Slashdot Mirror
Apple v. Samsung Jurors Speak, Skipped Prior Art For "Bogging Us Down"
eldavojohn writes "PJ over at Groklaw has consolidated some of the more interesting juror comments made following the landmark $1 billion settlement. Apparently the foreman (a patent holder himself) took the jury through the process of how patents work and thus allowed them to return so quickly with a verdict without need of any instructions on how to work through all the material. Most sources are incredulous that all of the information was considered in the process. CNET quotes a juror as saying 'After we debated that first patent — what was prior art — because we had a hard time believing there was no prior art, that there wasn't something out there before Apple. In fact we skipped that one so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down.' While the fact that they they voted one way on infringement and another way on invalidity shows they were at least consistent, Groklaw is reporting on some odd inconsistencies in the aftermath of accounts from jurors. The appeal for something this huge goes without question but the accounts collected at Groklaw make this verdict and verdict process sound hasty, ambiguous and probably the result of one man's (the foreman's) personal opinion of patents."
I can not see the judge confirming this verdict. It was way too quick
So what was this Foreman's patent in? Did he have some reason to want there to be stronger legal precedent for, software/design patents? Why did the other Jurors simply follow this mans lead? Was it group think, at its worst or were they just eager to get the hell home because the entire trial was boring and silly in their minds and the fastest way to get out of there was to slap down a billion dollar number and then call it a day?
and the rest of the jury just followed along like lemmings. The foreman fancied himself an expert on patents, what with his vast experience of having secured 1 patent
What a disgrace. Unfortunately rule 606(b) of the Federal evidence code precludes using the jurors' statements in an appeal. So they can prance and prattle like jackasses, but there's not much to do about it
Did the juror text this info to the reporter with "send from my iPhone" at the bottom?
Could jury know trial would likely go to appeals? They might have known that this trial is a waste of time and not likely to get resolved prior to Supreme Court.
It looks like samsung ships 20 to 45 million smart phones and tablets per quarter. If so then 1 billion is less than ten bucks per phone, possibly way less. This is not a terribly inappropriate sum or one that's going to ruin samsung. Indeed samsung would have been glad to pay a billion for the opportunity to take Nokia's market share away from them. Nokia elected to use patent indemnified Windows, they exchanged patents with apple, and Microsoft paid for patents to apple as well. Samsung got the market jump on nokia going the faster but less vetted approach of Android. They, according to their own documents, made deliberate decisions to chuck their in house designs where they differed from apples.
Samsung is coming out handsomly since it now has Nokia's market.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
>Since the site is fairly anti-apple,
PJ was pretty much rabidly pro-Apple in her assessment of Apple vs. Psystar. So much so you got called a troll if you didn't agree.
So i'd say that your assessment of Groklaw is wrong.
--
BMO
This was a simple exercise of recognizing a duck and whether there were any before Apple hatched the egg first.
Samsung whined. Jurors were listening for a quack
They're now taking things BADLY out of context. For instance, the quote about not needing the jury instructions, was NOT about the whole decision, it just about resolving their original 2 mistakes of including damages for phones they found non-infringing--well duh they didn't need instructions about how to fix that.
And pay careful attention to the quote in the summary: the juror says they debated the prior art, then he says they "skipped that one". Hmm. He does not say they failed to consider prior art. He says the first one was bogging them down with the debate on prior art because they found it hard to believe there was not any. Then he says "they skipped that one", which, in context, probably means they put all questions regarding that patent aside to move on and see if the others were easier. But they did rule on it, which means they came back to it--and given their reports that debate was heated, it seems unlikely that they put it aside for a while, then came back and arbitrarily found for Apple without finishing their consideration of the evidence. It is really not reasonable to read that quote as saying the jury skipped consideration of prior art.
Reading Groklaw's opinions of this trial has become rather like reading FOSS Patent's opinions of the Oracle/Google trial, or Enderle/Didio's opinions of the SCO trials. They've become so emotionally attached to the outcome they wanted, that everything about the trial is twisted to become part of the (imaginary) wrong that Samsung and the world are suffering at the hands of this (allegedly) rogue jury. Seriously, don't you notice that their comments disparaging the jury (who spent 3 weeks listening all day to the details of this stuff, far more than any of us will ever know about it) sound like SCO or Oracle disparaging their respective juries???
