Yes you do need to teach them, otherwise they are not educated enough." You don't need to teach someone how to run a business around selling?"?
Are you kidding me? If you want your business to succed, you won't take someone from the street to run your business, I guess you will prefer business MBA graduate, no?
Here. Let me repeat that quote for you, with a bit of emphasis. You seem to have stopped reading it part way through the sentence.
You don't need to teach someone how to run a business around selling, or even design and build electronics in order to educate them well enough about the particulars which relate to the case.
Teaching someone enough about the *patented technology* and the accused technology to make an informed decision has *nothing* to do with teaching someone how to run a business, or making sure they have an MBA.
Another illogical sentence, funny how you twist it....
No, we should not have murders, how about police officers?
How about judges who know, learn, and saw infinite cases of murders trials, and know the diffrent between facts, and emotion manipulations.
Know the law?
Yes, I do know the law. The law is *why* we have juries.
You wanted expert engineers and the like to judge patent cases. The engineers and such are the people who create patented technologies. The corresponding individuals in murder cases are the people who create murders (ie: murderers).
The police officers would be equivalent to the people who *investigate* patents (ie: the folks at the USPTO). They already have a place in this process.
As for judges, they have the same role in the process *now* as they would in your revised process (based on your own descriptions).
Ok so since the jury from America this is not fair trial priod. And since the judge is just a puppet and can't decide anything in this system it doesn't matter where is her birth place.
Ok, so a trial based on US laws *can't* be a fair trial because it has a jury made up of US citizens? Who *should* we have on the jury? Should we grab people from France? Germany? Japan? China? India? Where?
Also, please provide supporting evidence for your "the judge is just a puppet" claim. It really speaks to your bias (or trolldom) that you think this.
as you saw in the you tube movie, while the jury consist of a bunch of people, there could be ( as in this case) someone that can talk out the other jury opinion, and act as small lawyer, twisting the facts and ideas to his side.
Not all jury is consist of educated high class people, and some fall to this talk.
As I saw in the youTube clip, an educated person made a convincing argument to the jury, and they agreed. As I see here, you disagree with their conclusion (despite not having actually seen all of the evidence), so you assume that he was wrong, and they were stupid (despite not having been present during deliberations).
So as said before sad system. And it can explain the many mistakes in court, and the infinite innocent people that sit in jail, just because they could not afford a good lawyer actor that can do a show for them, to trick the audience.
Are you contending that Samsung couldn't afford a good lawyer? That's obviously not the case here, so instead you've resorted to claiming the judge was a 'puppet' (despite all the rulings which went against Apple along the way).
Is it a perfect system? No. Do innocent people sit in jail *despite* being innocent? Unfortunately, yes. Show me a system where that *doesn't* happen, and I'll be thrilled to help you get it put into place. Unfortunately, our system actually has one of the *best* rates of *not* turning up false positives. In fact, our system lets off more criminals due to technicalities designed to *stop* those false positives than it actually puts in prison. (And this is *often* complained about both on TV, and in the news.)
Of course, being a *civil* trial, there was no danger of *anyone* being put in prison as a result.
----------
Do we agree that the Small Form Factor concept isn't Apple's to begin with ? Even if you want to argue that the Power Mac G4 Cube was theoretically the first one, on the PC side, it's actually the Shuttle SV24 that launched the trend of SFF, spawning the whole Mini/Nano/Pico ITX form factor motherboards and cases and the OEM flavors of such small PCs.
The Shuttle SV24 had the added benefit of being made of aluminum rather than polycarbonate and as such didn't have the bad habit of cracking like the G4 Cube had.
Strange thing... The Cube actually *didn't* have a bad habit of cracking (though it did in some instances). Instead, it had a habit of having the mold-lines become visible when the area was subjected to more stress than 'normal'. (This was easy to do when re-tightening a screw after opening up the Cube.) In the vast majority of the reported 'cracks' in the Cube's casing, you couldn't get dyes to enter the so-called 'crack'. That means there was no fracture on the surface (which is the definition of a crack). Indeed, even if you sliced off a cross-section where the so-called 'crack' was, you couldn't get dyes to enter there either in most instances.