|
|
| Closing Arguments in the Novell v. Microsoft's Antitrust Trial ~pj - Updated 2Xs |
 |
|
Wednesday, December 14 2011 @ 04:58 PM EST
|
Microsoft and Novell each summed up its case for the jury yesterday in Utah, in the antitrust trial Novell brought against it regarding WordPerfect and Quattro Pro. Yes, it's almost over. We had a reporter there for part of Microsoft's closing statement today, and Bloomberg
fills in the rest, along with
the Salt Lake Tribune. TechFlash has coverage as well. And we also have most of the latest documents for you.
Jump To Comments
Since we last looked in, Microsoft's motion for judgment as a matter of law was denied, but Novell's motion to reopen the case to present more evidence was denied. I confess I have been disturbed by reports of this judge's conduct at this trial, but the thing about juries is that they are not predictable. So, we'll see. Maybe they feel the same way I do about the judge. But one thing is for sure, whoever loses will almost certainly appeal.Here's what Bloomberg has to say about Novell's closing statement:
A decision to restrict outside programmers' access to “extensions,” or programming code -- a decision that Novell claims deliberately targeted WordPerfect and made it impossible to run properly on Windows -- was made at a 1993 “high-level executive retreat” at Hood Canal, Washington, Johnson told jurors.
Gates's testimony that the extensions were “trivial and unimportant -- hardly worth his time” doesn't withstand scrutiny, Johnson said. Johnson revisited testimony and e-mails presented at trial to argue the decision was a “purely predatory action.”
‘It Was Important'
“He wasn't telling the truth,” Johnson said, referring to Gates's testimony. “It was important to him.”
Novell, which was bought by Seattle-based Attachmate Corp. in April, has argued that WordPerfect's share of the word-processing market fell to less than 10 percent in 1996 from almost 50 percent in 1990.
Here is the report from Groklaw's cpeterson:
Hello!
I spent about an hour at the courthouse today.
Microsoft's David Tulchin was well into closing arguments. And, oddly enough, for the first time I can do a comfortable summation or paraphrase of all that happened and not feel like I'm leaving out anything:
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, let me be plain. You will see, in the jury instructions and on the form you have to fill out, that the first question is causation. Novell has not shown causation. We have lots of evidence that QuattroPro was late to market. We have no evidence that Bob Frankenberg ever came out and said that QuattroPro was late because of the namespace extensions, therefore Microsoft's actions had no effect on WordPerfect. Furthermore, WordPerfect lost market share after Windows95 came out; therefore, it was a bad product, resulting from bad choices by Novell - and that's ok, sometimes businesses make bad choices. It happens. It's not acceptable, though, to come into a courtroom 15 years later and blame Microsoft for your bad choices."
Spread that over 30 slides, and one hour's time.
Item of note: Novell's request to reopen their case to put up a rebuttal witness - denied.
Closing arguments are due to be complete at 2:00pm today. Then, Judge Motz will read instructions to the jury - he may begin this afternoon, or possibly wait until tomorrow - and then jury deliberations. Timeline on that is absolutely open to guesses.
The SL Tribune's Tom Harvey says the jury will begin deliberations on Wednesday.
Bloomberg adds a detail:David B. Tulchin, a lawyer representing Microsoft, told jurors that Novell “showed you not one document in which Novell complained to Microsoft” about the blocked extensions in 1994 or 1995. A juror might conclude that a company facing $1 billion of damages without the code at issue would “speak up,” he said.
If they were not shown any such document, it isn't because there isn't any evidence of Novell objecting to Microsoft tactics at the time. Novell presented an internal Microsoft email from Satoshi Nakajima dated October 10, 1994, about hiding IShellBrowswer, and it's in the Comes exhibits here at Groklaw's collection, #2158 [PDF]. I don't know if the jury was allowed to see it, but you can. The judge apparently is being rather stingy in what he'll allow the jury to hear. Novell motion to reopen the case, which he denied, is found on this page, #307 [PDF]. While you are there, you might want to look at #306, and the exhibits to #306, including a 1995 letter from Robert Frankenberg, then at Novell, to Bill Gates, regarding antitrust concerns over APIs.
