decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
I feel similarly, however it is probably a difficult position to be in | 312 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
I feel similarly, however it is probably a difficult position to be in
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2012 @ 05:47 AM EDT
Juries are non experts, and are specifically not trained to
analyse patents.

It seems to boil down to a gut feeling and an ability to
persuade others of that gut feeling. Anyone can have a gut
feeling, and certain (not always honest) people are good at
persuading others, but seems to be a profoundly bad way to
decide facts which has unfortunately been accepted as best
practice, since it doesn't implicitly provide an advantage
to either side. Arguably it's equally terrible for all
parties.

It seems that being uninformed on a subject is actually
highly prized (and when you see the damage a little
knowledge can cause, it's easy to see why...)

If I were on a jury on a case like this, I would have strong
opinions on the technology and the code involved, and
whether it appeared to match the claims on a patent, but no
better idea than anyone else about the legal aspects of the
patenting process, which bits (if any) of the patent are
valid or invalid, and all that gumph, mainly because patents
are clearly not intended to communicate between experts in
the field, but instead lawyers.

If I (in a jury room) were to state in clear terms the facts
about the code as provided (ie. "code X implements Y. It
does it in Z way. As a lay opinion, the patent claims appear
to reflect a method P, hence I do not believe this is an
infringement", or "The patent method seems to reflect M,
which would be pre-dated by prior art L" ), would I be
providing illegal expert witness testimony, or just using
common sense and my own relevant experience? It seems
difficult to set aside stuff that I know to be true purely
because it hasn't been explicitly placed into evidence
(presumably because the sides disagree on it and the judge
hasn't ruled).

It seems to me that juries should not hear cases like
these., and patents should not be written like this. The
whole thing is a farce that the big companies are too
invested in to get rid of.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )