Jurors work on some issues - whether A killed B - but applying a non-technical jury to something as far from common daily experience of most people is, to say the least, dangerous.
I know several expert witnesses who agree. They say the jury never understands their testimony, and they just side with whoever is more charismatic. Several experts have told me this in various forms.
I can't speak for everyone, but for me, flip the names on the case and I'll take the same side on the issues as I do now. What Oracle's argument has pivoted into is catastrophic if they win with it. It makes our patent mess look pedestrian. It's so catastrophic that I don't think there's any chance of it actually staying in their favor, even if it takes direct legislative action, but ye gods will it cause an epic, industry-stalling mess in the meantime.
Agreed. But the experts that have told me this have been both "plaintiff's experts" and "defense experts" (this is in pharmaceutical product liability) and they maintain this opinion about their juries irrespective of winning or losing.