Call me old-fashioned, but I don't see the point of going to court at all unless you are honest, in that the decision ought to reflect true and established facts. What else is the point of the law? You might as well go back to duels and such, if facts don't matter.
Update: The Salt Lake Tribune says the jury deliberated all day, from 8:45 AM until 7:45 PM, and then went home. They resume in the morning. Once again, the judge stood on his head for Microsoft: But in an unusual move, Motz on Wednesday added an advisory to his instructions, telling the jury that Novell’s lead trial attorney had shown the jury an incomplete table when he presented his closing argument on Tuesday.
Jeffrey Johnson, of a Washington, D.C., law firm, displayed a Novell document on a screen that said the code for the new Quattro Pro version was ready in August 1995, when Windows 95 was launched. But Motz said Johnson neglected to show another part of the document that indicated the new version wouldn’t be ready for manufacturing until March of the following year, or months late for trying to capture a high volume of sales from the introduction of the highly successful Windows 95.
That information would seem to favor Microsoft, whose trial attorneys blamed Novell for a poor decision in buying WordPerfect and Quattro Pro, and for muddling the updating of the programs for Windows 95. They particularly emphasized that Quattro Pro was nowhere near ready for inclusion in a suite of products, along with WordPerfect, until months after the launch of Windows 95.
"We’re confident in the jury and are looking forward to what they have to say," said Steven Aeschbacher, associate general counsel for Microsoft.
If he'd said Microsoft is confident in the judge, I'd believe it. Is this why Microsoft wanted the case moved from Utah originally to go to Delaware and Judge Motz? The NZ Herald has more unusual material about the judge:
Jurors deliberating in a company's US$1 billion (NZ$1.33bn) federal antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft appeared confused, sending at least five questions to the judge, one of which couldn't be answered....
The judge later received notes from the panel seeking clarification on some of the technical testimony throughout the two-month trial.
One message so baffled US District Judge J. Frederick Motz that he told jurors to simply disregard their own question in deliberations. Simply disregard it. My stars. This judge is a sketch, as my granny used to say when she was trying to be nice.
Update 2: Tom Harvey of the Salt Lake Tribune reports that the jury deliberated all day Thursday and still have not reached a verdict:
The jury that sat through a two-month trial of Utah-based Novell Inc.’s lawsuit against Microsoft Corp. ended its second day of deliberations Thursday without a verdict.
The jury returned to the federal courthouse in downtown Salt Lake City about 8 a.m. Thursday and deliberated for about 11 hours before going home for the day. Jurors are scheduled to return 8 a.m. Friday to continue deliberating the case in which Novell is asking for an award of around $1 billion, attorneys said. What does it mean? It means the jury is doing its job. It might mean they can't agree, at least not yet. Dennis Romboy at the Deseret News says the jury asked the judge twice what "hung jury" means: Jurors in the billion-dollar Novell-Microsoft antitrust case are apparently wrestling with a number of questions, including what a "hung jury" means.
The seven-woman, seven-man jury was expected to continue deliberations Friday. Jurors have asked the court for several clarifications since receiving the case Wednesday morning. Twice it asked about the term hung jury, possibly signaling that might be on their minds as they weigh two months of complex testimony and hundreds of documents....
U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz gave the jury a verdict form containing seven questions it was to answer in deciding the case. Jurors wanted to know the difference between two similarly worded questions.
One asks whether Novell proved that Microsoft's withdrawal of support for the name space extensions "caused harm" to competition in the market for PC operating systems and "contributed significantly" to Microsoft's monopoly in that market.
The other asks whether Novell proved that Microsoft's withdrawal of support for the name space extensions was "reasonably capable of contributing significantly" to Microsoft's monopoly in PC operating systems market. So now we know what the questions from the jury were about.
