4 ms·

True, the stakes in a death sentence case are higher, but the reasoning and expertise required are a lot lower. "Does the evidence prove beyond a reasonable dou

True, the stakes in a death sentence case are higher, but the reasoning and expertise required are a lot lower. "Does the evidence prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this person killed that person" takes significantly less intelligence and expertise than "According the volumes of patent law and complex edge cases and prior art, does it seem like they were copying Apple" and "Examine this financial data and tell me how many dollars Apple lost because Samsung copied them".

adestefan 14y ago
Have you ever been on a jury for criminal case? It's not like Law and Order where the evidence is that clear cut. Having been on a federal jury for a gun running charge, I can't even begin to describe how difficult that moment is when the future of someone's life is in your hands. I think the maximum penalty was only 7 years, but even that is enough for you to question every shread of evidence both sides presented.
- mullingitover 14y ago
  The difference is that in a criminal trial, if the evidence is not that clear cut then the decision is easy: acquit. Criminal trials require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and a unanimous verdict. Civil suits only require a 'preponderance of evidence' and only a bare majority of the jury. It's far more wishy-washy, and in a patent suit like this one the issues are far more complicated.
jessriedel 14y ago
The stakes are significantly higher in this case than a death sentence. Statistically, human lives are in the US are valued at about 8 million dollars.
VMG 14y ago
Fun fact: Tell people DNA evidence is 99.9% accurate and labs and other facilities make mistakes 10% of the time, ordinary people think that the probability of DNA evidence in court is valid is something like the average of the individual probabilities.

4 ms·

True, the stakes in a death sentence case are higher, but the reasoning and expertise required are a lot lower. "Does the evidence prove beyond a reasonable dou

by brittohalloran 14y ago

adestefan 14y ago
Have you ever been on a jury for criminal case? It's not like Law and Order where the evidence is that clear cut. Having been on a federal jury for a gun running charge, I can't even begin to describe how difficult that moment is when the future of someone's life is in your hands. I think the maximum penalty was only 7 years, but even that is enough for you to question every shread of evidence both sides presented.
- mullingitover 14y ago
  The difference is that in a criminal trial, if the evidence is not that clear cut then the decision is easy: acquit. Criminal trials require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and a unanimous verdict. Civil suits only require a 'preponderance of evidence' and only a bare majority of the jury. It's far more wishy-washy, and in a patent suit like this one the issues are far more complicated.
jessriedel 14y ago
The stakes are significantly higher in this case than a death sentence. Statistically, human lives are in the US are valued at about 8 million dollars.
VMG 14y ago
Fun fact: Tell people DNA evidence is 99.9% accurate and labs and other facilities make mistakes 10% of the time, ordinary people think that the probability of DNA evidence in court is valid is something like the average of the individual probabilities.