in Support (Anson)”) at 3. 304 . Anson Report at 10. 305 . Similarly, if Anson’s report were to be found admissible in any other respect, his opinions on dilution should be struck. 306 . 3/5/07 Anson Deposition at 316. 307 .Id. That decision was probably prudent. When questioned further about his possible qualifications as a statistician, he incorrectly identified a term on the chart prepared by Mr. Torres. Id. 308 . 3/5/07 Anson Deposition at 316. Nor do we find in Anson’s deposition any indication that it is common for experts on valuation of intellectual property to rely on the opinions of those who are qualified to conduct regression analyses. 309 .Dooney & Bourke takes issue with a number of miscalculations made by Torres in conducting the regression analy 2, 203 (2d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); and Raskin v. Wyatt Co., 125 F.3d 55, 67-68
holding that an expert opinion on a question of law is inadmissible holding that causes of action for age and sex discrimination that arose prepetition were property of the bankruptcy estate holding that expert report was inadmissible in part because it assumed any anomalies in the  data must be caused by age discrimination and made no attempt to account for other possible causes holding that expert report is inadmissible because its inference of age discrimination solely on the basis of the raw numbers is impermissible in the absence of any attempt to account for other causes of the  anomaly holding that a statement of fact relating to the plaintiffs age was not direct evidence of age discrimination because the relevance of the comment is provided by inference