It’s somewhat humbling that you think a randomly selected jury has enough insightful perspective to defend American interests during patent litigation. We are apparently a much more devious and Machiavellian people than even I realized, and I work in the valley among the lot. What an accomplishment, in your eyes, to develop a world-unique legal system where even the process of voir dire furthers our supremacist IP interests at the expense of objectivity in jurisprudence. We should be proud of such a creation, no?

Until you show us a transcript of the hearing in which the stakes were explained in these terms to the jury (which doesn’t exist, as it’d be sanctionable for the lawyer arguing it for several reasons), this is just gratuitous and uninformed criticism of a country that ostensibly isn’t yours — which you hedged by saying “arguably” behind one of the key points, because you know it’s mostly bullshit. I guarantee you the randomly selected jury barely knew where Germany was, much less the important lines to draw to preserve our sovereignty in intellectual property abroad. Ask any patent litigator how difficult it is to bring the jury to the facts, looooong before getting to the Sun Tzu realpolitik you’re cooking up here.

If you’re going to make the low key America-is-stupid argument (I heard you, don’t worry), you can’t immediately undermine your own argument alleging that said stupidity intentionally furthers a broader evil purpose. It’s just stupid.

We have so many problems with our legal system that I’m honestly amazed you were able to invent one I hadn’t heard before. I also think you’re imagining China here, not the United States, given how trade dress and patent litigation goes for foreign entities there (like BMW; hey, they’re from Germany too!). Also extremely undermining to the point of hilarity that you included that country’s specific take on intellectual property litigation in the “rest of the world” distinguishing point regarding objectivity.