It was interesting hearing Nilay Patel (the verge) talk about this. He's very pro-patent, so he has a particular point of view, but his take is "yes the jury was incompetent but that's exactly how it's supposed to be". The underlying point being, both sides have the chance to educate the jury during the course of the trial. They have weeks to show them evidence, help them understand the laws and patent process, etc. If at the end of that time the jury is still incompetent to make a decision then it is the fault of parties in litigation. It seems to me this is as much Samsung's mistake as anything; they allowed in a jury member who was both incompetent, pro-patent and highly assertive and persuasive, and then they failed to anticipate and counter his influence effectively during the trial. If they were paying attention to these things they might have got a much better outcome.