5 ms·

It should be noted that in Japan, such cases aren't tried by lay juries. (Actually even for criminal cases, they are only just starting citizen jury trials.) A

by veidr 14y ago

It should be noted that in Japan, such cases aren't tried by lay juries. (Actually even for criminal cases, they are only just starting citizen jury trials.) A judge, or panel of judges, decides such cases, and I believe that the ones who try patent cases are, generally speaking, reasonably competent (and thus much less likely to make the incontrovertible errors seen in the recent US Apple-Samsung case).

sillysaurus 14y ago
Which errors?
- veidr 14y ago
  E.g., finding a given Samsung product didn't infringe on Apple's patents, but nevertheless awarding damages for it. Edit: I believe the judge fixed the most egregious errors, but post-verdict interviews with the jury make it seem like they were confused on various different fronts. Here's one link describing some of those problems: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390
  - sillysaurus 14y ago
    That doesn't make sense. What happened?
    - kefs 14y ago
      Velvin Hogan happened. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19425052 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19425052
      - cdrxndr 14y ago
        Holy crap. Prior art was disregarded because the Apple patented methods couldn't run on the old hardware: >"And in example after example, when we put it to the test, the older prior art was just that. Not that there's anything [wrong] with older prior art - but the key was that the hardware was different, the software was an entirely different methodology, and the more modern software could not be loaded onto the older example and be run without error." Wut.
        w1ntermute 14y ago
        Yep, it was all a farce, for variety of reasons[0]. This Hogan guy, as the foreman, probably fucked things up the most, with his "knowledge" about patents. There was probably some pro-Apple fanboyism in the mix too. 0: http://hackerne.ws/item?id=4435486 http://hackerne.ws/item?id=4435486
      - Joeri 14y ago
        From that article: > > Do you think if you hadn't been on the jury then we might have ended up with a very different verdict? > I think so. But let's not say me specifically.
da_n 14y ago
Superfluous much? "lay juries" - A jurer is by definition a layman. If a jury was full of experts it would completely miss the point. "incontrovertible errors" - I guess you are talking about the (relatively) tiny misappropriated damages? This was fixed at the time, and it was not denied or disputed. Wonder why you chose to qualify this as such and not provide any specifics? Edit: clarity.
- veidr 14y ago
  Whatever, bro; I have some iPads and iPhones (all 8 models, actually) to go along with my Android (and various other) devices, but I certainly don't have a 'team', whether it be Wal-Mart vs Target, Apple vs Sony, or broccoli vs cauliflower. A juror is by definition a layman in America; however, other places do in fact exist, and there are and have been all sorts of qualifications for being on juries around the world. Finally, you are right: it was indeed the impossible logic of the damage awards that makes it possible to just say it plain that the jury in that made a fast decision that was clearly (incontrovertibly) erroneous. (I think that other aspects of the verdict also show incorrect understanding/thinking, but that discussion gets more nuanced.)
  - w1ntermute 14y ago
    >　Whatever, bro; I have some iPads and iPhones (all 8 models, actually) to go along with my Android and various other devices, but I certainly don't have a 'team', whether it be Wal-Mart vs Target, Apple vs Sony, or broccoli vs cauliflower. You don't need to defend yourself on this. Ever since the trial decision, Apple fanboys have been upset at people raining on their parade with facts. And there's certainly no shortage of Apple fanboys on HN.
  - da_n 14y ago
    Firstly you are quire right and I removed my 'team' comment very soon after I had posted it, it was irrelevant to the conversation. I agree that the definition of a jury varies widely around the world, however this point was (in reference to your comparison) specific to the US trial. With the decisions, why does it not cross your mind that they had actually plenty of time to make up their minds during the trial? Everybody seems to believe they should have been utterly impartial up to and including the point they were instructed by the judge, but these are human beings, jurors, and right or wrong they had plenty to time to come to conclusions, especially with the damning emails/documents from Samsung. Everybody is expecting a jury to have behaved like a well versed and highly trained expert lawyer. So yes, even if they did show incorrect understanding this is completely irrelevant, they are not supposed to be the experts you think they should have been.
bluedanieru 14y ago
They aren't juries, they're judges. Lay judges.
- veidr 14y ago
  Yes, sorry, you are right. The new law here in Japan requires citizens to serve as "lay judges" and not "juries". I don't know offhand all of the distinctions here (I think one difference is lay judges decide both guilt/innocence and the sentence, if guilty) but I think the Japanese system pretty similar to what Americans would think of as a "jury". Precisely speaking, however, they are indeed "lay judges".
  - ConstantineXVI 14y ago
    As far as I can comprehend from WP[0] "lay judges" have a more direct role in trials, where juries are mainly observers and merely make a decision based on the trial (including any instruction the judge gives them on evidence, assumptions, etc.). Interesting system, but I'm not really in a position to say which would be more effective (if either). [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lay_judges_in_Japan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lay_judges_in_Japan

by veidr 14y ago

sillysaurus 14y ago

Which errors?

