Great Moments In Legal Questioning: IT Boss In Cuyahoga County Cannot Identify A Photocopier
from the say-that-again-now? dept
A few of you have passed along this rather epic moment in legal questioning in which lawyer David Marburger (who we've discussed in totally different contexts before) tries to get a Cuyahoga County IT boss to answer a simple question about whether or not the recorder's office has a photocopying machine during a case being heard before the Ohio Supreme Court. The entire transcript, which we repeat below, takes up 10 pages. If you're reading this on the front page or via the RSS, the transcript is so long that we're moving some of it to the article page, so click on through if you want to read the whole thing (which is worth it). Marburger is the lawyer asking questions (representing some title companies in the lawsuit). Patterson is Lawrence Patterson, acting head of IT for the recorder's division at the county fiscal office, and the guy being questioned. Cavanagh is Matthew Cavanagh, the lawyer for the county who seems quite upset that anyone might pry into the nature of the machinery at work in the county offices:Marburger: During your tenure in the computer department at the Recorder's office, has the Recorder's office had photocopying machines?Cavanagh: Objection.
Marburger: Any photocopying machine?
Patterson: When you say "photocopying machine," what do you mean?
Marburger: Let me be -- let me make sure I understand your question. You don't have an understanding of what a photocopying machine is?
Patterson: No. I want to make sure that I answer your question correctly.
Cavanagh: Dave, I'll object to the tone of the question. You make it sound like it's unbelievable to you that he wouldn't know what the definition of a photocopy machine is.
Marburger: I didn't ask him to define it. I asked him if he had any.
Patterson: When you say "photocopying machine," what do you mean?
Marburger: Let me be clear. The term "photocopying machine" is so ambiguous that you can't picture in your mind what a photocopying machine is in an office setting?
Patterson: I just want to make sure I answer your question correctly.
Marburger: Well, we'll find out. If you can say yes or no, I can do follow-ups, but it seems -- if you really don't know in an office setting what a photocopying machine is, I'd like the Ohio Supreme Court to hear you say so.
Patterson: I just want to make sure I answer your question correctly.
Cavanagh: There's different types of photocopiers, Dave.
Marburger: You're speaking instead of -- you're not under oath. This guy is.
Cavanagh: I understand that, but I understand what his objection is. You want him to answer the question, but I don't think it's fair.
Marburger: It's not fair?
Cavanagh: It's not a fair question. A photocopy machine can be a machine that uses photostatic technology, that uses xerographic technology, that uses scanning technology.
Marburger: I don't care what kind of technology it uses. Has your offices -- we don't have technocrats on the Ohio Supreme Court. We've got people like me, general guys --
Cavanagh: Objection.
Marburger: -- or gals. I'm not really very interested in what the technology element of it is. I want to know --
Cavanagh: That's what's at issue in the case, Dave.
Marburger: Not in my judgment. Do you have photocopying machines at the Recorder's office? If you don't know what that means in an office setting, please tell the court you don't know what it means in an office setting to have a photocopying machine.
Patterson: I would like to answer your question to the best of my ability.
Marburger: I'm asking you to answer that.
Patterson: So if you could explain to me what you mean by --
Marburger: I'm not going to do that because I want you -- I want to establish on the record that you really don't know what it is. I want to establish that.
Now, do you know what it is or do you not know what it is? Do you understand what that term means in common parlance or not?
Patterson: Common parlance?
Marburger: Common language.
Patterson: I'm sorry. I didn't know what that meant. I understand that there are photocopying machines, and there are different types of them just like --
Marburger: Are there any in the Recorder's office?
Patterson: -- there are different cars. Some of them run under gas power, some of them under electric power, and I'm asking if you could help me out by explaining what you mean by "photocopying machines" --
Marburger: That's a great point.
Patterson: -- instead of trying to make me feel stupid.
Marburger: If you feel stupid, it's not because I'm making you feel that way.
Cavanagh: Objection.
Patterson: I have self-confidence and I have no problem.
Marburger: I don't think you're stupid.
Patterson: I think -- I don't have any problem answering the question.
Marburger: I think you're playing games with me.
Cavanagh: Dave, the word "photocopying" is at issue in this case, and you're asking him whether something is or isn't a photocopy machine, which is a legal conclusion --
Marburger: This isn't a patent case. There's no statute that defines -- where I'm asking him to define technology for me. I'm asking -- I want to find out from a layperson's perspective, not an engineer's perspective, not a technician's perspective, but from -- I have an idea.