The latest on the docket that we have:
11/17/2011 - 301 - Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge J. Frederick Motz: Jury Trial held on 11/17/2011. Jury present. Evidence received, testimony taken. The plaintiff's rest. Jurors are excused and directed to return Monday, 11/21/2011 @ 8:00 a.m. to resume. Outside the presence of the jury, Mr. Tulchin moves for judgment as a matter of law. The court will hear arguments on motion tomorrow, Friday, 11/18/2011 @ 8:00 a.m. After a discussion with counsel, the court admits plaintiff's exhibits that were objected to by defendants. Attorney for Plaintiff: Jeff Johnson, Esq; Max Wheeler, Esq; Paul Taskier, Esq; Miriam Vishio, Esq; John Schmidtlein, Esq., Attorney for Defendant: David Tulchin, Esq; James Jardine, Esq; Sharon Nelles, Esq; Adam Paris, Esq; Steve Holley. Court Reporter: Kelly Hicken, Ed Young, Patti Walker. (tab) (Entered: 11/17/2011)
11/18/2011 - 302 - MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 297 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law filed by Plaintiff Novell. (English, Maralyn) (Entered: 11/18/2011)
11/18/2011 - 303 - NOTICE OF FILING of Exhibits to Novell's Opposition to Judgment as a Matter of Law re 302 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion filed by Plaintiff Novell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Cover letter to Judge Motz, # 2 Exhibit DX0205, # 3 Exhibit DX0231, # 4 Exhibit DX0303, # 5 Exhibit DX0323, # 6 Exhibit DX0370, # 7 Exhibit DX0379a, # 8 Exhibit DX0379b, # 9 Exhibit DX0379c, # 10 Exhibit PX0001, # 11 Exhibit PX0003, # 12 Exhibit PX0017, # 13 Exhibit PX0031, # 14 Exhibit PX0032, # 15 Exhibit PX0033, # 16 Exhibit PX0044, # 17 Exhibit PX0047, # 18 Exhibit PX0050, # 19 Exhibit PX0051, # 20 Exhibit PX0052, # 21 Exhibit PX0054, # 22 Exhibit PX0055, # 23 Exhibit PX0056, # 24 Exhibit PX0057, # 25 Exhibit PX0061, # 26 Exhibit PX0062, # 27 Exhibit PX0063, # 28 Exhibit PX0064, # 29 Exhibit PX0072, # 30 Exhibit PX0074, # 31 Exhibit PX0078, # 32 Exhibit PX0082, # 33 Exhibit PX0083, # 34 Exhibit PX0084, # 35 Exhibit PX0085, # 36 Exhibit PX0088, # 37 Exhibit PX0090, # 38 Exhibit PX0091, # 39 Exhibit PX0093, # 40 Exhibit PX0094, # 41 Exhibit PX0102, # 42 Exhibit PX0105, # 43 Exhibit PX0106, # 44 Exhibit PX0113, # 45 Exhibit PX0114, # 46 Exhibit PX0115, # 47 Exhibit PX0127, # 48 Exhibit PX0129, # 49 Exhibit PX0131, # 50 Exhibit PX0134, # 51 Exhibit PX0137a, # 52 Exhibit PX0137b, # 53 Exhibit PX0137c, # 54 Exhibit PX0144, # 55 Exhibit PX0148, # 56 Exhibit PX0154, # 57 Exhibit PX0156, # 58 Exhibit PX0174a, # 59 Exhibit PX0174b, # 60 Exhibit PX0174c, # 61 Exhibit PX0174d, # 62 Exhibit PX0174e, # 63 Exhibit PX0176, # 64 Exhibit PX0179, # 65 Exhibit PX0181, # 66 Exhibit PX0184, # 67 Exhibit PX0192, # 68 Exhibit PX0200, # 69 Exhibit PX0201, # 70 Exhibit PX0207, # 71 Exhibit PX0212, # 72 Exhibit PX0213, # 73 Exhibit PX0215, # 74 Exhibit PX0216, # 75 Exhibit PX0219, # 76 Exhibit PX0220, # 77 Exhibit PX0221, # 78 Exhibit PX0222, # 79 Exhibit PX0224, # 80 Exhibit PX0225, # 81 Exhibit PX0227, # 82 Exhibit PX0231, # 83 Exhibit PX0248, # 84 Exhibit PX0268, # 85 Exhibit PX0279, # 86 Exhibit PX0312, # 87 Exhibit PX0324, # 88 Exhibit PX0333, # 89 Exhibit PX0344, # 90 Exhibit PX0355, # 91 Exhibit PX0361, # 92 Exhibit PX0364, # 93 Exhibit PX0374, # 94 Exhibit