Which do you prefer, an inventor or an economist?

The plaintiff’s expert was considered to be a negotiations expert. He was formally trained in the law, but had no economic training. In a patent infringement suit, he “invented” a bargaining scenario which put the opposing side in an unrealistic and compromised position. His “invented” situation created extravagant damage amounts which were unable to be substantiated with any economic principles. After a finding of infringement, the jury awarded these damages to the plaintiff.

On appeal, the appellate court looked at the methodology of the negotiations expert and threw out all of his work and testimony. In their decision the appellate judges specifically indicated that they could not see where he had adhered to any sound economic principles and remanded the case for retrial on the damages.