I've sat on mock juries for corporate law firms before (IP/patent law is interesting and easy money to sit for mock jury) and more than once I've skewed their findings because of my technical/electronics background. During the breaks the folks that are participating are total block heads that don't understand even the most elementary explanations given.
I now often wonder if patent cases should be trial by jury or trial by subject matter expert panels. The lack of technical literacy shows that the populace is woefully unprepared to serve as jurors in these cases.
What we got from the CAFC was the explosion of software patents, regular messes of abusive patent rules, an overwhelming bias against small companies accused of infringement by monster corps with patent portfolios, legalization of patents based on abstract ideas, and regular rebukes by the Supreme Court that has to try to rein them in with regular 9-0 decisions that the CAFC then finds ways to ignore.
The problem is that anyone who could get appointed to such a court is probably personally invested in the power of the patent system. His history is probably in mega corps with thousands of patents to block innovative disruptors. Such a judge's future prestige and professional respect is determined by how much he supports omnipotent and unlimited patents with little review of validity.
So these judges are inevitably judging their own careers in every case. They are as biased and corrupt as you might expect anyone to be when asked to judge the limits of his own power and influence.
No. Cases should not be tried by juries of subject matter experts. That just leads to more corruption. We do need better rules that make it harder to abuse the system, but we're better off with ordinary judges and juries making the decisions, even though they sometimes screw it up through ignorance. At least they aren't screwing it up by malice like certain federal judges.
Other other hand the broadly selected jury won't be able to understand technical cases.
Its 6 one half-a-dozen the other. (UK English expression that means both ways have major flaws and neither is ideal.)
You could expand that to describe the entirety of the modern electorate and you would have your answer for most of the ills of society.
Very true, and very much a bummer. I really like that part of the state otherwise. I've spent some time out in Quitman and have considered moving out that way working remotely. I don't think I could ever get over that hump though.
Definitely a slower pace of life. I can't go out to eat or to the grocery store in my hometown without running into someone I know, went to school with, etc.
There's also lots of big lakes for fishing and boating which is a pastime of mine. Folks in the grocery store would recognize that I was an outside and approach me, introduce themselves, welcome me to their homes. There may be many a technological rube out there, but a lot of nice people outside of that
"Any civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business."
The CAFC (the patent appeals court) judicially abolished the statute in its VE Holdings decision so that patent lawyers would get richer and more powerful. That's the motive behind many CAFC decisions since patents are the root of the judges' power and power -- as is predictable -- has corrupted. Now the new case asks them to revise that decision and follow the law as written.
Let's see if the new Obama judges are more honest than their predecessors. (The verdict so far: maybe.)
Decent discussion here: http://patentlyo.com/patent/2007/04/patent_jurisdic.html
edit: I thought your name looked familiar. We discussed this a couple of months ago, and you're still spouting the same incorrect nonsense.
The CAFC is decidedly not interpreting statute according to its plain wording when it interprets a clause intended to limit judicial powers as having no limiting effect. There's definitely room for reasonable disagreement with your position.
Or maybe you've read them, and your position is that Congress just didnt know what personal jurisdiction meant when it rewrote 1391.
What is necessary under Federal Circuit law for an e-commerce business, for example, to avoid falling under the personal jurisdiction of Eastern Texas for a software patent suit? And do you believe that such measures—if they exist—do "not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice"?
Yes, I think Comgress should be presumed to have known about it.
You say that like it's improbable.
We're all one event away from being supervillains.
So is it feasible to not do any business in East Texas?
So you can try but probably not.
I don't think Google and Apple could oppose that, as you can argue you're attempting to operate within the bounds of (patent) law.
How do judges get their positions again?
 warning: obnoxious autoplay video http://www.x-plane.com/x-world/lawsuit/
From what I gather the line of reasoning is something like:
> eff cares about technology, in particular
electronics and communication.
> sometimes electronic systems, and the software these
systems employ, may be patented.
> patents in general may foster innovation, but
when misused, they may also stifle innovation.
> technological innovation, generally speaking, is
something the EFF cares about.
> in texas, there exists a group of political
activists colluding together to willfully
stifle technological innovation through
the careful misuse of U.S. patent law.
> although the manner in which these political
malefactors operate may be subtle and
convoluted, there is an obvious sense of the
goals behind their actions, and those goals
threaten to harm, not just a select group of
actors mired in interpersonal grudge matches,
but every participant in the American civil
justice system, by establishing dangerous
precedents with long reach and odd side
effects that may be weaponized to create
widespread strife and conflict amongst anyone
coming up against an opponent with the time,
money, and the awareness of said precedents.
> how the EFF is so certain of such intent
among these political actors remains
unclear, but because of this, the EFF is
willing to invest not-insignificant
resources in confronting and disrupting
their malignant behaviors.
> strategically speaking, should certain
specific legal decisions come to pass
in an American jurisdiction, it could
spell disaster for technological
innovation as a whole (really?), based
on the implicit logical corollaries
established by carefully chosen
legal battles won by this group.
> for this reason the EFF seeks to
challenge the validity of their
actions and their authority to operate
Nobody's actually trying or colluding to stifle innovation, they're just trying to abuse patent law to make money, with gross disregard for the purposes of patent law or the broader consequences of their actions. Perverse incentives can produce much of the same harms as a broad conspiracy, without the impracticality and implausibility of collusion.
The Eastern District of Texas and the Federal Circuit have both undergone regulatory capture, which can be incredibly damaging to the public interest even when the regulators' intentions are quite innocent.
Sure, greed, corruption, and low-brow abuse of power is repugnant in and of itself, but where does this start to become a Electronic issue?
How do the shenanigans of court district in Texas endanger an entire frontier of all things electronic?
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Frontier_Foundation - the introductory paragraph nicely sums up their remit.