PX0379, # 95 Exhibit PX0391, # 96 Exhibit PX0395, # 97 Exhibit PX0400, # 98 Exhibit PX0410, # 99 Exhibit PX0412, # 100 Exhibit PX0471, # 101 Exhibit PX0473, # 102 Exhibit PX0482, # 103 Exhibit PX0483, # 104 Exhibit PX0488, # 105 Exhibit PX0489, # 106 Exhibit PX0490, # 107 Exhibit PX0491, # 108 Exhibit PX0499, # 109 Exhibit PX0506, # 110 Exhibit PX0509, # 111 Exhibit PX0515, # 112 Exhibit PX0517, # 113 Exhibit PX0524, # 114 Exhibit PX0530, # 115 Exhibit PX0531, # 116 Exhibit PX0543, # 117 Exhibit PX0554)(English, Maralyn) (Entered: 11/18/2011)
11/18/2011 - 304 - Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge J. Frederick Motz: Jury Trial held on 11/18/2011. Jury is not present. The court hears argument on defendant's motion for a judgment as a matter of law. Argument will continue after the jury trial on Monday, 11/21/2011 @ 1:30 p.m. Trial will begin at 8:00 a.m. Attorney for Plaintiff: Jeff Johnson, Esq; Max Wheeler, Esq; Paul Taskier, Esq; John Schmidtlein, Esq., Attorney for Defendant: David Tulchin, Esq; Sharon Nelles, Esq. Jim Jardine, Esq; Steve Holley, Esq. Court Reporter: Ed Young, Patti Walker, Laura Robinson. (tab) (Entered: 11/18/2011)
11/20/2011 - 305 - NOTICE OF FILING of Letter /Regarding Deception in Antitrust Law/ filed by Plaintiff Novell. (Johnson, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/20/2011)
11/20/2011 - 306 - NOTICE OF FILING of Letter /Regarding Frankenberg Correspondence with Gates/ filed by Plaintiff Novell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Johnson, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/20/2011)
11/20/2011 - 307 - MOTION to Reopen its Case-in-chief and Supplement the Record filed by Plaintiff Novell. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(English, Maralyn) (Entered: 11/20/2011)
11/20/2011 - 308 - MEMORANDUM in Support re 307 MOTION to Reopen its Case-in-chief and Supplement the Record filed by Plaintiff Novell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B-1, # 3 Exhibit B-2, # 4 Exhibit B-3, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E)(English, Maralyn) (Entered: 11/20/2011)
11/21/2011 - 309 - BRIEF /Concerning Novell's Deception Theory/ filed by Defendant Microsoft. (Jardine, James) (Entered: 11/21/2011)
11/21/2011 - 310 - Opposition BRIEF to 307 Novell's Motion to Reopen Its Case-in-Chief and Supplement the Record filed by Defendant Microsoft. (Jardine, James) Modified on 11/21/2011 ; added docket relationship to 307 (asp). (Entered: 11/21/2011)
11/21/2011 - 311 - NOTICE OF FILING re 306 Notice of Filing, /Memorandum in Response to Novell's Letter Concerning Documents Not in Evidence/ filed by Defendant Microsoft. (Jardine, James) (Entered: 11/21/2011)
11/21/2011 - 312 - DECLARATION of Steven L. Holley /in Support of Microsoft's Memorandum in Response to Novell's Letter Concerning Documents Not in Evidence/ filed by Microsoft. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Jardine, James) (Entered: 11/21/2011)