Marburger: How about this: Have you ever heard the term "photocopier" or "photocopy" used in the Recorder's office by anybody?
Patterson: Photocopy? I'm sure in the time I've been there someone has used the term.
Marburger: And have you ever heard them use it in referencing a particular device or machine within the Recorder's office? By way of example, "can you photocopy that for me?" That's an example of office parlance.
Patterson: That particular terminology I've not witnessed.
Marburger: What was the context that you've heard the term "photocopy" used in the Recorder's office?
Patterson: I'm sure it's been used. I didn't say I remembered a specific instance.
Marburger: All right. But you have a general understanding that people have used the term "photocopy" within the Recorder's office in terms of something that could be done there; is that true?
Patterson: I'm sure it's been used. I don't remember a specific instance or how it was used. I'm sure it's been used.
Marburger: And is it fair to say that it's been used in terms of being able to copy one piece of paper onto another piece of paper using a machine? No? Not sure of that?
Patterson: I'm sure it's been used. I don't recall a specific instance in which it was.
Marburger: Do you have a secretary?
Patterson: No.
Marburger: Does anybody there have a secretary?
Patterson: Yes.
Marburger: Have you ever heard a secretary use the term "photocopy"?
Patterson: No.
Marburger: Have you ever--do you have machines there where I can put in a paper document, push a button or two, and out will come copies of that paper document also on paper? Do you have such a machine?
Patterson: Yes, sir.
Marburger: What do you call that machine?
Patterson: Xerox.
Marburger: Xerox. Is the machine made by the Xerox Company? Is that why it's called Xerox?
Patterson: No.
Marburger: So Xerox, in the parlance that you've described, the language that you've described, is being used generically as opposed to describing a particular brand; is that right?
Patterson: All of my life I've just known people to say Xerox. It's not commonplace to use the terminology that you're using.
Marburger: You mean it's more -- people say Xerox instead of photocopy?
Patterson: If you're referring to a type of machine where you place a piece of paper on the top and press a button and out comes copies of it, they usually refer to it as a Xerox.
Marburger: Have you ever heard it referred to as photocopying?
Patterson: Not with my generation, no.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: photocopier
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also, 'office.'
Also, 'any.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Also, you could point out that you don't know whether there are any cars there, because you are not there to observe them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Defined.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Recursion - see Recursion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
.
.
.
And I am not talking about the transcript.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bill Gates or Bill Clinton about the word 'is'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's not dishonest to ask for clarification before answering a question. When the attorney *finally* clarified, the IT guy answered the question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You act as if there is only one way his question could possibly be interpreted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The man works in the IT department. This is simple technology that has been in offices for YEARS. To say he doesn't know what a photocopier is makes him look like an idiot who shouldn't be doing the work he is doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That could also be why he needs clarification; I have a scanner and a printer, is that a photocopier? It can fulfill the same function.
On the other hand, it's easier enough to explain the need for clarification without F***ing about and wasting the court's time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In a case like that, the most honest answer would be something like "I have a combination scanner/printer, so if you would consider that a photocopier, then yes." Not "I don't know what you mean by photocopier."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Next.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wait..Is your name Patterson?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Define "waste of time".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patterson doesn't want to give a straight answer.
I suspect that his omission that copy machines exists within the county office might be key to part of the setup for Marburger's case.
Patterson is being an uncooperative witness on purpose.
I've always wondered why all these companies are hell bent on infringement issues but no one ever makes mention that infringement goes on all the time in court. Making copies of documents (or book exerts) with a copier to use as working documents rather than the original evidence itself that needs to be preserved. That's as blatant as it gets for infringement.
When necessary a document is shared with the jury, the judge, and all parties involved. How many actual times have you heard during these times that anyone within court went to get permission to use it? I would suggest the answer to that would be nil or next to never.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Patterson is being an uncooperative witness on purpose."
The fact that he explains the term his generation uses is "Xerox" has completely escaped you and your superior mind reading capabilities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Oh, wait. I don't want to give them any ideas.
Nevermind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Gain or profit is not a necessary component for copying to be copyright infringement, though I agree (or at least hope) for court documents it would be fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"The overall case is about whether deeds and other records at the county recorder's office -- records that were collected and are maintained with your taxes -- should be readily available at reasonable cost. "
That gives us plenty of context.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it possible he has never heard of a photocopier referred to as anything but a Xerox machine? Yes.
