|
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 09:58 AM EDT |
Do you want to have a trial by the Judges at the Federal Circuit who never met a
patent they didn't like?
Of a trial by Oracle/Apple/Microsoft employees/consultants/fanboys?
While juries may sometime get things wrong so can judges.
In fact what about a decision by patent holders as experts?
When it was reported that one of the jurors was a patent holder I was surprised
he was allowed on the jury, but decided it would probably be OK, apparently I
was wrong.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 10:33 AM EDT |
There is a fundamental hatred of learning and intelligence in American society
and a believe that decisions of the "common man" are actually more
likely to be correct and true than experts, even in a technical field. Given a
choice between the opinions of a Phd and a waitress, the waitress wins hands
down, even when the question is about quantum mechanics.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 11:02 AM EDT |
Trial by jury is Constitutionally enshrined. Partly, I think, to make sure that
ordinary people can be the final arbiter of the laws, rather than
representatives of the government. It's part of the "Of the people, by the
people and for the people" bit.
It's not required, but is an option once certain thresholds* are met.
(* these thresholds were set at arbitrary dollar levels at a time when, I
suppose, inflation wasn't anticipated. It used to be a reasonably high
threshold, now it's pretty low.)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: ailuromancy on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 12:00 PM EDT |
Trial by ordeal: plunge your hand into a bucket of
molten lead. If you are
innocent, God will protect you and
your hand will come out without any
burns.
Trial by combat: peasant vs armoured knight. God
will defend the
righteous.
I weigh far more than a duck, but I would still prefer
a
jury. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 12:15 PM EDT |
Yes, it is one of the rights set up in the US Constitution.
We are seeing more and more highlighting of exceptional cases where abusing
those rights seems, at the moment, the right thing to do - with the result of
weakening them all the time, everywhere, for everyone.
Privacy? Let's talk about terrorism.
Freedom of speech? No, there might be bullies.
Freedom of press? Hang on, those words might already be owned.
Right to a trial by jury? Oh, look, there's things juries aren't good at.
The tactic is working, and therefore you will see more of it - until no one has
the right to talk about it, and you no longer have the right to read it.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Part of a trend - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 12:45 PM EDT
- Part of a trend - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 01:34 PM EDT
- Part of a trend - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 03:20 PM EDT
- Part of a trend - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 01:10 PM EDT
- rights set up in - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 30 2012 @ 09:33 AM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: JamesK on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 12:36 PM EDT |
Judging from that verdict, I think they should have hung the jury, or at least
the foreman. ;-)
---
The following program contains immature subject matter. Viewer discretion is
advised.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: albert on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 03:17 PM EDT |
Back in the day, you wanted a trial by judge if the case was a matter of law, or
a jury trial if not. Anyone with a weak case would automatically go for a jury
trial.
I'm sure OJ really appreciated having a jury trial.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Trial by jury - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 05:10 PM EDT
- Trial by jury - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 30 2012 @ 12:25 AM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 03:56 PM EDT |
I recently ran across a large quote on this topic (I think by John Adams) that
went into far more detail than I had ever seen before.
It explained that the reason for this was not some idealistic thing about
protecting the innocent, but was instead a very pragmatic thing about reducing
crime.
the quote went along the lines of:
for if the innocent are convinced, there is a real risk that the common man will
feel that they are going to be punished whether they committed the crime or not,
and if they are going to be punished anyway, why not get the benefit of the
crime?
Allowing some (even many) criminals to go free doesn't have the same effect
because it's already impossible to catch every criminal, and so there is already
an expectation on the part of the criminals that they are going to get away with
it.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
