The usual rule of thumb in a high-tech case is for the parties to pick a neutral who is intimately familiar with the technology involved. Makes perfect sense. Or does it?
The case could be about pharmaceuticals, computers, medical devices, communications or anything else where the logical view is that the neutral(s) would know the manufacturers systems, models, specifications, processes and so on.
On the other hand, anyone so knowledgeable would no doubt have picked up some biases and prejudices about those very aspects; "this company's products are terrible"; "this product is great"; "nobody likes their execs", etc.
We all know that undisclosed conflicts of interest can be grounds for overturning an award. But couldn’t an argument be made that prior knowledge about industry specifics is nearly the same as doing private research, also not allowed.
It seems to me that someone who is broadly familiar with science and engineering in general and having extensive business practice and ADR experience, could approach the case with an open mind and thus be even better qualified to hear a high tech case.
No comments:
Post a Comment