11/22/2011 - 313 - Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge J. Frederick Motz: Jury Trial held on 11/22/2011. Jury present. Evidence received, testimony taken. Jurors are directed to return 11/22/2011 @ 8:00 a.m. to resume trial. Outside the presence of the jury, the court hears argument on Defendant's Motion for Judgment As a Matter of Law. The court reserves ruling on motion. Attorney for Plaintiff: Jeff Johnson, Esq; Paul Taskier, Esq; John Schmidtlein, Esq, Miriam Vishio, Esq; Max Wheeler, Esq., Attorney for Defendant: David Tulchin, Esq; Steve Holley, Esq; Sharon Nelles, Esq; James Jardine, Esq. Court Reporter: Patti Walker, Ed Young, Becky Janke, Kelly Hicken. (tab) (Entered: 11/22/2011)
11/27/2011 - 314 - NOTICE OF FILING of Letter Regarding Corrected Exhibit A re 296 Notice of Filing /of Novell's Proffer of Evidence Regarding the Testimony of Professor Roger G. Noll/ filed by Plaintiff Novell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Johnson, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/27/2011)
11/28/2011 - 315 - Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge J. Frederick Motz: Jury Trial held on 11/28/2011. Jury present. Evidence received, testimony taken. Jurors are directed to return 11/29/2011 @ 8:00 a.m. to resume trial. Attorney for Plaintiff: John Schmidtlein, Esq; Jeff Johnson, Esq; Paul Taskier, Esq; Miriram Vishio, Esq; Max Wheeler, Esq., Attorney for Defendant: James Jardine, Esq; Sharon Nelles, Esq; Steve Holley, Esq; David Tulchin, Esq. Court Reporter: Laura Robinson, Ed Young, Patti Walker. (tab) (Entered: 11/28/2011)
11/29/2011 - 316 - NOTICE OF FILING /of Letter to the Honorable J. Frederick Motz dated November 29, 2011/ filed by Defendant Microsoft. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Jardine, James) (Entered: 11/29/2011)
11/29/2011 - 317 - Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge J. Frederick Motz: Jury Trial held on 11/29/2011. Jury present. Evidence received, testimony taken. Jurors are directed to return 11/20/2011 @ 8:00 a.m. to resume trial. Outside the presence of the jury, the court meets with counsel to discuss pending motions. Novell will respond to Microsoft's letter filed today, 11/29/2011 re: Spoliation Jury Instruction. Attorney for Plaintiff: Jeff Johnson, Esq; John Schmidtlein, Esq; Miriam Vishio, Esq; Paul Taskier, Esq; Max Wheeler, Esq., Attorney for Defendant: Steve Holley, Esq; David Tulchin, Esq; Sharon Nelles, Esq; James Jardine, Esq. Court Reporter: Patti Walker, Ed Young, Becky Janke. (tab) (Entered: 11/29/2011)
11/29/2011 - 318 - MOTION to Preclude the Testimony of Jack Blount Due to Microsoft's Failure to Identify Him in its Witness List or Pretrial Disclosures filed by Plaintiff Novell. (English, Maralyn) (Entered: 11/29/2011)
11/29/2011 - 319 - MEMORANDUM in Support re 318 MOTION to Preclude the Testimony of Jack Blount Due to Microsoft's Failure to Identify Him in its Witness List or Pretrial Disclosures filed by Plaintiff Novell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(English, Maralyn) (Entered: 11/29/2011)
11/30/2011 - 321 - NOTICE OF FILING of Letter to the Honorable J. Frederick Motz filed by Defendant Microsoft. (Gao, Qian) (Entered: 11/30/2011)
11/30/2011 - 322 - NOTICE OF FILING of Letter in Response re 316 Notice of Filing /of Letter to Judge Motz/ filed by Plaintiff Novell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Johnson, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/30/2011)
12/01/2011 - 323 - MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 318 MOTION to Preclude the Testimony of Jack Blount Due to Microsoft's Failure to Identify Him in its Witness List or Pretrial Disclosures filed by Defendant Microsoft. (Jardine, James) (Entered: 12/01/2011)