At least they're not unfairly anti-Apple.
Not only that, I suspect when he said they skipped it (the previous sentences indicate they had a very heavy, although civil, debate about it going on), they most likely circled back to it later once tempers had cooled. This is perfectly acceptable. I've been a jury foreman before and we had similar instructions from the judge. If you needed to skip something while gathering more information, or just to review other evidence while deciding on a previous question, then do so. You may not be able to come to a decision on every question in the order they are given to the jury. If you can't resolve an answer, then skip it and come back to it later.
Samsung spent hours trying to present prior art evidence. They actually spent a relatively large portion of their case on it. Implying that the jury somehow 'skipped' it because the outcome isn't what you may have been hoping for it reaching a bit. Every jury gets very explicit instructions, and any time there is a deadlock, you can stop at any time and refer questions to the judge on how to proceed.
... and there's a potential huge opportunity for Samsung's marketing department here. As seen here, a court has just effectively ruled that Samsung's products are equivalent to Apple's. So, other than the Apple logo and brand name, why would you want an iThing when you can have the Samsung equivalent for any from a few tens of bucks to several hundred bucks less? After all, according to a US District Court, they are now essentially the same thing!
The trick (of course) would be for Samsung to pull off the marketing campaign without being found in contempt of court or getting their products pulled from the shelves...
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Unfortunately, they're hard to find. There's a piece here and there, but no really good source that's been consistent. Maybe this trial was just too polarizing.
So you got nothing, except an excuse to smear groklaw. You smell quite shilly.
Appeal approved!
Of course, if they had actually ignored the prior art. Forget the spin in the post, and actually read the quote, carefully this time, and explain exactly how you conclude that they did not consider prior art.
Groklaw is more for fairness and a saner patent system than anti-apple. PJ points out that she was accused of just the opposite in the Apple v. Pystar case. There were people accusing her of being an Apple fanboy at that time.
In this case the objections are more about the verdict not having fairly considered the evidence. From the speed of the jury deliberations alone (considering there were 700 questions that needed answering) it is hard to see how they managed. Add that to some of what the jury members have been saying and the whole process seems rather questionable that they paid attention to the instructions and the facts in the case.
Whether any of this adds any grounds for appeal or opportunities for the judge to adjust the verdict or damages is anyones guess.
which I have followed and loved for years
but I refuse to read him, because I know how badly he misrepresents things, how completely unable he is to objectively evaluate. (And what a liar he has been in the past--see opposition to Oracle's purchase of MySQL and his letter to EU commission.) So to the extent that he was right, I would consider that an accident of his prejudice aligning with reality, for once.
Someone who has been "following Groklaw for years" doesn't make this mistake. Either that or you are one of those people who still insists that PJ is actually 5 people at IBM.
And your argument is backed up by nothing.
--
BMO
Oh nevermind. Disregard the above. I thought you were talking about PJ
That said, PJ is groklaw. "Foss Patents" is a contributor, but it's still PJ's site and she steers the discussion.
And I still think you're trying to smear Groklaw unjustly.
--
BMO
IANAL, etc., but while they might have assumed that there would be an appeal - it was pretty much a given, regardless of the result, really - but it's not supposed to matter. One of their obligations as jurors is to set their personal opinions aside and provide both sides with a fair trial. If they can be shown to have failed to do that, then the only fair and legal way forward is to throw the entire thing out and start over from scratch with a new jury.
There are generally two way of appealing a verdict; attacking the opposing legal team (e.g. withholding and/or misrepresenting evidence), and attacking the court (e.g. failure to follow procedure, clear bias). I'm guessing Samsung's legal team will go mostly for the latter. Not withstanding the rulings from Judge Koh are heavily in Apple's favour, particularly in the case of denying some of their evidence (potential bias), there is a growing sentiment in the press that the jury badly failed in their duties, with the clear failure to sanity check their rulings against their penalties as Exhibit A.
