Why Juries Have No Place In the Patent System 387
New submitter Isara writes "GigaOm's Jeff John Roberts has a compelling writeup about patent trials and how juries are detrimental to justice in such cases. Roberts uses the recent Apple-Samsung trial as the backdrop for his article; although the trial lasted three weeks, during which hundreds of documents were presented and the finer points of U.S. patent law were discussed, the jury only took 2-3 days to deliberate. 'Patents are as complex as other industrial policies like subsidies or regulatory regimes. When disputes arise, they should be put before an expert tribunal rather than a jury that is easily swayed by schoolyard "copycat" narratives.'"
Re:At the end of the day (Score:3, Funny)
$12 billion in market capitalization loss says Samsung shareholders and the market agree with you and the jury.
Is that how you think the market works?
Solution is staring us in the face (Score:3, Funny)
the jury only took 2-3 days to deliberate
"they should be put before an expert tribunal rather than a jury that is easily swayed by schoolyard 'copycat' narratives."
Clearly, the solution is to have juries working at the patent office, scrutinizing each patent for 2-3 days, and patent examiners in the courtroom to accept/reject patent cases using the half-day or less they use now when granting patents in the first place.