Re: IBM bathroom patent symbolic of US patent ills

GImme a break. Why do you think they have juries? The problem is that a jury of one's peers in America is a going to consist of a crowd composed of at least 50% goofy "Christians" (they're badly-schooled in that too) who cannot distinguish between evidence and sermons.

But I perceive a thin ray of hope - a vote for Obama is a vote for cool-headed rationalism - in spite of his religion, which "thank God" he keeps neatly parceled away from his public life (in spite of Hillary's attempts to take him down with the rest of the Dems as she looks ahead to 2012). He just *may* be able to stem the tide of American stupidity before it's too late. And while you're at it, have a look at Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion". Thomas Jefferson would have been proud.

-- Joe

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

For experts to bamboozle?

Cheers, James Arthur

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.

But, then again, I've never been selected as a juror...

Cheers, James Arthur

Exactly. Any "decay" you might see at USPTO is the result of four things:

1. Court decisions that made "business processes" patentable.
2. Technological advances that have erased the dividing line between hardware and software, as confirmed by the courts.
3. Congress inadequately funding the USPTO (particularly diverting fees to the general fund).
4. Incredibly inept top-level management during the present administration, which has stuck PTO with political refugees and Texas deadwood to an extent never before experienced.

-- Larry

"jury of one's peers" is not how the court system in the US works.

Ideally it is supposed to be a jury of randomly selected people that neither side can find a reason to remove.

In practice it is a jury of people who can't figure out how to get out of jury duty. Thus they end up being selected for being stupid.

You have misunderstood the problem. They don't know that there is a difference. They don't really understand what the word "evidence" means. They confuse it with "proof" and "truth".

Merely voting for Oboma won't solve the problem. You have to make sure he wins. Have you got the software card and screwdriver yet. Remember, you must flip the machine over, undo the screws plug the card in, power it on, wait for 12 sseconds, power it off, remove the card and reassemble the unit as it was. If you are slightly built, you may want to get some hand weights to build up the strength in your arms to be able to do it fast enough.

Agreed!

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" ;-)

...Jim Thompson

--
|  James E.Thompson, P.E.                           |    mens     |
|  Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
|  Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC\'s and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
|  Phoenix, Arizona            Voice:(480)460-2350  |             |
|  E-mail Address at Website     Fax:(480)460-2142  |  Brass Rat  |
|       http://www.analog-innovations.com           |    1962     |
             
         America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave

"Jim Thompson" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

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

I did it the opposite way - it was a drug trial and I just declared that I'm morally opposed to the unconstitutional "war on drugs." I should have asked the judge if he'd like to try a landmark Constutional case, but I was too afraid I'd get in some kind of trouble; my little sidebar with him was on tape. ;-)

Cheers! Rich

"Is that the guilty party?"

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. ;-)

Sure. Facts don't matter.

--
Keith

I've been called twice. The first time I went in privately hoping that the evidence would be lacking so we could send the defendants home. The evidence turned out to be overwhelming. Guilty as charged.

The second time I listened to state's witnesses who were obviously lying (claiming things that were physically impossible, such as "He threw a bottle which broke my rear window and I found the bottle on the windowsill"). I figured we'd set this guy free in a heartbeat. We broke for lunch and when we came back the judge informed us the defendant had accepted a plea bargain. I told the judge what I thought of the evidence. Several other jurors agreed. I never found out what happened to the guy at sentencing. They probably sent him to prison anyway. :^(

If asked again I'd serve again, but not for a civil matter. The strange thing is, I was accepted by the state and the defense in both cases even though I had an assault conviction many years ago and even though several judges in the area were business clients of mine. Go figure.

--

Regards,
Robert L Bass

==============================>
Bass Home Electronics
4883 Fallcrest Circle
Sarasota · Florida · 34233
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
Sales & Tech Support 941-925-8650
Customer Service 941-870-2310
Fax 941-870-3252
==============================>

I myself use the phrase 'Average White Band".

They are planning a reunion, but will no longer be called AWB. The new name is TWB.

Or like "opening a security business" in CT the very same year you got convicted of a felony offense in Florida and sentenced to five years probation??

I figure you're lying through your tooth.

Oh really? When would you have had *this* opportunity? Before or after the judge dismissed the jury?

OK... Obviously "after". How many laws have you broken since?

You didn't read the paper?? Listen to the news?? Here you are serving on a jury and you're not the least bit interested in the outcome?

*This* I find hard to believe too. Mind you, I find most of what you spew hard to believe.

I doubt you'd ever served on a jury... civil or otherwise. You have NO CLUE do you?

Yeah... Lets.

And the defendant, too!

--
aioe.org is home to cowards and terrorists

Add this line to your news proxy nfilter.dat file
* drop Path:*aioe.org!not-for-mail to drop all aioe.org traffic.

http://improve-usenet.org/index.html