Re: IBM bathroom patent symbolic of US patent ills

["Jim Hewitt" <jim.hewitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"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!"  :-}

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'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.

Jim