Originally Posted by HarryT
But was it the jury's job to determine whether or not the patents were valid, or simply to ascertain whether they'd been infringed? Surely it's the job of the patent office to determine the validity of a patent application, is it not?
Jurors have to consider prior art don't they? I'm not sure though, anyone else know the details? But it sounds like they also ignored the judge's instructions and other misconduct.
I won't pretend to know the ins and outs of it though, I could be talking rubbish.
Talking in general now, not specifically about the apple/samsung case, but what I found interesting was that if a jury can convince themselves that what they're doing is right, even when it's wrong and are forbidden from discussing their deliberations post trial, how will we ever find out that a miscarriage of justice has occurred.
Where as in the US, there's no restriction on discussion post trial, so there's every chance a juror will proudly explain their decisions and flaws come to light.
Granted, there's an appeals process which you'd hope with a new jury would avoid a repeat and there's the flip side of a guilty person suddenly getting their case overturned because a jury spoke about something that was then used as a technicality.
I'm honestly not sure which system is better, can (US) or can't (UK) talk about it. It's something I'd never actually considered until reading todays posts.