4 ms·
I'm surprised they didn't boot him after finding out he had a patent to his name. That seems like it would obviously put you on the pro-patent-issuer side.
by smackfu 14y ago
I'm surprised they didn't boot him after finding out he had a patent to his name. That seems like it would obviously put you on the pro-patent-issuer side.
- tptacek 14y agoLegally, that is like booting someone out of a jury case in an auto accident because they have a driver's license. You can simultaneously believe, as most of us do, that the software patent system is in dire need of reform while at the same time understanding that individual patent lawsuits aren't opportunities to relitigate patent law.
- AndrewKemendo 14y agoI think that is a poor comparison. I think a better one would be booting someone out of a jury in an auto accident case if they work in/own an insurance agency. The juror has something to gain with the legitimization and precedent that his jury will decide especially in such a high profile case. Diminishingly so for someone in an auto case.
- tptacek 14y agoIt's clear why computer enthusiasts who oppose the current software patent system (I count myself among them) would see things this way, but I put the word "Legally" in front of that sentence for a reason: to the law, there's no such thing as a "conflict of interest" in support of the law. The law is the law.
- smackfu 14y agoYeah, I meant that the lawyers should have used a "peremptory challenge" rather than "strike for cause".
- euroclydon 14y agoThis is the first time I've heard someone say that a jury can set a legal precedent. I thought only judges, or courts of judges can do that in any meaningful way.
- saalweachter 14y agoActually, there's one thing the jury can do which is almost like setting a legal precedent -- jury nullification. It usually comes up around drug trials: juries aren't bound the way judges are to respect, well, anything. A jury can decide to (say) find a man not guilty of having marijuana even if he was smoking it in court, because they believe it does not deserve punishment. Likewise, juries could decide to begin nullifying patent law by always finding infringers not guilty, at least when the patents in question are as absurd as many people feel they are.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- siglesias 14y agoYou are aware that Samsung had counter claims too with their own patents, right?