[Defiant]

The jury system was not intended for this kind of decision on highly technical aspects of patent law. Who knows, the jury may be right, but I'd hate to have 12 knuckleheads deciding whether a memory chip patent has been infringed. The jury system was made to determine whether Joe from the village stole an anvil from Smithy.

Then again, the Supreme Court isn't any better at deciding patent or tax cases than 12 random jurors would be. And, they are worse at Constitutional issues, for they have the burden of having read the liberal interpretation of what the Constitution should be, versus the average citizen's understanding of the words that it actually says.

[fso301]

The jury system was not intended for this kind of decision on highly technical aspects of patent law. Who knows, the jury may be right, but I'd hate to have 12 knuckleheads deciding whether a memory chip patent has been infringed.

Actually, at least three of the jurors had engineering backgrounds.

[fso301]

I'd hate to have 12 knuckleheads deciding whether a memory chip patent has been infringed.

It was six jurors and two alternates. Three of the jurors had engineering backgrounds. BTW, Hynix went into the trial with two summary judgements of infringement against it. Meaning, a court appointed special master found Hynix to be guilty of infringement before it ever went to trial.

[antiRepublicrat]

The jury system was not intended for this kind of decision on highly technical aspects of patent law.

True. I like the German way, there is one specialized federal patent court, with no juries. You're more likely to get an informed judgement with that set-up.