12/01/2011 - 324 - AFFIDAVIT/DECLARATION of Steven L. Holley in Opposition re 318 MOTION to Preclude the Testimony of Jack Blount Due to Microsoft's Failure to Identify Him in its Witness List or Pretrial Disclosures filed by Defendant Microsoft. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Jardine, James) (Entered: 12/01/2011)
12/01/2011 - 326 - Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge J. Frederick Motz: Jury Trial held on 12/1/2011. Jury present. Evidence received, testimony taken. Jurors are excused and directed to return 12/02/2011 @ 8:00 a.m. to resume trial. Outside the presence of the jury, the Court hears argument on Objections to Certain Exhibits (docket #293) and Motion to Exclude Witness Blount (docket #318). The Court rules on certain exhibits and reserves on others. Plaintiff will file supplemental memo re: the admission of certain exhibits. Mr. Blount will be allowed to testify and plaintiff will depose the witness. Deposition is limited to 2 to 2.5 hours. The Court will not allow a jury instruction regarding spoliation. Attorney for Plaintiff: Jeff Johnson, Esq; Alex Hassid, Esq; John Schmidtlein, Esq; Miriram Vishio, Esq; Max Wheeler, Esq;, Attorney for Defendant: David Tulchin, Esq; Sharon Nelles, Esq; Jim Jardine, Esq; Steve Holley, Esq; Adam Paris, Esq; Qian Gao, Esq; Heidi Bradley, Esq. Court Reporter: Laura Robinson, Patti Walker, Kelley Hicken. (tab) (Entered: 12/02/2011)
12/02/2011 - 325 - Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge J. Frederick Motz: Jury Trial held on 12/2/2011. Jury present. Evidence received, testimony taken. Jurors are excused and directed to return 12/01/2011 @ 8:00 a.m. to resume trial. Attorney for Plaintiff: Jeff Johnson, Esq; Alex Hassid, Esq; Max Wheeler, Esq; Paul Taskier, Esq; Miriam Vishio, Esq; Attorney for Defendant: David Tulchin, Esq; Sharon Nelles, Esq; James Jardine, Esq; Steve Holley, Esq; Court Reporter: Kelly Hicken, Laura Robinson, Patti Walker. (tab) (Entered: 12/02/2011)
12/02/2011 - 333 - Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge J. Frederick Motz: Jury Trial held on 12/2/2011. Evidence received, testimony taken. Jurors are directed to return 12/05/2011 @ 8:00 a.m. Out of the presence of the jury, the Court has received two juror questions. Copies of questions were given to counsel and will be discussed on 12/05/2011. Rule 50 motion is denied without prejudice. The deposition of Mr. Blount will take place this weekend. Attorney for Plaintiff: Jeff Johnson, Esq; John Schmidtlein, Esq; Max Wheeler, Esq; Alex Hassid, Esq; Erin Burns, Esq., Attorney for Defendant: David Tulchin, Esq; Sharon Nelles, Esq; James Jardine, Esq; Steve Holley, Esq; Adam Paris, Esq. Court Reporter: Ed Young, Patti Walker, Becky Janke. (tab) (Entered: 12/05/2011)
12/04/2011 - 327 - MOTION to Limit the Testimony of John Bennett filed by Plaintiff Novell. (English, Maralyn) (Entered: 12/04/2011)
12/04/2011 - 328 - MEMORANDUM in Support re 327 MOTION to Limit the Testimony of John Bennett filed by Plaintiff Novell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(English, Maralyn) (Entered: 12/04/2011)
12/05/2011 - 329 - STIPULATION /Regarding Documents Discovered by Former Novell/WordPerfect Employee Craig Bushman/ by Microsoft, Novell. (Jardine, James) (Entered: 12/05/2011)
