#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; } I pity the jurors. Imagine sitting through weeks of a trial full of arcane tech details. *shivers* Patent matters shouldn't be settled by jury trials—the issues are too complex for non-experts and take so much time being chosen for the jury is a serious penalty.
I pity the jurors. Imagine sitting through weeks of a trial full of arcane tech details. *shivers* Patent matters shouldn't be settled by jury trials—the issues are too complex for non-experts and take so much time being chosen for the jury is a serious penalty.
I'd love it! I'd pay for a front row seat. Do the bailiffs bring you popcorn?
Outside if British decency limits (as for American limits, I cannot tell).
And since this site is obviously under the authority of the EU, we have a few months to censor that before we're punished.
Presiding Judge Lucy Koh also presented her own questions, asking whether jurors knew any Apple or Samsung employees, read any books about the parties, owned stock in either company or had strong feelings about the case which has received fairly wide coverage in the mainstream media.
Now, were these her own questions in that Apple and Samsung hadn't asked them themselves? How did they not think to ask something so simple? Because in the juror pool, there WERE Google and Apple employees, stockholders, and relations. Is this saying that had the judge not asked these blindingly obvious questions, they would have made it onto the jury?!
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
You can't just insinuate favoritism willy-nilly. His presentation borders on nationalism.
You should try reading some your own posts. Once again if this offends you please just put me on ignore.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
I pity the jurors. Imagine sitting through weeks of a trial full of arcane tech details. *shivers* Patent matters shouldn't be settled by jury trials—the issues are too complex for non-experts and take so much time being chosen for the jury is a serious penalty.
I'd love it! I'd pay for a front row seat. Do the bailiffs bring you popcorn?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK
Feel free to put me on ignore if that offends you.
Done and done.
Outside if British decency limits (as for American limits, I cannot tell).
Originally Posted by umrk_lab
Outside if British decency limits (as for American limits, I cannot tell).
And since this site is obviously under the authority of the EU, we have a few months to censor that before we're punished.
Presiding Judge Lucy Koh also presented her own questions, asking whether jurors knew any Apple or Samsung employees, read any books about the parties, owned stock in either company or had strong feelings about the case which has received fairly wide coverage in the mainstream media.
Now, were these her own questions in that Apple and Samsung hadn't asked them themselves? How did they not think to ask something so simple? Because in the juror pool, there WERE Google and Apple employees, stockholders, and relations. Is this saying that had the judge not asked these blindingly obvious questions, they would have made it onto the jury?!