Personally, I think that theory is utter crap. A well-informed jury about the topic at hand is bad for one party of a lawsuit. It's better that a jury is a bla

Personally, I think that theory is utter crap. A well-informed jury about the topic at hand is bad for one party of a lawsuit. It's better that a jury is a blank slate so that the lawyers can attempt to convince them their story is the one, true story in the debate. It's why during jury selection they often actively attempt to find a juror that knows nothing about the topic or carries no opinion about it. Of course, that's not necessarily true across the board. Sometimes one side does want people that know the topic and have an opinion about it but I bet those are mostly criminal cases. Plus, to me anyway, if the juries did actually have this supposed high-level of knowledge and experience then the results would be more balanced. Because there's no way you can tell me that nearly every single patent troll out there is in the right with these cases. More of these patents should be tossed out for the silliness that they represent. Lawyers do their best to get into courts and before judges they feel will be sympathetic to their case. To do otherwise is a disservice to their client.