My prediction; successful appeal from Samsung on grounds of a mis-trial then back to District Court for a do-over and, no doubt, subsequent appeals and counter appeals... It's going to be a loooong time before we can stick a fork in this one.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
How does the judicial system compensate for a jury foreman aggressively promoting himself as a de facto expert witness?
That said, PJ is groklaw. "Foss Patents" is a contributor, but it's still PJ's site and she steers the discussion.
FOSS Patents is most certainly not a contributor to Groklaw. It is a completely different site, with a different viewpoint, nearly always the opposite of Groklaw (so far, it's much newer). And I was contrasting it to Groklaw.
I went back and checked, and my post was perfectly clear. This misunderstanding is 100% on you. Either you skimmed it and skipped entire phrases, or you have extremely poor reading skills.
Juries, however, are supposed to make decisions according to the jury instructions they were given. If it's clear that they did not even read the instructions, and failed to apply a reasonable process in evaluating each case fairly and individually, then the judge is justified in filing for a mistrial.
Groklaw consistantly sides with the law, and with common sense. I go to groklaw.net to cut through all of the bias and sensationalism of the mainstream press.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/technology/jury-reaches-decision-in-apple-samsung-patent-trial.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-25/apple-s-1-billion-verdict-may-lead-to-samsung-sales-ban.html
http://gizmodo.com/5937762/samsung-vs-apple-apple-winning-big-updating
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19377261
Now that's bias!
>What is this world coming to when we want to "invalidate" the findings of a jury? What is the purpose of law and trials and jury if we're just going to "overturn" any ruling that is unpopular?
When the jury boasts that it reached it's verdict without considering all of that pesky boring evidence, what indeed is the purpose of jury trials?
I really want to make a bunch of personal comments, but lets skip that for the moment.. I'd like to bring to your attention at least this one detail..
"The jury appears to have awarded damages for the Galaxy Tab 10.1 LTE infringing — $219,694 worth — but didn't find that it had actually infringed anything....A similar inconsistency exists for the Intercept, for which they'd awarded Apple over $2 million "
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012082510525390
Your assertion that somehow juries are some kind of paragons of perfection is incorrect. The fact that they could not get simple things like "not infringing" = "no damages" right is a clear indication they did sloppy work, did not understand/did not follow the instructions, or directly ignored them. This is the behavior you are arguing is the inviolate will of the jury.
This enforces the above. That they couldn't decide this one 'going down the list' and circled back later.
http://www.cnet.com/2300-1_1-10013512-4.html
PJ was pretty much rabidly pro-Apple in her assessment of Apple vs. Psystar. So much so you got called a troll if you didn't agree.
That was pretty much a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend": If you go back and read the postings PJ was convinced that Psystar were being bankrolled by the same anti-GPL forces behind SCO (maybe) and that if Psystar's attempts to use anti-trust and "first sale" to overturn Apple's EULA succeeded, they'd be used as precedent to attack the GPL (questioning that logic would get you accused of being a paid Microsoft shill).
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
"When the iPhone debuted, it was widely criticized for having no buttons/keys. Now people think the iPhone's design is 'obvious.' "
- Dan Frakes
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
How government is supposed to operate and how government actually operates are not at all the same thing. While the other branches of government have no formal power to influence the ruling of a judge, they can still bring informal power to bear upon the decision. If the decision threatened a corporation so great as to be of strategic importance to US interests in global affairs, then I imagine that would happen.
Corporations being "persons" is a 500 - 600 year old doctrine of law. Back to the Maritime and before to about the time North America was even discovered. Investors stopped financing trade voyages because they would be 100% liable if the ship went down. They many times lost their homes, money and land to pay the families of those lost on the ship. The Corporation simply created a legal "person" to take on that liability and limit the investors losses to the amount they invest.
It was nothing new created by the Supreme Court. Corporations are made of people. Yes they can be killed (aka Dissolved) and individuals within it can be personally liable for their actions.
Sounds like the USPO.
Apparently the foreman (a patent holder himself) took the jury through the process of how patents work and thus allowed them to return so quickly with a verdict without need of any instructions on how to work through all the material.
Doesn't this qualify as a mistrial? Was the material in the form of foreman's explanation vetted by the court? Is it admissible as expert testimony? As a guideline perhaps?
