3 ms·
It's a clever strategy for being reasonable and rational when it comes to damage awards," Baum said. "But I think that if we start going down the road where we'
by rfrey 15y ago
It's a clever strategy for being reasonable and rational when it comes to damage awards," Baum said. "But I think that if we start going down the road where we're going to let court-appointed fact finders testify at trial, we really are giving up some of our belief in the jury system.
It's a pity that the choice is so often between "reasonable and rationale" and "jury system", especially when it comes down to technical legal decisions like damages in technical fields like patent law. But it seems that dichotomy does exist. Being a blow against the jury system in this type of trial is no argument against the judge's move.
- wdewind 15y agoBeing a blow against the jury system in this type of trial is no argument against the judge's move. Yes it totally is. He is explaining why someone might think hiring an expert seems reasonable in this one case, and then extrapolating how that precedent might get interpreted to undermine the legal system in general. I also think his fear is pretty understandable: the jury system, although obviously far from perfect, is a hallmark of our culture's concept of justice, and allowing a court to appoint an expert, especially in a technology related case, is a big step towards consolidating power into the judge's hands.
- GFischer 15y agoAs you know, other countries do not have juries, and while I've seen some abuse by judges, overall, in my (limited) experience I haven't seen them be worse than juries.