|
|
|
| Authored by: miltonw on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 08:21 PM EDT |
The problem is, what did he say? How did he say it? Was it impartial or
slanted? The juror indicated that he and the other jurors gave his
"testimony" weight. If they needed guidance or clarification,
shouldn't the court have been consulted? It just seems problematic.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 11:32 AM EDT |
There were technology patents in dispute. They were Samsung's, but they
apparently did not get their chance to be reviewed by the jury. It was probably
bogging them down too.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: miltonw on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 12:04 PM EDT |
| Wait, this wasn't about their own, personal life experiences, this was
about the jurors accepting "testimony" from someone else's life
experiences with no swearing in, with no cross examination, with no
verification. I don't think this is proper conduct at all! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 09:25 AM EDT |
I suppose you could explain to your fellow jurors what problem you saw with that
evidence/expert opinion, then as a jury ask for a clarification on those points
of what was said to double check you got it right. If not satisfactory, don't
give the expert much value, other jurors can then judge for themselves too.
The foreman in this trial likewise could have used his experience to make the
jury ask the right questions about the presented evidence; instead it seems he
guided them to disregard the thought that such obvious designs must have some
prior art ("you have to give all relevant prior art to the patent office so
there can't be anything if it was granted" anyone?) and thus assume them to
be valid.
It remains curious that the jury didn't give much thought at all to Samsungs
patents, which I'd think seem clearly infringed (unless Apple had a licence
through others).
bosyber[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
