Slashdot Mirror
Why Juries Have No Place In the Patent System
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.'"
I kind of agree, really. I think you can actually oppose software patents but still support the decision in this case.
A lot of the evidence was pretty damning and indicates that in this case, the systems happens to have achieved what it was actually supposed to achieve. That doesn't mean the damaging side-effects which are why lots of us believe the current patent system is problematic don't exist; it just means that *in this case* the system actually happens to have probably given the right result. It seems pretty clear from a lot of the evidence that was entered into the case that Samsung really did set about intentionally, directly copying a lot of Apple's design and function - not looking at it as a basis for possible improvements, but just going 'hey, let's do exactly what they did'. Samsung also conducted its case appallingly badly; I don't know where they got their lawyers, but they pulled some really ridiculous stunts which probably did more to harm Samsung's case than to help it.
If you just step back a bit and dispassionately look at a lot of the highlights of the case, Samsung comes off looking like crap, frankly.