Quote:
Originally Posted by OptionZero
Everything you said above is true, but if you wanted to be technical about it, #1 and #2 could be admissible depending what the issue in the case was (i.e. if you were in a contracts dispute with Bill Gates, #1 might be admissible.; if you were in a patent dispute half a century ago, #2 might be admissible). Heck, even in a criminal case, #1 and #2 might be admissible if the issue were your sanity, but now i'm just picking nits.
|
I disagree. #1 and #2 cannot be admitted into evidence
per se because they are not admission to be used against you.
With #1, if you said "I owe Bill Gates $1 million" then it would be held against you. Litigants' assertions
per se are never taken as facts unless it's an admission to be used against the speaker.
With #2, Litigant's claim to be first-to-invent
per se is never taken to be facts in evidence without further proof. Under current patent practices, you either have to go to interference, invalidate the patent, or petition to have the patent undergo reexam. A lot of companies are trying interlocutory appeal but I'm not sure where that is going.
If you're trying to prosecute to get a patent then it would constitute mere allegation of patentability without specifically pointing out how the claimed invention distinguishes over the prior art.
If you said "I wasn't the first to invent the Internet", then that by itself would be used against you.
The last part I agree with if the totality of the evidence goes towards establishing character.