After Toshiba's settlement, Others Follow (Law)suit

Can Savas writes "After Toshiba's $2.1 Billion settlement of the lawsuit on the "probably" faulty floppy controller, others have filed lawsuits against Compaq, HP, Packard Bell/NEC and eMachines. I wonder where these lawsuits are heading but I guess some will strike it rich (having suffered nothing at all to boot). These lawsuits show how unsufficient the jury system is for cases like this where the jury is likely to be clueless. If any of these manufacturers end up settling or losing the suit, then there might be some real problems for the entire industry. "

What a dumb idea

Computer manufacturers offer warranties on their products just like any other company that makes a product. When the part is defective, they issue a recall. Some, like Dell with the Western Digital issue are proactive and call their customers to let them know when the technician will be coming out to replace the drive. Others try to bury it under the rug. Neither really deserves sued. That's why we have places like the Better Business Bureau. You report a company for slow response, write letters to the CEO, call and complain because the product ise not working as designed, and I can't believe you wouldn't recieve service. I'd prefer to work with and buy products from a proactive company, but I sure can't see myself involved in a class action lawsuit against a pretty reputable company unless I wanted to damage them. I'd take care of the issue myself and maybe even take them to small claims court where the issue belongs. At least that way I would get full compensation.

That's all the rambling. If there's anything good in what I just said it's your responsibility to pick it out.

Expert juries (and some history)

I am a lawyer, but this isn't legal advice. If you need some, see a laywer licensed in your jurisdiction.

The original idea of a jury was that the king's judges would have their bailiffs round up the men of the town as a jury, since they're the ones that knew what happened (a disqualification today).

Rather than a jury of twelve random people, there are many cases where we'd be better off with, say, three people who know the subject matter, or a group with one of each kind of special knowledge needed--an engineer, a programmer, etc.

We already have "special verdicts" rather than "general verdicts" as a possiblity--rather than yes/no and a number, the jury issues findings point by point, which can be assembled by the judge. The experts could also issue such findings.

And going back to a weregild concept on injuries might be a good idea--an arm is worth X dollars, a leg Y, a death Z, and so forth . . .

The jury system is NOT at fault...

The problem is not the jury system per se. Yes, the jurors may be clueless about the subject, that is why the attourneys on both sides have to present the facts (as they see them) so that the jury can decide the case.

The problem is that most people today are incapable of

• Listening to facts
• Remembering the facts
• Following a chain of logic
• Going with the logical choice no matter what their personal feelings are

Instead, the jurors make a snap, emotional decision, then stick with it, regardless of the facts or reason. In a case like this, the jurors say "You've suffered (somehow), and so we're going to give you a large sum of money. After all, WE aren't paying for it, insurance is." Of course, insurance isn't paying it, we are (via higher costs, premiums, etc.) but all the jurors want it to get back to watching Wheel of Fortune.

Perhaps instead of the current means of jury selection (Show up on this date or else!), what we should do is more like /. moderation:

Congratulations! You've been awarded a chance to make the world a better place and serve on a jury. You may redeem the enclosed token for a chance to sit on a jury anytime within the next three months. If you don't want to take part in the American Legal system, just drop the token into any US Mail box.

This way:

1. People who don't want to be on a jury won't be. If you don't care, I don't want you there.
2. People like me, who would serve if possible but are too important to be yanked away from work with little warning could make arrangments. As it is now, if I got a jury notice, my employer would swear blind (truthfully) that my absense would cause great harm to the company, and the system would let me skip (not reschedule, skip).
3. Hopefully, this would change jury duty from a chore to a privilege (Remember Tom Sawyer? "Not everybody can paint a fence like this")

Of course, the system would still have to compel employers to allow employees to take jury duty time without using vacation time, but they do this for Reserve duty anyway.

Of course, we'd then need MetaJury duty (review these 10 cases and decide it they were unfair, fair, or no opinion...)