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
When software patents are tossed, everybody wins ... except maybe some lawyers, but I can live with that.
Aparantly we've sunk this low in the US of A.
Never letting the truth or relivant informaiton get in the way of a good show trial. The only reason we know this much is because google. samsung, motorola, etc.. all intrested android parties have the money and influence in society to matter. Imagine being a random joe.
If I didn't have faith in the judicial system before, I don't now.
"PJ has been extremely anti-Apple and pro-Samsung in this case."
I don't believe that is true in any way. Groklaw has simply followed the law and the merits without regard to the parties. That her analysis ends up supporting Samsung's case doesn't mean she's "pro-Samsung."
One need only look at how she's covered Oracle cases to see that - Oracle vs. Lodsys, Oracle's the good guy; Oracle vs. Google, Oracle's the bad guy.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
The other major issue that has surfaced is the calculation of damages. The foreman stated, "we wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist...we wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable." If the jurors had bothered to read the jury instructions, they would have hopefully understood that the damages were supposed to be compensatory for lost sales (people buying Samsung thinking they were buying an iphone), not punitive. The inconsistent and seemingly arbitrary breakdown of damages by device reflects this.
They didn't ignore prior art, they just had intense disagreements on what constituted prior art.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
She bats for freedom an innovation. As odd as it may sound, it's true. Right after the Oracle Google verdict, there was a case between Oracle and a patent troll, where she supported the stand Oracle took, and remarked on the fact that it depends on the case who the bad guy is. She's consistent with her views and her stance in this case is perfectly consistent with the stands she's taken for many years, if you had bothered to go back a bit. Very different from FOSSPatents who picks a side, and when inconvenient news hits, he just ignores it.
Laying liability onto a fictional construct does not require granting personhood. Its a compeltely stupid concept that attempts to create a new class of citizen.
Good-bye
When software patents are tossed, everybody wins ... except maybe some lawyers, but they should be force-fed to the sharks anyway.
There, fixed that for you.
"[Hogan] the jury foreman, who is a patent holder himself told court officials that the jury didn't need the answer to its question to reach a verdict"
"The foreman told a court representative that the jurors had reached a decision without needing the instructions. "
"Hogan holds patents, so he took us through his experience. After that it was easier. "
"In fact we skipped that one," Ilagan continued, "so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down." ...But we took our time. We didn't rush.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
So the decision to exclude evidence (of Samsung's phones in development prior to the iPhone's release) based on a technicality did in fact influence the outcome. Who would've guessed.
As I said before the verdict, the whole purpose of having deadlines in a court case is so that the trial proceeds in a timely manner. Why? So the delays in the trial do not negate the value of any potential outcome. i.e. the cost of achieving justice does not exceed the value of justice. Here we clearly had the opposite case, where the value of justice (billions of dollars either way) obviously would far, far outweigh the cost of a trial delay. The judge erred in disallowing that evidence due to a missed deadline, and I suspect we're going to have to sit through and pay for yet another trial to correct that error.
Groklaw is not, and has never been, a neutral, unbiassed source of information.
What PJ did in the SCO case, and for which she deserves a huge pile of karma, is to present her pro-Linux, pro-GPL argument in an extremely professional, reasoned way, with copious references and links to sources, and with clear, plain English explanations of the law and legal procedures involved. Essentially, she was presenting the case for the defence the way it should be presented if the court system lived up to its own ideals. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that as long as you don't confuse it with being neutral. Also, the way it turned out, she was robustly vindicated in the SCO case.
She was also very conciliatory towards anybody who fancied slagging off the judge or court system, even when it appeared to be favouring SCO.
Frankly, I don't see any of that in her coverage of Apple vs. Samsung: cherry picking soundbites from press interviews with jurors, openly deriding the process, and claiming fuzzy snaps of tablet-like devices from "Soylent Green" as prior art (maybe it was, the Jury largely junked the iPad design patents, but the PJ of old would have scrupulously backed up that argument with extracts from the patents and case law about what constituted prior art).
