Why do you want to go to "personal comments"? I don't think I said anything too inflammatory... I merely suggested that I consent to the rule of law and the right of juries to interpret that law. I don't like the idea that Americans would automatically want to overturn the will of a capable jury. Juries are the things saving us from our own laws and lawmakers...
I never said that they are perfection... and, in fact, that is the whole point of a trial "by your peers". Jury's are there to inject
reality into our legal system. Laws are drawn up in a fairly closed off environment by people typically thousands of miles away... a jury is there to interpret that law _for the people_ at the most local level possible: on a case by case basis.
We should really only question a few things about a jury. Did they properly represent "peers". Are they of sane mind. Were they tampered with?
If the answers to these questions come back ok... then the will of the jury can be said to represent the puclic's interpretation of the law in this case. And that is what matters.
This was, from my reading, a damn fine jury... it consisted of several people who work in the tech industry and a few who don't. It consisted of people with some knowledge in this area and some who don't. The fact that 9 people with this mix of backgrounds could agree that Samsung infringed... and did so _willfully_ speaks volumes.
Juries are not perfect... but neither is the law. That's why we have juries to interpret the law and apply it to each case independently.
If you have a problem with the verdict then you really have a problem with the law. Normal Americans were given facts and asked to interpret the law and this is the outcome. If you want to change the outcome in the future... then change the law.
But for now, all procedures were followed and Samsung was found to owe Apple some cash according to the current laws.