Macworld Forums: Apple v. Samsung: How it was explained to the jury - Macworld Forums

Post your comments for Apple v. Samsung: How it was explained to the jury here

Normally jury service is despised. However to be on this case would be very interesting...

Wow. I would so be dismissed from duty at the very first question, if I had been called to sit on this jury.

This post has been edited by zarmanto: 31 July 2012 - 10:12 AM

bettercitizens, on 31 July 2012 - 10:03 AM, said:

Well, yeah... to you and me, sure. But like I said, we'd both be dismissed for the very reason that we would find it interesting! This is exactly what I was talking about in another thread, where I commented that the judicial system is basically crippling their own ability to find intelligent jurors. ( reference )

"Though it started differently, the case involves nine utility patents (three Apple and four Samsung) and four design patents (all Apple)."

Three plus four is seven.

zarmanto, on 31 July 2012 - 10:17 AM, said:

The exercise of intelligence isn't part of being a juror. You're not supposed to use your own skills of inference or deduction. You're supposed to decide which side did a more effective job of arguing their position according to the conditions set out by the judge. If you go thinking for yourself the likely result is a mistrial. Twelve Angry Men was a great movie, but it's not how the judicial system actually works in the USA.

bastion, on 31 July 2012 - 11:17 AM, said:

That's a rather scary view of the jury system…

The stated purpose of the jury is to make a determination of facts in a case upon which the laws can be applied. Making a determination of facts is very much an exercise in intelligence.

Stewsburntmonkey, on 31 July 2012 - 11:24 AM, said:

I agree that it's scary, but it's also legally correct. As a juror you are not supposed to base your verdict on anything other than evidence presented in the courtroom. No outside sources. No personal expertise or interest. No inference. If it wasn't presented and allowed to stay on the record it's supposed to be off the table.

Edit: Found this...

This post has been edited by bastion: 31 July 2012 - 12:13 PM

bastion, on 31 July 2012 - 11:11 AM, said:

Actually, I think it's worse then just one math error, if you read the body of Koh's guidance... take a look:

Quote

I count five Samsung patents... how about you?

bastion, on 31 July 2012 - 12:05 PM, said:

That's actually not correct, as the use of a jury is in part to "soften" the law or bring contemporary views into its application, but even if we leave that aspect of the jury aside, the jury is tasked with the interpretation of the facts presented to them, which is an intellectual endeavor. The goal is to determine the facts, the truth of the matter.

Just because the prosecution made a better argument than the defense doesn't necessarily mean a jury should return a guilty verdict. If the prosecution was unable to prove the accusations beyond a reasonable doubt (or to the standards of the appropriate law) then no matter how poor the defense, the jury should not return a guilty verdict. Thus, it is not a contest of who made the better argument, but rather of whether the crime was in fact committed.

I would agree that 12 Angry Men doesn't reflect the realities of the jury system.

This post has been edited by Stewsburntmonkey: 31 July 2012 - 12:21 PM

bastion, on 31 July 2012 - 12:05 PM, said:

Right. So Judge Koh decides what the jury can and cannot accept into evidence, she gets to define for the jury any term that she finds to be even remotely subject to interpretation, and she claims the ultimate authority to tell the jury to ignore anything said by anyone else in the courtroom, for any reason that she so desires.

Why exactly do we need a jury again? Because in spite of Koh's statement about supposedly having no views regarding the issues, it seems clear to me that she gets to decide exactly how all of this is going to play out...

This post has been edited by zarmanto: 31 July 2012 - 12:28 PM

Stewsburntmonkey, on 31 July 2012 - 12:14 PM, said:

You may believe this. Good luck finding a judge or attorney who agrees with you.

bastion, on 31 July 2012 - 01:06 PM, said:

No need for luck, as I could take one at random and be virtually certain of finding them in complete agreement with what I have said (as this is pretty foundational US legal knowledge).

Just for those who are curious, here's the Legal Flip definition of "trier of fact":

Quote

This post has been edited by Stewsburntmonkey: 31 July 2012 - 01:24 PM

Great discussion. I just found jury service on this case to be interesting because you would be able to hear all of the details of the case as presented.

And then there's the book deal... ;-)