3 ms·
My understanding is that there were two jurers who were unconvinced about the prior art thing. It seems to me like what actually happened is that, rather than t
by codeka 14y ago
My understanding is that there were two jurers who were unconvinced about the prior art thing. It seems to me like what actually happened is that, rather than trying to convince those two jurers (i.e. coming to a unanimous decision), they just went with "majority rules".
Of course, there's no evidence to suggest that's what they did, but equally there's no evidence to suggest that they eventually went back to that question and debated it further.
Given that they admitted to ignoring the instructions on punitive vs. compensatory damages, it's not a stretch to imagine they also ignored the instructions on coming to a unanimous decision.
- nirvana 14y agoInstructions are advisory. They are meant to help jurors who are unclear of what the law says. However, they are not shackles on the jurors. Jurors are free to ignore them, and should ignore them when justice requires it. For example, Jurors have the right to find a guy not guilty when caught red handed with marijuana simply because the law is unconstitutional. They have that right and that is intentional in our system. Judges on the other hand, tell jurors in their instructions that they "have to find them guilty if they believe he possessed the drugs". When judges do this, I consider it jury tampering, and unfortunately for innocent pot smokers, too many jurors listen to the instructions.
- gridaphobe 14y agoThe problem with your argument is that jury nullification is designed to prevent unjust punishment. In this case the jury appears to have deliberately increased Samsung's punishment.
- esolyt 14y ago"Jurors are free to ignore them, and should ignore them when justice requires it." And justice required them to use the courts to "send a message" and punish Samsung with more than "just a slap on the wrist"?