This trial is about Apple vs Samsung, not the patent system. Samsung filed counter-claims against Apple too. So I don't quite understand what you mean by the jury being biased.
I'm not saying that the outcome directly (or even indirectly) affects him materially. It clearly doesn't.
I'm saying that, as a patent holder and inventor, his perspective is going to be biased towards protecting the rights of innovators, beyond what would be sane from the perspective of the rest of society.
His profession puts him in the same boat as Apple.
Ok, but then let's say you are entirely right. Then the jury is bound to interpret the patents broadly and an outcome like this is inevitable as far as a jury verdict goes (I think something like this happened in the Oracle-Google suit). What then for the patent system?
What this does, IMHO, is it pushes all the interesting questions to the judge and the appeals court. These are questions like:
What is the scope of each patent?
Did the jury find that each patent was violated within the scope determined after trial? (Unknowable, gives judges an opportunity to decide the case as they see fit.)
What this does, if you take it that way, is put the jury in the role largely of hearing demurrers. A verdict of infringement becomes more or less a low barrier to entry to the interesting portions of the case which will all be decided by judges.