12/05/2011 - 330 - Proposed Jury Instructions by Microsoft. (Jardine, James) (Entered: 12/05/2011)
12/05/2011 - 331 - NOTICE OF FILING of Letter re 330 Proposed Jury Instructions filed by Defendant Microsoft. (Jardine, James) (Entered: 12/05/2011)
12/05/2011 - 332 - Proposed Jury Verdict by Defendant Microsoft. (Jardine, James) (Entered: 12/05/2011)
12/05/2011 - 334 - NOTICE OF FILING of Letter /Regarding Proposed Answers to Juror Questions/ filed by Plaintiff Novell. (Johnson, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/05/2011)
12/05/2011 - 335 - Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge J. Frederick Motz: Jury Trial held on 12/5/2011. Jury present. Evidence received, testimony taken. Jurors are directed to return 12/06/2011 @ 8:00 a.m. to resume trial. Out of the presence of the jury, the Court meets with counsel to discuss trial schedule. Jury questions will be answered 12/06/2011. Attorney for Plaintiff: Jeff Johnson, Esq; John Schmidtlein, Esq; Erin Burns, Esq; Alex Hassid, Esq; Max Wheeler, Esq., Attorney for Defendant: David Tulchin, Esq; Steve Holley, Esq; Sharon Nelles, Esq; Adam Paris, Esq; Jim Jardine, Esq. Court Reporter: Ed Young, Laura Robinson, Beck Janke. (tab) (Entered: 12/05/2011)
12/05/2011 - 336 - NOTICE OF FILING of Memorandum Regarding Proposed Final Jury Instructions and Verdict Forms filed by Plaintiff Novell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(English, Maralyn) (Entered: 12/05/2011)
12/06/2011 - 337 - NOTICE OF FILING of Letter to the Honorable J. Frederick Motz, dated December 6, 2011 filed by Defendant Microsoft. (Jardine, James) (Entered: 12/06/2011)
12/06/2011 - 338 - MOTION to Limit the Testimony of Willard E. Peterson and Jack B. Blount filed by Plaintiff Novell. (English, Maralyn) (Entered: 12/06/2011)
12/06/2011 - 339 - MEMORANDUM in Support re 338 MOTION to Limit the Testimony of Willard E. Peterson and Jack B. Blount filed by Plaintiff Novell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(English, Maralyn) (Entered: 12/06/2011)
12/06/2011 - 340 - NOTICE OF FILING of Memorandum in Response to Novell's Proposed Final Jury Instructions re 336 Notice of Filing filed by Defendant Microsoft. (Jardine, James) (Entered: 12/06/2011)
12/06/2011 - 341 - NOTICE OF FILING of Memorandum in Response to Novell's Proposed Final Jury Verdict Forms re 336 Notice of Filing filed by Defendant Microsoft. (Jardine, James) (Entered: 12/06/2011)
12/06/2011 - 342 - ***RESTRICTED DOCUMENT*** RETURN OF SERVICE Executed for SDT served on Alpha Bay Corporation on 12-05-2011, filed by Plaintiff Novell. (Wheeler, Max) (Entered: 12/06/2011)
12/06/2011 - 343 - ***RESTRICTED DOCUMENT*** RETURN OF SERVICE Executed for SDT served on Jack Bishop Blount on 12-05-2011, filed by Plaintiff Novell. (Wheeler, Max) (Entered: 12/06/2011)
12/06/2011 - 344 - MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 327 MOTION to Limit the Testimony of John Bennett filed by Defendant Microsoft. (Jardine, James) (Entered: 12/06/2011)
12/06/2011 - 345 - AFFIDAVIT/DECLARATION of Steven L. Holley in Opposition re 327 MOTION to Limit the Testimony of John Bennett filed by Defendant Microsoft. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Jardine, James) (Entered: 12/06/2011)
