Slashdot Mirror
Jury In Apple v. Samsung Case May Have to Agree on 700 Points
puddingebola writes "Jurors in the Apple v. Samsung case will receive a 100 page 'instructions to the jury' document. They will also receive a multi-page form with numerous questions to come to a verdict. From the article: 'The document, which both sides have yet to agree on, is still in its draft stage. In Samsung's case, it's 33 questions long, and stretched across 17 pages. For Apple, it's 23 questions spread over nine pages.' Perhaps this is standard in patent trials? Perhaps road sobriety tests will soon include hopping on one foot while juggling?"
As usual, Groklaw has the juicy details on the battle over writing the jury instructions.
I don't understand that this blatant lying by Apple about the mails isn't outright punished, every company I've known urges the higherups to keep their old mails for stuff like this so the judge must know they've been deleted to hide something. Same goes for Samsung, just deleting them and acting like it's normal practise. They should both get penalised instead of cancelling it out when the 2 say 'fuck you' to the courts.
Having good backups would greatly complicate one's ability to accidentally lose email, though, so isn't recommended as enterprise best practice.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Juries are relatively unpaid or underpaid, and I can't imagine any of them devoting serious time to so many different points.
From my experience as being in jury duty, I disagree with this generalization. YMMV obviously, but in the end, this is just a generalization.
Although, I guess it depends on one's integrity.
At the risk of engaging into a generalization myself, people that show up to jury duty and get selected might have a bit or two of integrity. Most people simply ignore or forget to go to a jury duty row call. And of those who show, a lot do the most innane of things to avoid getting selected. Things I've seen:
1. A guy saying he didn't believe in the US legal system, and that he felt getting a US citizenship was one of his biggest mistakes.
2. A guy asking if he needs to read stuff because he really didn't like reading
3. Gratuitous mentioning of using drugs
Some people have genuine reasons to ask not being selected (say a doctor, a struggling businessman, or a parent.) But you get some shitheads showing up saying the most bestial of things just to skip jury duty. Those who stay know they'll lose salary and convenience, and still try to remain honest and useful (myself included.) My experience has been that jurors do their best to judge the evidence at hand and to follow the judge's instructions.
Again, YMMV.
As a side note, and I realize I'll get modded down as off-topic, should jurors get paid minimum wage?
Yes. Or maybe not. But it will be unreasonable for the state to compensate everyone at their daily rates for doing a civil service (which is a responsibility that comes with all the rights we have in a civil society.)
Factor in how many hours are being stolen from their lives,
Stolen? Why stolen? Society gives you a lot of rights and safegards, infrastructures and services, and above all, the right to trial by a jury of your peers (as opposed to jury by the sole hand of a despot or potentate.) In return, you are asked to give a service in return. That service, which is a small token in the grand scheme of things, will cost something in return (inconvenience and loss of some of your salary.)
And no one really forces you to participate if you are really, really cash strapped. You can always ask the selection process to give you a green light to go because of financial duress.
So it is absolutely fucking stupid to use the word "stolen" when it is something that is, much more often than not, a voluntary thing by people who thing it is a fair thing to give back to society some of their time for a very important fabric of civil society: a trial by peers.
and how little that should really cost given the expenseof everything else involved in the judicial process.
The judicial process is already expensive to begin with. It is not unreasonable to ask willing citizens to give some of their time at a lower cost as part of their civic duty to society (in exchange of the many, many, many other things we get.)