Compounded by, as Groklaw reports, he actively sheparded the other jurors into his point of view. It's much easier to understand the verdict (and especially its speed) in the light of this.

I would think you would want someone who actually understands the patent system and the patent process on the jury of a landmark patent trial.

By owning a patent, he's got a vested interested in patents in general being enforced broadly and damage judgments being high.

No, I don't think you want someone like that on the jury. I'd take ignorance over bias.

This trial is about Apple vs Samsung, not the patent system. Samsung filed counter-claims against Apple too. So I don't quite understand what you mean by the jury being biased.

I'm not saying that the outcome directly (or even indirectly) affects him materially. It clearly doesn't.

I'm saying that, as a patent holder and inventor, his perspective is going to be biased towards protecting the rights of innovators, beyond what would be sane from the perspective of the rest of society.

His profession puts him in the same boat as Apple.

You know, I actually didn't miss that bit. It doesn't contradict what I've said.

If you disagree, this has already taken up enough space on HN. My email is in my profile and I'd be happy to discuss it.

Ok, but then let's say you are entirely right. Then the jury is bound to interpret the patents broadly and an outcome like this is inevitable as far as a jury verdict goes (I think something like this happened in the Oracle-Google suit). What then for the patent system?

What this does, IMHO, is it pushes all the interesting questions to the judge and the appeals court. These are questions like:

What is the scope of each patent?

Did the jury find that each patent was violated within the scope determined after trial? (Unknowable, gives judges an opportunity to decide the case as they see fit.)

What this does, if you take it that way, is put the jury in the role largely of hearing demurrers. A verdict of infringement becomes more or less a low barrier to entry to the interesting portions of the case which will all be decided by judges.

To hold a patent doesn't qualify one to automagically understand the patent system and the patent process. Or in the case of this jury, to be able to redact error free concensus from the group. The fact that one person on that jury has a patent on a "Method and apparatus for recording and storing video information" is a really disturbing factor that might explain a lot on how the jury deliberated.

This. At one time I had over a dozen patents where I was one of the inventors and every time I find something new about the patent system. I've got the bonus education in having been retained as an expert witness in two patent cases, which nominally would qualify me as an expert and I find the system quite murky still. I can categorically concur that just having at patent does not make you an expert on the patent system.

Well Samsung had the opportunity to strike him from the jury pool. This is the risk you run when going to trial.

Do you only want Forensic Scientists and Violent Crime Detectives on the jury in a murder case?

In fact, the phrase "actually understands the patent system and the patent process" is kind of loaded as the people mentioned only have experience being on the plaintiff's side.

From a jurisprudence POV, you can't depend on your jury having personal experience in anything, and so the whole system is built with the expectation that they don't.

I would think Samsung would like to cross-examine this expert witness.