The problem with the juries chosen for these types of cases is that they aren't really "peers" of the accused. In this case, the accused is a major, multinational consumer electronics firm. The only jurists who could be considered peers would be employees/representatives of similar firms. Using a group of consumers with just a few days of "training" on the issues to judge a corporation that spent thousands of man-hours on the issue is almost meaningless.
To offer an alternative to your fourth bullet point:
It should be a simple matter to put together a pool of individuals "skilled in the art" and present them with the problem that a patent perports to solve (without actually presenting the "solution). You then ask them to come up with possible solutions to the problem (brainstorming is encouraged). Any ideas that this group comes up (in a reasonable amount of time) with are "obvious" (obviously!) and shouldn't be patentable.
Just because something hasn't been patented doesn't mean it isn't obvious, it just may mean that no one else has been presented with the same problem to solve.