http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/11/jury-newegg-infringes-spangenberg-patent-must-pay-2-3-million/. Ugh. This is why a jury of your peers makes no sense in patent law disputes. The inventor of public key cryptographer said that this patent was bogus. Well, the jury disagreed with him. After all, what does HE know. ERrr??? It just doesn’t make sense to pull 12 random people off the street to determine whether a patent dealing with very complex topics is valid or not. How would they know? Just like I hope I’m never involved in a wrongful death case dealing with a complicated medical procedure. How in the world would I know if what the doctor did was a reasonable decision or not? When it comes to morality, reasonable doubt, etc. we are peers, but when it comes to highly complex and nuanced medical/technological/legal/engineering/X cases, well, we ALL aren’t experts in those areas, and hence, not PEERS. The system, especially as it regards patents, and especially SOFTWARE patents, needs to be completely overhauled.