John Carmack on expert witnesses and 'non literal' copying
I suppose many weird things happen in $500m cases, but it&#x27;d be really unusual to have <i>trial testimony</i> sealed against the agreement of the parties. Pretrial reports and depositions, sure.  Media was apparently there reporting during the expert&#x27;s trial testimony, and I&#x27;d be surprised if they cannot buy a transcript from the court reporter. (<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;uploadvr.com&#x2F;court-oculus-zenimax-last-day&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;uploadvr.com&#x2F;court-oculus-zenimax-last-day&#x2F;</a>)<p>A quick look at the docket shows the expert witness at issue is likely to be David Dobkin of Princeton.  That name appears on the docket and in media reports.  Let me know if that violates HN norms, but expert witness trial testimony <i>is</i> part of the public, permanent record in almost every case.  If a witness is excluded for using unreliable methods, his or her value as an expert is ... diminished.