What do I want? Only that which we expect of others abroad: “The judgment should be accompanied by a reasoned explanation of the essential factual, legal, and evidentiary basis of the decision. Principle 23.2 ALI/UNIDROIT Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure, American Law Institute and UNIDROIT (2004)” See my post at http://www.pointoflaw.com/archives/2012/08/apple-v-samsung-part-i.php

Titus is right “that the entire point of the common-law legal system is to produce a question that can be answered “yes” or “no” by a jury.” I assume Titus means historic common law pleading. BUT that was a single question of fact. At common law, parties were allowed to pose only one question of law to the judge OR one question of fact to the jury. They had to agree on which. The jury had no role in applying law; the parties did that by choosing the form of action. In 1848 in Field’s Code we abandoned common law pleading. We have come a long way from the primitive principle of making one point determinative, but we have yet successfully to incorporate the jury into the systems that followed. Applying law is not simple; pretending that it is, produces injustice.

For $31.8 million per question, you might think that Samsung is entitled to more than a simple yes/no.

What, precisely, sort of question should the jury have answered? “Describe how each of the items below makes you feel?” Juries always answered yes/no questions: the entire point of the common-law legal system is to produce a question that can be answered “yes” or “no” by a jury. Maybe there are inconsistencies with that many special interrogatories, but I certainly wouldn’t want to try and make the jury answer a question in some way other than yes or no.

Firs, it is not a conflict as someone suggested. A criminal lawyer can serve on the jury of a criminal trial. No one is excluded for having knowledge and using that knowledge in deliberations. Jurors bring with them their life experiences.

AMcA, no one is really looking for unbiased jurors, right? It is an adversarial system. You want potential jurors who you think might be symptomatic to your case.

Hugo, are you aluding to the fact that the logic chips, and most of the advanced electronics now come from Asia? If so, there’s been little evidence of Congress (or executive agencies broadly exercising rule-making powers) attempting to make the US more competitive in cutting edge technologies in which we once led.

.

And his use of his knowledge of patents being useful to leading the jury through the process? The instructions explicitly tell jurors they may bring their experience in life with them into deliberations.

Barring evidence of actual misconduct (and we’d probably have some hint of that by now) the patent-holding juror is not going to be a basis for overturning the verdict.

Your argument (one I sympathize with) unfortunately is with the Seventh Amendment to the US Constitution:

>In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
[end of quote]

In one of their greatest 20th Century decisions New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the US Supreme Court recognized a conflict between Seventh Amendment jury supremacy and the free press guarantee of the First Amendment: partisan juries could shut down opposition newspapers with ruinous and unjust libel verdicts. The USSC correctly decided that freedom of the press was the more important of the two conflicting Constitutional rights.

Congress has the authority to revise patent law, eg by restricting or abolishing software patents. Maybe they will, if an unbridled lawsuit culture drives software innovation and product development abroad, leaving America with higher prices and inferior products from a handful of monopolists.

>I was curious about the actions of the jury foreman who admitted that he led the jury through these issues because of his experience as a patent holder.
[end of quote]

Surely this is a blatant conflict of interest? How did such a person get seated on the jury?

The site of the trial was appropriate, most likely to draw from a relatively computer-literate jury pool. But apparently, while having a patent holder, the jury did not have a representative of those who decry the destructive impact of our current patent system on software development.