>Does it seem crazy to anyone else to have non-experts making enormous rulings like this?
No, it seems democratic. The law is about the will of the people --which is what the "jury of your peers" tries to capture--, not about what some experts say.
Experts can serve the court with their "expert advice" (which lots of times in such cases is just BS, depending on which side pays their bills).
It's dead easy as a lawyer to find experts with Phd's and all, to testify both pro and against patents, or both pro and against each company in this dispute).
No, it seems democratic. The law is about the will of the people --which is what the "jury of your peers" tries to capture--, not about what some experts say.
Experts can serve the court with their "expert advice" (which lots of times in such cases is just BS, depending on which side pays their bills).
It's dead easy as a lawyer to find experts with Phd's and all, to testify both pro and against patents, or both pro and against each company in this dispute).