|
|
|
| Authored by: The Cornishman on Monday, October 01 2012 @ 05:17 PM EDT |
Yes, I think the problem *is* that the juror conducted his own experiment, or at
least that he shared the results with his fellow jurors. Being selected for
jury duty does not immediately turn you into an amalgam of the Lone Ranger,
Perry Mason and Gil Grissom. You don't get to think out of the box, do daring
experiments and enjoy a courtroom denouement to stun the lawyers. Limelight
should not be what you're seeking.
What you do get to do, and it's both a privilege and a duty if you respect the
rule of law, is to listen hard to the evidence, evaluate the credibility of the
witnesses, and pay attention to the jury instructions. It seems to me that both
Broomstick Professor and Patent Foreman clearly breached those duties, and it's
regrettable that in neither case did any of the other members of the juries see
what was going on and call foul.
---
(c) assigned to PJ
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 01 2012 @ 06:40 PM EDT |
How was that different from what Hogan described? My
paraphrasing:
I shared my experience with applying for my own patent
with the rest of the Jury and that made our decision easier!
How is
his own personal previous experience any different from the experiement
performed? In both cases:
External to the Court, Judge, Lawyers,
Jury
Evidence was presented by one Juror to the rest
The Juror's
in Apple vs Samsung only had the Foreman's word for his past experiences and how
prior art is supposed to be applied - right? So how's that any different
conceptually?
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
