[srfilipek]

> a jury of random people is probably the most qualified way to determine the question "would average people see these two things as substantially the same."

A jury of random people can be confused and then convinced by lawyers. That's the way they like it, and that's the problem with jury selection - they chose people specifically because they are not knowledgeable.

[fuzz4lyfe]

Whats better? Experts that can be purchased? Elected or appointed judges who owe favors to those who elected or appointed them?

[srfilipek]

> Whats better? [...lots of straw-men...]

To start: Not removing jurors simply because they're knowledgeable or have critical thinking skills.