[pelliphant]

That seems plausible.

I would argue that if prosecutors and/or cops get to pick the tool, false positives would result in more sales.

Just as false negatives would result in more sales if the defendant gets to make the pick.

[thgaway17]

false positives would result in more sales.

That seems highly unlikely. Prosecutors, like all attorneys, talk. It wouldn’t take too many getting burned by a false positive before word would get out (regardless of any nda).

For example, once an expert gets Dauberted, you’ve got to think long and hard about being the next guy to use them.

[pelliphant]

But how would one actually know if a result is a false positive or not?

Sure, in extreme cases it might be obvious, but if you just know that one test gives more matches than another, not knowing which one is the one giving false results?

[merpnderp]

But genetic evidence is often enough to convict by itself. A false positive is far more likely to land a conviction than an embarrassment to the prosecutor. I mean we live in a world where DNA evidence will easily override solid alibis.

[6510]

A product that doesn't work wouldn't be considered.