When the attorney asking questions finally clarified what he meant instead of haranguing the guy, did he get an answer to his question? Yes.
Is it possible he wanted clarification on whether the computer hooked up to a flatbed scanner with access to a network laser printer constituted a "photocopying machine" before he answered "yes" or "no?" Yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What you say WILL be used against you.
This is why you never talk to cops.
You have to be very careful when you are answering questions from a lawyer or in any other legal context.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I have to disagree:
"Marburger: Let me be clear. The term "photocopying machine" is so ambiguous that you can't picture in your mind what a photocopying machine is in an office setting?
Patterson: I just want to make sure I answer your question correctly."
That was a perfect opportunity to either just say "no, I don't know what a photocopying machine is" or explain why he was having difficulty with the question. His answer seems evasive. It neither answers the question nor explains why he cannot answer it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Honestly I would not know how to answer that either, especially if it was key to a case. At my office I have several different multi-function printers that can copy but none of them are Photocopying machines. Because of all of their features, I'm not comfortable with the idea of answering yes, and then having that functionality being glossed over, or assumed. It may or may not be important to know that the Hard Drive on my Multi-function printer keeps a copy of everything it makes copies of, but either way its not what in common parlance is considered a copier.
Instead of being a punk, the prosecutor could have asked, "have you or anyone else at you office ever made copies? What did you use?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Right. "Yes" or "no", not "I don't know what you mean by color."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I suppose all the key players in this "Yes you did, No I didn't" scenario care about is that they're getting paid while they play their schoolyard games.
What a fucking joke.. take 'em out the back and shoot the fucking lot of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I've been at flipping town zoning meetings where lawyers or witnesses have been virtually head-cracked for such blatant obfuscation, evasion, and general time wasting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Best line
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Best line
"Are there any chairs in your office?"
"Objection!"
Lolwut?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just...wow.
I think I need to question the definition of the words "my brain" after reading this, because I think it might have turned into mush after reading that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
FTFY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, not so unbelievable, actually.
However, it appeared that (according to the County's attorney), photocopying technology was potentially an issue in the case, so he possibly instructed his client to not answer questions about "photocopiers" unless it was about a specific kind of photocopying technology or something.
And, of course, we're all happy to point to the other guy as being difficult and/or stupid, but just wait until you believe your side of a dispute depends on a particular interpretation of a word or concept.
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yeah, not so unbelievable, actually.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I find..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I find..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I know what this is
i mean it has to be there is no way that was an actual conversation (specially not in a court of law)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I know what this is
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I know what this is
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I know what this is
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I know what this is
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the President can do it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'll be here all week folks!
(silence) (nervous cough)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He has a VALID point.
The person asking the questions obviously has no idea what they are asking about. If they are simply asking about copying machines in the classical sense, then they should not be talking to someone in IT. They should be talking to head of their facilities. The guys who place desks, chairs, and usually handle copying machine placements. Maintenance is almost always contracted out because you need special certifications from the manufacturer to even touch them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He has a VALID point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: He has a VALID point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: He has a VALID point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: He has a VALID point.
My worldview is ruined!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: He has a VALID point.
Only if you live on the Discworld.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: He has a VALID point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He has a VALID point.
IT has absolutely NOTHING to do with them.
Please convince my boss of this...please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He has a VALID point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: He has a VALID point.
Unless a particular copier was infact a multi-function printer, the IT guys never touched it. A proper copier is something that is usually out sourced to a specialist. They tend to be expensive machines that rate that sort of thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It seems ambiguous to me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It seems ambiguous to me
If asked if you have the ability to make copies at home? the answer is yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It seems ambiguous to me
Not so clear to me. He has a machine that makes copies of photos, right? That's a scanner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It seems ambiguous to me
The last part of the transcript does make me think it may have been a genuine dialect problem, though.
(e.g. similar to the way lots of people in the US South use "coke" as a generic term the way others would use "soda", "pop" or "soft drink")
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1. Assume you are the smartest person involved, including all the principles being discussed.
2. Assume you know everything about the context of the issue being discussed.
3. Assume that all lawyers, politicians, and government officials are maximally corrupt, ignorant, and lazy.
4. Assume anything you don't like or doesn't make sense to you about the status quo is the result of corruption, willful ignorance, and/or malice.
