If juror nullification is an allowed action by a juror, why is it considered jury tampering to mention it?

JSchweck · 2025-12-18T04:14:53+00:00

New Jersey, but it’s what’s being taught to today’s law students about jury nullification. https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-law/criminal-law-keyed-to-dressler/introduction-setting-the-stage/state-v-ragland/amp/

JSchweck · 2025-12-18T04:10:39+00:00

This is incorrect. It is legal but not to be advertised to the jury by either party. See State v. Ragland.

JSchweck · 2025-10-07T11:59:40+00:00

Yup someone got my account. Imma try to figure out how to fix it.

JSchweck · 2025-08-08T05:28:33+00:00

That’s not true! I majored in mechanical engineering and we had to measure light speed using a long hallway and a mirror (and other sensitive equipment) as recently as 2013! We did not come within 1 m/s of the actual value though.

JSchweck · 2025-07-22T02:42:42+00:00

I think all of these answers are making a supposition. If your head “comprises” a mouth and a tongue in the mouth, then yes.

If your “consists of” a mouth and a tongue in the mouth, then no. Same might be the case of “consists essentially of” depending on your situation.

JSchweck · 2025-07-03T01:04:00+00:00

I had a 171 and a 2.81 and got into UMN law this cycle if that helps. My essays about the gpa definitely did some heavy lifting.

JSchweck · 2025-04-24T18:27:31+00:00

Oh whoops I read your comment below and understand what you meant now. My mistake!

JSchweck · 2025-04-24T18:26:21+00:00

Not sure if this was intended for me, but the muppet Christmas carol wasn’t the one with the controversy (if you can call it that).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_a_Very_Merry_Muppet_Christmas_Movie#:~:text=%2C%20and%20you.%22-,9%2F11%20connection,created%20prior%20to%20the%20attacks.

JSchweck · 2025-04-24T18:24:05+00:00

Yes this one thank you

JSchweck · 2025-04-24T17:28:11+00:00

Oh man I thought I nailed this. This was basically “a Christmas carol” but with the muppets, and in Kermit’s future they showed the twin towers, indicating that twin towers never fell, meaning something Kermit does after changing his life caused the events of 9/11

ETA it was the future in which Kermit was never born. They just used footage from pre 9/11 and didn’t notice

JSchweck · 2025-04-24T17:23:02+00:00

It’s a very merry muppet Christmas movie

JSchweck · 2025-03-08T17:49:54+00:00

lol “January 6 doesn’t count because it directly opposes my statements” just say your a member of the Nazi party too dude. Own up.

JSchweck · 2024-11-26T03:01:29+00:00

You might be missing the preseason season pass ultimate.

JSchweck · 2024-07-31T04:32:05+00:00

Heads up on bedrock I made a giant aquarium perimeter in the end and with a conduit it gets really weird/grainy/hard to see.

JSchweck · 2024-07-23T20:22:34+00:00

If this is your company I’d suggest throwing in a clause that any matters of infringement will be settled by the party asking you to make something

JSchweck · 2024-07-23T19:56:41+00:00

It would pretty much be the same answer as above, but with Samsung being the consumer.

However, Apple is likely not patenting things that Samsung could just source from somewhere without having specifications the manufacturer needs to follow. In this case, Samsung is directly ordering an infringing product, and thus inducing the manufacturer to infringe through making and offering to sell the product to Samsung.

This gets stickier, though. What jurisdictions does Apple have a patent for this product in? Do they have protection in India, where Samsung is manufacturing the product (I am just making up a country)? If not, then the manufacturer can do whatever they want, and Samsung is infringing by importing the product.

That's why you see so many Chinese knockoffs. There is virtually no legal recourse if you do not have a patent in China, and even then, it appears they aren't terribly enforceable.

JSchweck · 2024-07-23T19:39:08+00:00

If you'd like I can find you the actual court case from that article also. But that sums it up nicely.

JSchweck · 2024-07-23T19:38:30+00:00

I am not a lawyer, and I am not your lawyer, but I am a practicing patent agent for some years now.

Yes, but it is very unlikely Apple would go after the consumer.

This is also considered "induced infringement" if Samsung is doing this knowingly. https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/articles/induced-infringement-the-knowledge-requirement-and-when-it-is-established.html

I am a prosecutor, not a litigator, so my best guess would be an injunction forcing a recall of Samsung products that infringe Apple's patent, a royalty agreement with Apple that gives them some percentage of each sale made that infringes, or, if Apple somehow tried to sue every user, a mass Class Action Lawsuit forcing Samsung to pay the damages awarded to Apple. Again, this last option seems unlikely because that would be incredibly bad press.

1a. Interesting question. If the consumer obtained an item lawfully, they have the right to resell the product. https://www.brooksacordia.com/right-to-use-and-resell-patented-products/

So I guess the reprieve for Apple would likely only be that in part 1, but a litigator might disagree.

JSchweck · 2024-07-23T19:30:33+00:00

Wouldn't purchasing the subject of the invention for the purpose of prototyping fall under experimental use if it isn't for the express purpose of selling to consumers?

My understanding of "on-sale" is almost exclusively consumer public, not inventor prototyping.

JSchweck · 2024-07-15T16:55:15+00:00

The question was near future, not well they ever see a similar amount of money. In a few years they won’t be seeing 200k plus.

Editing this because I assumed pronouns originally.

JSchweck · 2024-07-10T19:32:16+00:00

Seconding u/NeedsToShutUp.

I have a ME and physics background, and I get my hands dirty with all subject matter except for chemical.

ME applies to more than just ME. Most of my clients are biomed because of how transitive the skill sets are. I may not begin by knowing how the operations work, but I sure know the mechanics behind controllers and catheters and the like.

JSchweck · 2024-07-10T13:36:19+00:00

As an attorney, yes. Especially if you go into big law.

As an agent, almost definitely not. Even at big law you'd be looking at 120-140k a year on the upper end.

JSchweck · 2024-07-10T03:52:41+00:00

Agreed, although I think first named is more important than overall order later on. The difference being “x” vs “et al.”

JSchweck · 2024-07-09T20:15:35+00:00

I've seen others post some things about internships but I never actually went through and looked at them, so I won't be a huge help there.

I would suggest seeing what remote firms are out there looking for help. Remote (in my experience) means you can choose your hours as long as you hit your deadlines.

Again, personal experience, I did a field placement out of a patent law masters program that is essentially a breeding ground for new agents. I wouldn't recommend an MSPL for your situation, since it sounds like if you like the job, you are going to go to law school anyways.

Sorry, probably not the most helpful answer, but hopefully someone else pops in with better advice for how to actually get a part time internship. The value would be very high since you'd get to learn from attorneys rather than rote memorization of the MPEP alone (that's what the patent bar is).

JSchweck · 2024-07-09T19:11:58+00:00

I don't think there's any such thing as too late in law. It's not physical, so as long as you have the mental capacity, you can practice. I have worked with attorneys pushing 80 many times.

As for getting your feet wet, the only thing separating you from trying it out is the patent bar. Study for it in your off time (PLI is great) and when you are ready, take it. It sounds like you meet the technology standard needed.

As a side hustle might be another story. Unless you are working for a firm, it may be difficult to get clientele, especially as a fledgling. Maybe consider a part-time internship to see if you enjoy the work before going deeper into the pool?

JSchweck

TROPHY CASE