So, if what I'm reading on the intertubes is anything near the truth, the jury foreman has a vested interest in pushing precedent for honoring pretty generic technology patents (he has one of his own) and he encouraged, supposedly, the jury to disregard prior art because they would get "bogged down".
It'll be interesting to see how true any of this is, and how it may play out in the appeals process.
My personal opinion about software and related patents, as they've evolved, is pretty much that they discourage more innovation that they encourage or protect, and that they increase the cost of innovation substantially without commensurate benefit. Having said that, I like to think that if I were on that jury, I'd put my personal opinions aside in favor of addressing the merits of the particular case. For sure, I would think that getting "bogged down" in prior art would be a significant part of the process.
In any event, the industry needs clear patent guidelines, clearer than they are now, and it looks like this case may be muddied enough in appeal such that clarity will not yet be forthcoming.