5. Start typing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1. Be 'that guy'.
2. Assume that nobody knows anything except yourself.
3. Hate Mike.
4. ???
5. Be an ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1. Be a Dick.
2. Ignore most points, attack Mike. Maybe pirates, nazis, or other posters, depending on mood.
3. More dickisheryness. Hey, look, trolls can create new words! We have to be smarterish than Mike now.
4. ... PROFIT???
(5. PS: Just dicking with ya. It's what we trolls do.)
(6. PPS: Bitch that someone infringed - i mean pirated - i mean stole - my profit from step 4, even if I haven't made it yet.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who's on first?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Declarations...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To all those who have never heard the term "photocopy machine" or "photocopier". Really? It would be the same as the lawyer asking if the guy knew what a soft drink was, and in the end the guy admitting that "Oh, well, we call it 'pop' or 'coke'" after going through all that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The guy being questioned was stuck either way. Option A he answers a question his lawyers/employer didn't want him to answer (Bad for his employer's case). Option B the tax payers find out that they are employing an "IT" person who doesn't know what a photocopier is (Bad for him keeping his job).
Also, not sure where you're going with the soft drink comparison, but to the common person that's the only definition of soft drink, unless you're trying to weasel out of a question by twisting words.
Xerox is to photocopy machine as
Coke is to soft drink.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Hardly. For example, most people I know wouldn't refer to juice, water, or milk as a "soft drink," although those are all beverages without alcohol.
The deponent was perfectly happy to tell the guy whatever facts he wanted to know (i.e., we have machines that make copies that we refer to as Xerox machines), but the deposing attorney appeared interested in a sound bite that made the guy look dishonest rather than the facts OR was two stupid to realize he could get the facts he was looking for by rephrasing a question (which I think is unlikely, but there are some pretty dumb attorneys out there).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think my point still holds true though. I think he was avoiding the question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess after this he went to his horseless carriage that has a Bent eight, and stopped at the malt shop, for some pop, then stopped to visit his big daddy, then picked up his baby for some back seat bingo where he would Go ape, and his friends could see he was radioactive, (take deep breath) but, then the Blue Meanies showed up and we had to Agitate the Gravel, so the flat foots wouldn't discover that my baby is an Ankle-biter and throw me in the can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mimeograph
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mimeograph
(there's a scene from a movie - Fast Times at Ridgemont High? Ferris Bueller's Day Off? - where all the kids in class pick up their fresh 'dittos' and give them a good, long, happy sniff)
Sigh. I can still smell them in my head. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mimeograph
have you ever gone to a torrent site?
You dirty pirate LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even photocopiers aren't photocopiers...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I love the fact that this guy forced the lawyer to do his job. It's a reminder why lawyer jokes are so funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think the IT guy was being deliberately obtuse but the lawyer could've phrased the question better. Or at least earlier.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm sad
I'd offer to submit my resume to be head of IT for the County... But I'm afraid I'd have to undergo a lobotomy to come down to this level of stupidity... Anything less and I'd probably be considered over-qualified for the job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm sad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the world of modern technology it's pretty hard to know what's what.
I mean, if I saw no, we don't have a photocopier, and then it comes out later that somewhere in the office somebody had a 3-in-one inkjet/scanner/fax machine, have I committed perjury?
With all the different devices around today it's not super clear what's what. And people from different generations use completely different words for things, too. Like I never say xerox or photocopy is I want a copy of something. I usually just say send my a copy or pdf it or something.
Now I admit I don't really have any notion of the context for which this information is requested, but I can sort of understand being that way in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am not going to comment on this article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Terminology problem
For words that are quite common for almost everyone (such as photocopy), it can be quite hard to come up with a non-circular definition to bridge the gap in understanding to somebody else that uses a different term for the same thing (such as Xerox). Once you manage to link the terms, suddenly enlightenment dawns and a conversation that was going in frustrating circles can start moving forward again.
If the obstruction had been deliberate, then the switch to a functional description shouldn't have produced such a complete change in the nature of the responses. Just look at the last six answers - after all the dithering about whether or not people ever photocopied anything in his office, he was quite happy to say they had a xerox machine that they used to xerox stuff.
