|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 27 2012 @ 09:08 AM EDT |
In the BBC interview in full from the link above, when asked whether he thought
the result would have been different if he (Hogan) were not there, he agrees.
He goes on to say, "But what definitely would have been required is passing
more questions to the judge and having them come back. In our case we didn't
have to."
Surely the right behaviour when such questions come up, is to pass them to the
judge. Explains how they could conclude everything so quickly; I'd have
expected a lot of such questions. The judge had specifically elicited agreement
from the jurors who had their own experience from applying that to questions on
points of legal interpretation in lieu of proper court advice.
Kev.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 27 2012 @ 09:44 AM EDT |
| Programming skills are not reasonably common as you put it. These
skills require the ability to write programs in rules that are as rigid (and as
artificial) as the ones used for constructing sonnets or haiku while essentially
writing something as complex as a mathematical proof.
An expert is not
defined by having a certain amount of knowledge, he is defined as having a great
deal of expertise in his field which comes from experience. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 27 2012 @ 01:22 PM EDT |
Programming skills are in any cas enot sufficent.
I consider myself an expert programmer. I am often asked to look at other
companies code on a wide variety of platforms understand it, the signal
processing, control or image processing algorithms it implements, and identify
issues the orignal developers missed. I would be suprised if I could not
understand the code but understanding the code and having the ability to analyse
whether it infringed a patent are different skills.
I have been asked to comment on patents and although I do so from a technical
perspective I find it hard to understand what a patent actually covers with the
difficulty of deciding what is novel, what is obvious, what is part of the
common art and what combination of elements are required to constitute a
violation of the patent. Much of the elements of code and code structure are
essentially set by the function performed and one of a small number of standard
interface/design patterns.
The point is that despite probably having the expertise to understand the code
concerned I would not have the expertise to decide whether it infringed a
patent. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 27 2012 @ 03:43 PM EDT |
ISTM that programming skills were not reasonably common in that jury.
Mr Hogan strengthens my belief in that with his assertion,
"I showed the jurors that the two methods in software were not the
same."
Regardless of how skilled all the jurors were in programming, it was not
part of Mr Hogan's job as foreman to explain the evidence to them. He
would be entitled to tell them his opinion, and they would be entitled to
ignore him based on their own opinions. It can only be speculation
whether the interpersonal relationships in the jury room allowed that.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
