6 ms·

I can’t understand why the US law imposes a jury of laypeople to make verdict about such a technical problem. Certainly the lawyers and attorneys will try their

I can’t understand why the US law imposes a jury of laypeople to make verdict about such a technical problem. Certainly the lawyers and attorneys will try their best to make the problem accessible for the laymen but nevertheless I believe people who don’t have at least a basic grasp of these things should judge. It might make sense in civil or criminal courts but not in technical courts.

MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
The original reason for it was to prevent a secret police or a basically a scheme of government officials from misinterpreting laws intentionally to imprison people. The ironic thing is though you can be held in contempt of court if you believe the law is wrong and will not want to convict someone for a law you find immoral. So it's like "whats the point" then honestly. Having a dedicated judge determine my fate is a million times better than 8 morons that are pissed they gotta be there and call in every day to see if they get summoned.
- beeboop 5y ago
  As said elsewhere, jury nullification is a thing and jurors can't be punished for "wrong" decisions
  - IncRnd 5y ago
    Just because people say that doesn't make it true. People can be held in contempt. If you are not on a jury and tell the jury members about nullification you may be charged with a felony. In crazy places like the 9th circuit, the jury's decision may even be overturned.
    - MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
      on top of that, a judge can just request a retrial.
juring 5y ago
I’ve served on a jury. Everything you’ve said applies to all juries. Every case has nuance that requires expertise and understanding, from how to appropriately consider witness testimony to what weight to put in various pieces of evidence. As nerds it’s easier to apply this reasoning to technical cases — because we think we understand the absolute truth of the situation — but it applies to non-technical trials too.
todd8 5y ago
I was a juror on a DUI trial. It was surprising how the large majority of the jury was confused by the law and the slightly technical evidence; only after discussion during deliberation did the jurors start to gravitate around a reasonable decision. In a case concerning patents, I can only imagine that deliberations might be end up akin to spinning the wheels of a slot machine.
IncRnd 5y ago
A patent is intended to describe the invention. If it isn't described, that is not the fault of the reader but of the plaintiff.

MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago

The original reason for it was to prevent a secret police or a basically a scheme of government officials from misinterpreting laws intentionally to imprison people. The ironic thing is though you can be held in contempt of court if you believe the law is wrong and will not want to convict someone for a law you find immoral. So it's like "whats the point" then honestly. Having a dedicated judge determine my fate is a million times better than 8 morons that are pissed they gotta be there and call in every day to see if they get summoned.

beeboop 5y ago
As said elsewhere, jury nullification is a thing and jurors can't be punished for "wrong" decisions
- IncRnd 5y ago
  Just because people say that doesn't make it true. People can be held in contempt. If you are not on a jury and tell the jury members about nullification you may be charged with a felony. In crazy places like the 9th circuit, the jury's decision may even be overturned.
  - MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
    on top of that, a judge can just request a retrial.

juring 5y ago

I’ve served on a jury. Everything you’ve said applies to all juries. Every case has nuance that requires expertise and understanding, from how to appropriately consider witness testimony to what weight to put in various pieces of evidence. As nerds it’s easier to apply this reasoning to technical cases — because we think we understand the absolute truth of the situation — but it applies to non-technical trials too.

todd8 5y ago

I was a juror on a DUI trial. It was surprising how the large majority of the jury was confused by the law and the slightly technical evidence; only after discussion during deliberation did the jurors start to gravitate around a reasonable decision. In a case concerning patents, I can only imagine that deliberations might be end up akin to spinning the wheels of a slot machine.

IncRnd 5y ago

A patent is intended to describe the invention. If it isn't described, that is not the fault of the reader but of the plaintiff.