While I find it surprising that anyone could have avoided learning the "Xerox = photocopy" equivalence by the time this deposition was taken, the transcript certainly has the right feel for it to be a genuine case of simply not knowing what the word means. A definite failure on the defence lawyer's part if true, though - if the term was so important to the case, he should have made sure that both he and the deponent knew what it meant going in (and it doesn't take much Google-fu to find out what a photocopier is).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Terminology problem
Perhaps that was the point where he could no longer reasonably claim to not understand the question. As we can see, before that point he could claim confusion and people can reasonably believe it is genuine (not that I know for sure it wasn't). Once he's asked in terms a five year old could understand, he can't stall anymore.
I think he was intentionally stalling and obfuscating, and he got the most mileage he could out of it. He did it so well it's even possible that's not what he was doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And with that in mind it seems Xerox for one has done a good job at this. I'm pretty sure I can recall using the term Xerox when I was after copies. I think I also use to use the term "photostat" when I was very young. Short for photo-static copy I guess. It was the early '70's and the newspaper office my father worked at recently had purchased a new photostat machine and I'd get him to make copies of collages and 'zine type pages I'd made. I'm trying to recall but it may have been at this time I was corrected in my terminology - but this may seem odd I don't remember from which term to which I was being directed to use. I think my father or someone at the office was confused by or didn't the term "Xerox" and suggested photostat instead.
Confusion way back then.
As to the terminology used in the office in the article and the specific fluidity of things going on with tech and its nomenclatures today, I'd say there is not enough info here to condemn this witness.
His office, he says or implies uses the term Xerox with respect to taking a paper document, putting it in a machine and getting a paper document out that is a replica or facsimile of the original. So everyday, clerks, secretaries and managers et al. are Xeroxing documents, producing paper copies for people (or so I assume base on what the case was about). Now can clients or the public ask that copies be put on a disc or USB drive instead? Or can they call back later after a visit to the office and ask for a document previously "photocopied" to be emailed to them, emailed because part of the copying process they were (hypothetically) told involved scanning and storing an electronic copy? And does one process versus the other cost less or more than the other (ya, we are talking crazy government bureaucracies here, but that's a whole other ball of wax)? And/or do clients have only one option or right to receive documents in a certain format? If this is the case, the witness certainly needs to know the terms as understood by all. Mind you, yes the questioning could have been handled differently but it's quite evident both sides know something we don't and that something is important to the direction the questioning and case is going. And that the outcome is going wind up doing one or two things. One, costing taxpayers money (apart from the cost of the apparent inanity of the case) and two, creating regulation or procedure that likely should be done by regulators or office managers (well, sorta maybe cuz ya, once again we're talkin' civil service and gov bureaucracy her).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comedy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2001 or 2011?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I could clearly understand the need to define a photocopier. The lawyer could have tried to be more creative in such that he could use other terms such as Copy Machine, Copier, Xerox, or as he eventually did, describe the function of the device.
Because in the modern world, technically couldn't a cell phone be called a copymachine? You can take a photo of something and then wirelessly print it to a printer.
As someone who works with a lot of various technical fields. There is a constant confusion over what is common acronyms and other technical slang. I think its short sighted of the lawyer simply because he is so familiar with a term that he deemed it as "common language."
The lawyer constantly tried to push the same angle, repeatedly, instead of trying to approach the question at different perspectives and terminology.
Also, it could potentially be that a photocopier only copies photos and a document copier only copies documents.
I've met people who believed they needed to buy the Office Max's CDs with the label printed "Music CDs" to make a music CD and they would argue that a regular any CD wouldn't work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marburger: During your tenure in the computer department at the Recorder's office, has the Recorder's office had photocopying machines?
Patterson: Yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
definition and meaning of a word
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The term "photocopying machine" is so ambiguous
It's true that the term "photocopying" is so ambiguous that it has simple definition had Patterson looked up in the dictionary for its meaning instead of acting so dumb in court. There's a difference between photocopying and 'Xerox'. As according to the dictionary which by the way is not from Webster's or other dictionaries. This one is different. A 'photocopy machine' is: a machine that uses a photographic process to produce an almost instant copy of something printed, written, or drawn. Very simple words that many can understand. When Patterson gave a dumb answer of "Xerox", he is using the patented name as described in this same dictionary which is by the way, an invalid answer: a trademark for a photocopying process that uses xerography. One of the reasons why the County lost its case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]