Oh, good, a lynch mob to attack the foreman's professional work.

More like a demonstration of just what kind of flawed mindset he may have on patents, given that he holds such a silly patent.

It appears to be, essentially, a DVR patent. I'm very concerned with his ability to handle a case like this since he thought something very similar to a TIVO (1999) was patentable when his patent was filed in 2002.

Did Samsung get a chance to reject jurors in a voir dire process, as one does for a criminal trial? If so, it's hard to complain about the jurors after the fact.