>Let's face it; look to the Samsung vs. Apple case to see how it is the laymen making billion dollar calls.
The damages were reduced to $600 million after the judge ruled that the jury's used an "impermissible legal theory" to award damages, and ordered a new trial.[1] The jury foreman had a technical background and lied during voir dire by failing to mention that he had history of suing others for patent abuse.[2] He was the one he told the other jurors to ignore prior art and assume that Samsung had violated the patents.[3] So it isn't fair to say that laymen decided the damages.
After the trial, a patent('380, bounce-back) that Apple relied heavily upon during the trial to prove that Samsung was "infringing on their innovative designs" was invalidated by the USPTO.[3] This means that if the jury had been competent and searched for prior art (which the foreman with technical experience told them to ignore), or if Samsung had been allowed to present evidence demonstrating prior art, it is probable that no damages would have been awarded at all.
I think it's fair; I don't think you rebuke my point. Take out the foreman, and the jury is even more lay than prior and less biased, as you point out. The very nature of juries is to "educate" a lay jury, but the lawyers aren't likely designers, nor the judge, nor the USPTO. I don't disagree with the OP on there being design eras, everyone freely building atop prior art, but laymen rule the trade/dress rulings and the sales of products. The entire hoopla surrounding Apple lawsuits has to do with them insisting laymen are confused into thinking other products are "that Apple thing my daughter needs."
The damages were reduced to $600 million after the judge ruled that the jury's used an "impermissible legal theory" to award damages, and ordered a new trial.[1] The jury foreman had a technical background and lied during voir dire by failing to mention that he had history of suing others for patent abuse.[2] He was the one he told the other jurors to ignore prior art and assume that Samsung had violated the patents.[3] So it isn't fair to say that laymen decided the damages.
After the trial, a patent('380, bounce-back) that Apple relied heavily upon during the trial to prove that Samsung was "infringing on their innovative designs" was invalidated by the USPTO.[3] This means that if the jury had been competent and searched for prior art (which the foreman with technical experience told them to ignore), or if Samsung had been allowed to present evidence demonstrating prior art, it is probable that no damages would have been awarded at all.
[1]: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130301161659602
[2]: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121031200136965
[3]:http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130402121308772