| |||||||||||||
There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung (Groklaw)There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung (Groklaw)Posted Aug 26, 2012 16:53 UTC (Sun) by robert_s (subscriber, #42402)In reply to: There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung (Groklaw) by raven667 Parent article: There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung (Groklaw)
Not if it means the foreman, of all people, leads the jury through a quick slapdash verdict without heeding judicial instructions.
(Log in to post comments)
There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung (Groklaw) Posted Aug 27, 2012 0:49 UTC (Mon) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]
In fact, if this article is correct (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/apple-v-samsun...), he was instructing other jurors about the patent system, using his own experience. This, according to at least one other juror, made it "easier" to decide.
BTW, the jury foreman holds a patent on a DVR, filed in 2002 (Tivo was shown at CES in 1999). No, really, it is actually a patent on a DVR!
I'm really not surprised that the patent system is a complete mess when generic and obvious stuff like that can be patented after working machines are being offered for sale. And I'm also not surprised he convinced other jurors that Apple's patents are oh so precious.
There's a Verdict in Apple v. Samsung (Groklaw) Posted Sep 13, 2012 22:42 UTC (Thu) by xyzzy (subscriber, #1984) [Link]
It takes a sufficient number of compliant jurors as well as a foreman to get a quick slapdash verdict. I was a foreman on a jury trial here in NZ and the jurors definitely ranged from "will go with whatever everyone else seems to think" to "I have to think this through properly" to "this guy has to be found guilty/not guilty no matter what evidence I hear". Thankfully most were in that think-this-through group.
If your fate is being decided by a jury, pray that you get enough people who care about doing a good job, and/or a foreman who will *make* everyone go through a proper decision process.
|
|||||||||||||