> -The subject matter is likely to be mostly to totally outside of a person's technical depth and factual experience. (Here I try and think if someone asked me to decide some question related to something like advanced particle physics, chemistry, or the tax code).
Not just "likely"; anyone who had such experience would get kicked off the jury.
Nobody on Hacker News will ever get to serve as a juror on a patent trial. (That cuts both ways, though: nobody biased towards patents will ever sit on a patent trial either.)
I think it's worth noting that as a nation we have chosen to be "biased" in favor of patents. A patent is presumptively valid. To find a patent invalid a jury's standard is "clear and convincing evidence." By contrast the standard for infringement is "a preponderance of the evidence."
Its worth noting that those standards evolved when patents were subject to much more intense review by the patent office, and it was (procedurally) easier for the patent office to just reject an application.
One of the easiest potential fixes to the US patent system would just remove the no longer warranted presumption of validity from patents.
"Not just "likely"; anyone who had such experience would get kicked off the jury."
I was disqualified from the jury on a drunk driving trial, because the defense was based in some way on the Breathalyzer and its design or calibration, and I have a BSCS.
Not just "likely"; anyone who had such experience would get kicked off the jury.
Nobody on Hacker News will ever get to serve as a juror on a patent trial. (That cuts both ways, though: nobody biased towards patents will ever sit on a patent trial either.)