veidr 14y ago
E.g., finding a given Samsung product didn't infringe on Apple's patents, but nevertheless awarding damages for it. Edit: I believe the judge fixed the most egregious errors, but post-verdict interviews with the jury make it seem like they were confused on various different fronts. Here's one link describing some of those problems: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390
- sillysaurus 14y ago
  That doesn't make sense. What happened?
  - kefs 14y ago
    Velvin Hogan happened. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19425052 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19425052
    - cdrxndr 14y ago
      Holy crap. Prior art was disregarded because the Apple patented methods couldn't run on the old hardware: >"And in example after example, when we put it to the test, the older prior art was just that. Not that there's anything [wrong] with older prior art - but the key was that the hardware was different, the software was an entirely different methodology, and the more modern software could not be loaded onto the older example and be run without error." Wut.
      - w1ntermute 14y ago
        Yep, it was all a farce, for variety of reasons[0]. This Hogan guy, as the foreman, probably fucked things up the most, with his "knowledge" about patents. There was probably some pro-Apple fanboyism in the mix too. 0: http://hackerne.ws/item?id=4435486 http://hackerne.ws/item?id=4435486
    - Joeri 14y ago
      From that article: > > Do you think if you hadn't been on the jury then we might have ended up with a very different verdict? > I think so. But let's not say me specifically.

da_n 14y ago

Superfluous much? "lay juries" - A jurer is by definition a layman. If a jury was full of experts it would completely miss the point. "incontrovertible errors" - I guess you are talking about the (relatively) tiny misappropriated damages? This was fixed at the time, and it was not denied or disputed. Wonder why you chose to qualify this as such and not provide any specifics? Edit: clarity.

veidr 14y ago
Whatever, bro; I have some iPads and iPhones (all 8 models, actually) to go along with my Android (and various other) devices, but I certainly don't have a 'team', whether it be Wal-Mart vs Target, Apple vs Sony, or broccoli vs cauliflower. A juror is by definition a layman in America; however, other places do in fact exist, and there are and have been all sorts of qualifications for being on juries around the world. Finally, you are right: it was indeed the impossible logic of the damage awards that makes it possible to just say it plain that the jury in that made a fast decision that was clearly (incontrovertibly) erroneous. (I think that other aspects of the verdict also show incorrect understanding/thinking, but that discussion gets more nuanced.)
- w1ntermute 14y ago
  >　Whatever, bro; I have some iPads and iPhones (all 8 models, actually) to go along with my Android and various other devices, but I certainly don't have a 'team', whether it be Wal-Mart vs Target, Apple vs Sony, or broccoli vs cauliflower. You don't need to defend yourself on this. Ever since the trial decision, Apple fanboys have been upset at people raining on their parade with facts. And there's certainly no shortage of Apple fanboys on HN.
- da_n 14y ago
  Firstly you are quire right and I removed my 'team' comment very soon after I had posted it, it was irrelevant to the conversation. I agree that the definition of a jury varies widely around the world, however this point was (in reference to your comparison) specific to the US trial. With the decisions, why does it not cross your mind that they had actually plenty of time to make up their minds during the trial? Everybody seems to believe they should have been utterly impartial up to and including the point they were instructed by the judge, but these are human beings, jurors, and right or wrong they had plenty to time to come to conclusions, especially with the damning emails/documents from Samsung. Everybody is expecting a jury to have behaved like a well versed and highly trained expert lawyer. So yes, even if they did show incorrect understanding this is completely irrelevant, they are not supposed to be the experts you think they should have been.

bluedanieru 14y ago

They aren't juries, they're judges. Lay judges.

veidr 14y ago
Yes, sorry, you are right. The new law here in Japan requires citizens to serve as "lay judges" and not "juries". I don't know offhand all of the distinctions here (I think one difference is lay judges decide both guilt/innocence and the sentence, if guilty) but I think the Japanese system pretty similar to what Americans would think of as a "jury". Precisely speaking, however, they are indeed "lay judges".
- ConstantineXVI 14y ago
  As far as I can comprehend from WP[0] "lay judges" have a more direct role in trials, where juries are mainly observers and merely make a decision based on the trial (including any instruction the judge gives them on evidence, assumptions, etc.). Interesting system, but I'm not really in a position to say which would be more effective (if either). [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lay_judges_in_Japan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lay_judges_in_Japan