subject it to critical analysis. Thus, peer-review publication is the vehicle that is the first step to broad acceptance.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?