I know this is (re)opening a can of worms, but the interesting part about this article is that it very clearly highlights why it would have been a terrible idea for the recent Apple vs. Samsung trial to be decided by a jury of patent specialists instead of laymen.
Perhaps. I've heard the argument that because he was a patent holder himself, he was able to convince a significant portion of the jury that he was an expert in all things patent-related, and this swayed their decision in favor of Apple. But that's just the rumor machine. We'll see what the outcome of the appeals process is in a few years.
That part of it is not really a rumor; he gave several interviews where he explained in detail exactly how he influenced the jury. All that remains is to see whether or not those statements actually invalidate the verdict.
But in case it's not clear, I completely agree with you: a panel of patent experts would have been even worse. The problem in this case was the judge trusting this guy when he said he wouldn't let his previous experience as a patent holder color his judgement.
I wouldn't want a jury of "patent specialists", I want an inquisitorial panel including professional judges, laypersons, and technical (not "patent") specialists with the power to actively seek truth out in the open, and I want it for all cases. The adversarial system has overstayed its welcome.