I'm not sure what people are hoping for with an appeal/retrial. The parties are both big enough and ugly enough to loose the odd billion. Samsung's patent claims on 'integrating phones cameras and email' and 'listening to music while using an app' are just as poisonous as Apple's - possibly harder to work round if they'd been found to be infringed, and the idea that you can charge both chip makers and device makers that buy their chips for the same patent needed scotching. A korean-style 'you both infringed' verdict would just mean we had two sets of successfully-asserted patents stinking up the marketplace.
Perfection, in my mind, would have been throwing out all the patents, Samsung and Apple, so we could get back to arguing over whether Samsung copied the iPhone or if they had an independent revelation during a SF movie session on a TV with rounded corners, regardless of whether any of it was patentable. I don't think that outcome is likely as long as the US recognises software patents and the USPTO doesn't get held to account for duff patents.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
after reading this, it's clear to me that the trial should be repeated.. I already wondered why prior art which was shown by samsung was put aside..
Well, that actually would make a lot of business sense.
After all, if this drags on long enough, Samsung will be fighting over old technology that's no longer being sold, and then they can just drop the entire thing or settle. Without losing their market share or momentum. Apple's real goal of crushing their competition will have been thwarted, and Samsung just has to pay a fine.
As for prior art, there has been hardly anything that hasn't involved stealing ideas from someone else in the last couple of hundred years. What we need is a more sane approach to it, like do in the fashion industry. Without everyone tacitly agreeing to allow some copying of ideas, the industry itself would simply implode and cease to work properly. Because they do, though, there are rarely legal challenges and everyone prospers (or at least has the ability to try to do so). Innovation requires copying and improving upon existing ideas. Without any ability to do so, people simply go to where they can. ie - China, currently.
Apple is slowly killing itself off in the mad rush to protect everything down to the placement of a screw and the color of a connector. They're so focused upon the minor tiny crap that they are losing sight of the reality of the marketplace. People buy your product because of the total package that you offer. They could care less what some minor effect or component looks like or where it came from. The more money they waste and the more bad press they generate, the closer they come to the mess they created in the mid 90s. They go down while clutching onto their patents and pride while the majority of the consumers have simply moved on to less expensive and less restrictive products.
Except this time, there is no Jobs to rescue them. And Wozniak isn't coming to save anything, either.
That was samsungs mistake. They introduced it too late into the discovery process. The discovery phase isn't something you can load anything you want at any time. If you show off something near the end that would require investigation, for instance forensic evidence, and you do it near the end of discovery, what time will be available to do any sort of follow up by the other side?
Samsung fucked up. Not just with the F700 evidence either.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
The fact that juries are even used in patent disputes... can everyone please think about that again? I know jury trials are enshrined in the US constitution, but they aren't fairer or better. They were, when the constitution was written. The amount of specialist knowledge required in many types of modern legal dispute means that jury trials are more about the charisma of lawyers than anything else. I think it is time to start phasing them out in favour of panels of experts in cases like this, and legal experts (judges) in other cases. There will always be some cases where a jury trial is warranted, but they are becoming a minority.
I wonder how many people here have been on a jury. I have been on several juries and been a jury foreman. Once the trial is completed, what you are allowed to ask as a juror is quite limited.
It is the lawyers' job to ask questions of the witnesses and explain the facts of the case. It is the judge's job to explain the relevant law (this is typically minimal and bound by legislation). It is the jury's job to determine what the relevant facts are and how they apply to the law. I've been on juries where we set things aside simply because we didn't see how it was applicable. That happens all the time.
It is often the case that some jurors understand certain things more than others. It is often the case that neither side's lawyer provides an adequate and complete description of the situation. It is often the case that a sophisticated and nuanced understanding of the law is absent in the deliberation room. It is often the case that a jury has only part of the information available to those outside the jury. It is often the case that different jurors have different reasons for making a decision. None of that matters. It is the jury's job to come to a verdict with what THEY are given.
Wait, seriously? That's so stupid on so many levels that I honestly don't believe it.
Lets start with the EULA concept. Microsoft is a quite heavy user of EULAs. A court case that said EULAs were unenforceable would hurt MS considerably. On the flip side, the GPL is explicitly not an EULA; it says absolutely nothing with regard to use or the permissions of users; its only restrictions are on distribution. Far from being some kind of harmful precedent, EULAs being overturned would have exactly zero legal effect on the GPL.
