3 ms·

Several articles indicate it's also the jurors: http://www.thejuryexpert.com/2010/03/east-texas-jurors-and-patent-litigation/ http://www.thejuryexpert.com/2010/

Several articles indicate it's also the jurors: http://www.thejuryexpert.com/2010/03/east-texas-jurors-and-patent-litigation/ http://www.thejuryexpert.com/2010/03/east-texas-jurors-and-p... http://www.businessinsider.com/why-patent-plaintiffs-win-in-east-texas-2013-1 http://www.businessinsider.com/why-patent-plaintiffs-win-in-... So I think the parent post might be on to something. Let's mess with Texas!

techsupporter 13y ago
From your second linked article: "In East Texas, juries are often older people who have less experience with technology and tend to view large corporate defendants with suspicion..." First, most of these cases are deliberately filed in Marshall, TX, an out-of-the-way rural town that's not exactly renowned for its experience in IT. Second, all this proves is that patent troll lawyers can simply "baffle them with bullshit" and I don't think that this specific location matters. The Eastern District of Texas has a secondary court in Plano, and Plano has been home to a variety of technology companies. You'll notice they're not filing in Plano where they'd be far more likely to encounter potential jury members who are familiar with terms like "hyperlink" and "web sockets."
tokenizerrr 13y ago
Juries just seem like a terrible idea in general. Let's put more non-knowledgeable people in positions of power!
- rayiner 13y ago
  The purpose of a court isn't to get the best answer. Its to get a decent answer while resolving the matter with finality. An adverse opinion of experts can be accused of bias and other things that can cause the conflict to continue to fester. The opinion of a group of layman cannot be attacked that way.
  - tokenizerrr 13y ago
    Instead they can be attacked about having no clue what they are talking about, which seems to be the case for many subjects. > An adverse opinion of experts can be accused of bias and other things that can cause the conflict to continue to fester Please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this comment thread and the parent's article doing exactly that? To quote from [1]: > And juries in East Texas like to hand out big awards to plaintiffs, jury consultant Julie Blackman has written for the Jury Expert blog. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/why-patent-plaintiffs-win-in-east-texas-2013-1 http://www.businessinsider.com/why-patent-plaintiffs-win-in-...
    - rayiner 13y ago
      The jury isn't charged with "having a clue." It is charged with deciding what happened and who to believe. The judge, the lawyers, and the experts are charged with understanding the problem and spoon-feeding it to the jury. The idea is that if you can't explain to a group of ordinary people why you should win, its hard to say that you really deserve to win. You can call the jury stupid, but stupidity doesn't bias a jury against you. And any other jury would have been just as stupid. With experts its different. You can accuse an expert of being biased or interested (because experts are usually in the same industry as the litigants). You can claim that you would have won, if only you had a different expert.
Camillo 13y ago
The standard for novelty in patents requires that the invention not be obvious to a person skilled in the relevant field. The patent filing itself is required to describe the invention in enough detail that it can be understood by a person with ordinary skill in the field. What is the logic, then, behind having random laymen as jurors in patent cases? Wouldn't it make more sense to have a jury of people skilled in the relevant field?

techsupporter 13y ago

From your second linked article: "In East Texas, juries are often older people who have less experience with technology and tend to view large corporate defendants with suspicion..." First, most of these cases are deliberately filed in Marshall, TX, an out-of-the-way rural town that's not exactly renowned for its experience in IT. Second, all this proves is that patent troll lawyers can simply "baffle them with bullshit" and I don't think that this specific location matters. The Eastern District of Texas has a secondary court in Plano, and Plano has been home to a variety of technology companies. You'll notice they're not filing in Plano where they'd be far more likely to encounter potential jury members who are familiar with terms like "hyperlink" and "web sockets."

tokenizerrr 13y ago

Juries just seem like a terrible idea in general. Let's put more non-knowledgeable people in positions of power!

rayiner 13y ago
The purpose of a court isn't to get the best answer. Its to get a decent answer while resolving the matter with finality. An adverse opinion of experts can be accused of bias and other things that can cause the conflict to continue to fester. The opinion of a group of layman cannot be attacked that way.
- tokenizerrr 13y ago
  Instead they can be attacked about having no clue what they are talking about, which seems to be the case for many subjects. > An adverse opinion of experts can be accused of bias and other things that can cause the conflict to continue to fester Please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this comment thread and the parent's article doing exactly that? To quote from [1]: > And juries in East Texas like to hand out big awards to plaintiffs, jury consultant Julie Blackman has written for the Jury Expert blog. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/why-patent-plaintiffs-win-in-east-texas-2013-1 http://www.businessinsider.com/why-patent-plaintiffs-win-in-...
  - rayiner 13y ago
    The jury isn't charged with "having a clue." It is charged with deciding what happened and who to believe. The judge, the lawyers, and the experts are charged with understanding the problem and spoon-feeding it to the jury. The idea is that if you can't explain to a group of ordinary people why you should win, its hard to say that you really deserve to win. You can call the jury stupid, but stupidity doesn't bias a jury against you. And any other jury would have been just as stupid. With experts its different. You can accuse an expert of being biased or interested (because experts are usually in the same industry as the litigants). You can claim that you would have won, if only you had a different expert.

Camillo 13y ago

The standard for novelty in patents requires that the invention not be obvious to a person skilled in the relevant field. The patent filing itself is required to describe the invention in enough detail that it can be understood by a person with ordinary skill in the field. What is the logic, then, behind having random laymen as jurors in patent cases? Wouldn't it make more sense to have a jury of people skilled in the relevant field?