Re: IBM bathroom patent symbolic of US patent ills

[krw <krw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In article <fsrqh4$9bu$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
jim.hewitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
>
> "Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> message news:fcf2v354tk4p0pklkqsjm6qokberdfsefu@xxxxxxxxxx
> > On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:20:27 -0600, "Jim Hewitt"
> > <jim.hewitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"James Arthur" <dagmargoodboat@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >>news:6b6af1d7-b377-4f9c-8334-b0e844e941ac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>
> >>>> Absolutely!  I have to tell you the most bizarre story related to this.
> >>>>
> >>>> I was on a jury once.  Both the plaintiff and the defandent has their
> >>>> own
> >>>> 'expert' witness about a particular medical fact.  The opinions where
> >>>> diametrically opposed.  But it turns out that the two experts were
> >>>> partners
> >>>> in the same company.  We all had a good chuckle when that came out.
> >>>>
> >>>> So I agree with your Newton's law analogy but somehow it makes me sad.
> >>>> In
> >>>> law it appears that the truth depends on how much you are willing to
> >>>> spend
> >>>> for it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Jim
> >>>
> >>> It's a tough spot for a juror to be in--the court restricts the info
> >>> you're allowed to consider, often to expert testimony.  And we've all
> >>> seen a lot of wrong experts.
> >>>
> >>> Our adversarial system allows giving only the info that supports your
> >>> position.  I call that lying.
> >>>
> >>> The other side is supposed to notice and provide counterpoint.  It's a
> >>> good system, but the lawyers have turned it into a caricature.  It
> >>> still works amazingly well.  Could be even better, methinks, if both
> >>> sides aimed more for truthfulness.
> >>
> >>Agreed!
> >>
> >>> But, then again, I've never been selected as a juror...
> >>
> >>Doubtful I will (allow myself to) be selected again for a jury, after my
> >>first experience.
> >>
> >>Unless it has to do with a patent.  (There, brought us back on topic!)
> >>
> >>Jim
> >>
> >
> > It's easy to stay off juries... "Hang the SOB" ;-)
>
> That and, "Ya can just _tell_ he's guilty by the looks of him!"  :-}

"Is that the guilty party?"

> I've often wondered if the judge would find me in contempt if I just said it
> like it was:
> Based on my experience on a previous jury, I don't think I could be
> open-minded about the case.
> And if pressed by the judge as to why, I'd say that the last time I was on a
> jury, most of the jurors had a reason for their decision that had NOTHING to
> do with the actual case.  Why would I want to waste my time again?

I was once "selected" for federal jury duty, though was excused
because I knew all about the case (kick-backs to "local" highway
commissioners").  I was in the second "seating" in the jury box, so
we were all asked if there was any question already asked of the
others that we thought would disqualify us.  I raised my hand, but
when asked told them that I didn't think they wanted me to tell them
what I knew in front of all the others, so the four of us had a pow-
wow in the corner.  I asked if this was "Operation Double-Steel",
which caused the judge to lose his teeth.  The judge asked why I
knew so much about the case.  I told him that our highway commission
was a friend (I was his campaign chair) and I used details of the
case to bash him.  ;-)

> I've put it another way.  Based on my experience, if I were actually guilty
> of a crime, I'd want to be tried by a jury.  If I were innocent of the crime
> I was being tried for, then I would want to be tried by a judge who can
> think logically and not be confused by the way the lawyers manipulate the
> facts.
>
> I would think a more technically involved case about a patent would be even
> more difficult to endure.

Sure.  Facts don't matter.

--
Keith