I think part of the problem is having someone without correct technical knowledge of the subject matter actually making decisions. It is not the foreman's fault for being picked for this task, however, his lack of competence is a perfect demonstration of why the system needs to be fixed.
The criticism of the jury in this case doesn't seem to stem from their lack of technical understanding, but rather their following the judge's jury instructions. Indeed, there isn't really anything technically complicated in this litigation, a lot of it is over design patents.
When other members of the jury had doubts that the prior art invalidated patents, the foreman said he used his own patent(a patent on a TIVO like DVR) experience and then let out this gem about why the jury discounted the prior art.
"The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. That means they are not interchangeable. That changed everything right there."
How many really technical people(lets say the devs on HN) would agree with the statement that prior art has be run on the same processor to count? And to further corroborate that he did not just misspeak that, he says the following in a Gizmodo interview:
"I is not ignore prior art yes it was legitimate, however it was not interchangeable therefore it did not invalidate Apples patents....Under the current law the prior art must be among other things interchangeable. the prior art sighted even Samsung does not currently use. Read the law and the statues covering Prior art."
And he used his tech credentials and patent experience to convince the other jurors. Don't you see a problem with that?
> And he used his tech credentials and patent experience to convince the other jurors. Don't you see a problem with that?
I'd say there's a problem. Using his patent experience to convince the other jurors is pretty similar to a lawyer using his legal experience to convince other jurors. AFAIK, the latter is a very serious issue - no juror is supposed to substitute their legal opinions for the judge's.