Then let's move on to what the GPL actually is. It's a copyright license, and a rather complex one. It relies on copyright law itself to enforce the "copyleft" terms. This is the same copyright law that also allows things like reselling (doctrine of first sale) by treating IP as an item of property. Although first sale itself has relatively little meaning as directly relates to the GPL, attacking creative uses of copyright law is very much not in a GPL supporter's best interest.
Then there's the whole concept behind the GPL; that people should be able to adapt and modify and reuse your code. This is very much not Apple's philosophy. Yes, they use some open-source code themselves, and some of it is under GPL (or variations thereof), but of course, that's exactly the same code that Pystar was reselling... with some extra work on their part to adapt it to non-Apple hardware. That's exactly in the spirit of the GPL.
Now, as I heard it, the reason Pystar lost was because they were found to be violating copyright - that is, they were directly redistributing Apple's copyrighted and proprietary software updates without a license to do so - and I could see how Groklaw might support that idea. I'd think it a bit strange, and certainly contrary to the ideals of F/LOSS, for them to argue that it's illegal to re-"sell"software packages which you received because of other software that you bought and then resold, but I can believe that a strict reading of copyright law does not include a provision for such things. The idea of Groklaw supporting EULAs, though... that's just whacked. If true, I have a lot less respect for them than I used to.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
The patents that were upheld had nothing to do with rectangles with rounded corners but rather to do with interface design patents. Other Android OEMs have been able to avoid the issues that Samsung had by simply not slavishly copying Apple's implementation patents.
Prior art be damned if Samsung ignores the prior art themselves and instead blindly copies Apple's implementation.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
"(Here's some commentary from Reuters and CNet. Also remember, BOTH APPLE AND SAMSUNG VETTED THEM, and were able to remove whomever they wanted; I understand Apple got rid of a Google employee)."
But bear in mind Samsung can only have so many removed, and this trial was a few miles from Apple's buildings. In that context it's next to impossible to remove every juror and find objective replacements who have no bias towards Apple when the area is so dependent on it for it's income and wealth.
This is the underlying problem. Such an important trial shouldn't ever be allowed to be held so close to one party's offices under any circumstances. It doesn't happen in criminal trials - where there is a danger a member of a community would be prejudged by everyone in that community if the trial is held in that community, hence why they move the trial elsewhere, and it shouldn't happen in civil trials either when the stakes are so high.
You know personally, the problem I have with all this is not so much Samsung being found guilty of infringement which has been the focus of every discussion surrounding this case, the problem I have is that all Samsung's claims were thrown out - what happened to them? where is the commentary on them? If Samsung was found guilty of infringing Apple's rectangulary phone patent which is merely opinion depending on how close you believe a phone can be to such a patent, then how could Apple not be found guilty of infringing Samsung's wireless patents in Samsung's counter-claim, a fact which is provable and not open to mere opinion like the design patents are.
It's that that is the most damning evidence for me that this trial was fundamentally flawed, if Samsung infringed fine, but it's just nonsensical to say Samsung infringed, but somehow Apple didn't, as Apple's works are simply far more blatantly infringing than Samsungs are- Apple kit used tech Samsung has patents on, and contested in this trial, there's simply no question about that, yet those claims apparently vanished into the ether and Apple got everything they wanted. I fully except this may have just been a pro-patent jury who were always going to back patent enforcement and bad luck to Samsung, but then why did they not back Samsung's patents too? The fact they only backed Apple's does pretty much confirm this was not merely a pro-patent jury, but a pro-Apple jury.
In Civil Law countries the Judge embarks on a search for the truth. In America we have an adversarial system where the best liar wins. The judge is merely the umpire. Seriously: Even if the judge knows one side is lying their asses off or hiding evidence they won't say or do anything because that would violate their 'independence'. The jurors are seeking the truth, because the courts are not. Better the jurors are allows to search for the truth and the judge joins them as an advocate not for the court but for the truth!
PS. I'm not talking about the Apple-Samsung jurors. I think we all agree they suck ass.