I wonder if he is selling T-shirts in the lobby?
The more I hear from
him, the less I am impressed. The more
I hear, the more I worry about the state
of US justice.
Sure, this is just one trial, but it matches the one time I
was
in a courtroom on personal business.
This guy was on a personal vendetta to
preserve his own
bragging rights for his patent. His one patent. That is
inactive because he hasn't kept up the license fees. He was
thinking of
himself, not the trial. He does seem to be
enjoying getting into the public
debate on the subject of
patents. He is now a one day wonder.
I stand by my
statements here in the third comment down of PJ's article "The
Foreman's Aha Moment in Apple v. Samsung Was Based on
Misunderstanding Prior
Art ~pj - Updated".
He manipulated the jury by keeping things moving when
they
weren't reaching the conclusions he wanted. We'll come back
to it, he
said. He allowed no depth of discussion, which is
required for a group
consensus to emerge. There was a 20-
year-old jury member who was asking
questions. The foreman
"applauded" his actions, but sure didn't let those
questions
stand if he kept the jury moving. If there are basic
disagreements,
then you are going to have to work through
the controversy to get to the
agreement. There is no other
way to do it. The disagreement has to be defined,
faced,
discussed, aligned and resolved.
From Emily Changs' interview with
Hogan, featured in PJ's
article referenced above:
"We're going
to, if we find a debate like this,
we'll move on."
So he
didn't allow debate. He didn't allow open discussion.
But in the current
interview, he says:
"I try to be as objective about it as I
can... I
tell you it doesn't bother me, but what does bother me is
the fact
that the position that that's coming from sounds
like sour grapes. So, it
didn't come out the way you wanted
it to — and oh by the way, you didn't even
sit on the jury,
you didn't sit in the courtroom, you didn't hear all the
evidence, but you're making judgements that the process
failed."
Stressing
that the jury used "the rules for today" in coming
up with its verdict, Hogan
noted that a vigorous public
discussion was actually the appropriate place to
air
grievances — and create change. "I believe it's through
fair
and
heated debate and the use of logic that if a philosophy
is wrong — such as the
Patent and Trademark Office, as many
are saying it's sick, or it's broken — if
that is the case
then it's the court of popular opinion that makes the
change," Hogan said. "I applaud the debate," he
emphasized,
noting that
it was only with a clear consensus that the
system could be modified
effectively.
Let's face it, most engineers are poor at
communications and
facilitating groups. Engineering projects are usually fairly
inbred, so we tend to use techniques that work fine with
engineers and
engineering projects, but that don't scale
well to the general population and
general problems. We are
charged with finding a solution that works, not with
finding
out what really happened. If we don't like the answer, we
can always
redefine the question. I've done it many times
myself. Many solutions can fit
an
engineering problem. There is not as much leeway available
in a
courtroom.
Group dynamics can be a challenging task to manage. Herding
cats
is probably the best description of the difficulty
level of some projects. It
seems that Mr. Hogan found
himself a very cooperative herd of cats in this
jury.
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