12/06/2011 - 352 - Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge J. Frederick Motz: Jury Trial held on 12/6/2011. Jury present. Evidence received, testimony taken. Jurors are excused and directed to return 12/07/2011 @ 8:00 a.m. Out of the presence of the jury, the Court meets with counsel to discuss jurors questions and jury instructions. Attorney for Plaintiff: Jeff Johnson, Esq; Paul Taskier, Esq; Max Wheeler, Esq; John Schmidtlein, Esq., Attorney for Defendant: David Tulchin, Esq; Sharon Nelles, Esq; James Jardine, Esq; Steve Holley, Esq; Adam Paris, Esq. Court Reporter: Bekcy Janke, Ed Young, Patti Walker. (tab) (Entered: 12/08/2011)
12/07/2011 - 346 - NOTICE OF FILING of Letter to the Honorable J. Frederick Motz filed by Defendant Microsoft. (Jardine, James) (Entered: 12/07/2011)
12/07/2011 - 347 - NOTICE OF FILING of Letter to the Honorable J. Frederick Motz filed by Defendant Microsoft. (Attachments: # 1 Microsoft's Handwritten Markup of Proposed Jury Instructions, # 2 Microsoft's Handwritten Markup of Proposed Jury Verdict Form)(Jardine, James) (Entered: 12/07/2011)
12/07/2011 - 348 - NOTICE OF FILING of Objections and Suggestions Regarding the Court's Tentative Jury Instructions and Verdict Form filed by Plaintiff Novell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (redlined version of Court's tentative instructions, indicating Novell's proposed changes), # 2 Exhibit B (Novell's proposed verdict form))(English, Maralyn) (Entered: 12/07/2011)
12/07/2011 - 349 - REPLY to Response to Motion re 327 MOTION to Limit the Testimony of John Bennett filed by Plaintiff Novell. (English, Maralyn) (Entered: 12/07/2011)
12/07/2011 - 353 - Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge J. Frederick Motz: Jury Trial held on 12/7/2011. Jury present. Evidence received, testimony taken. Jurors are excused and directed to return 12/08/2011 @ 8:00 a.m. to resume trial. Out of the presence of the jury, the Court meets with counsel to discuss jury instructions. Attorney for Plaintiff: Jeff Johnson, Esq; Paul Taskier, Esq; Max Wheeler, Esq; John Schmidtlein, Esq., Attorney for Defendant: David Tulchin, Esq; Sharon Nelles, Esq; James Jardine, Esq; Steve Holley, Esq; Adam Paris, Esq. Court Reporter: Ed Young, Laura Robinson, Kelly Hicken. (tab) (Entered: 12/08/2011)
12/08/2011 - 350 - NOTICE OF FILING filed by Defendant Microsoft. (Jardine, James) (Entered: 12/08/2011)
12/08/2011 - 351 - NOTICE OF FILING of Letter in Response re 346 Notice of Filing filed by Plaintiff Novell. (Johnson, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/08/2011)
We'll have the rest after we get them uploaded, so swing back by.
Update: Here's what you can expect, once we get them all uploaded - Update 3: We have all the ones available uploaded now. Enjoy:
12/07/2011 - 357 - **RESTRICTED DOCUMENT** RETURN OF SERVICE Executed
for Subpoena served on Jack Bishop Blount on 12/05/2011, filed by
Plaintiff Novell. (asp) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/9/2011: #
1 Main Document) (asp). (Entered: 12/09/2011)
12/08/2011 - 354 - MOTION to Seal document filed by Defendant Microsoft.
(Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion for Leave to File
Under Seal, # 2 Proposed Order)(Jardine, James) Modified on 12/8/2011 ;
changed relief from for Leave to File to to Seal (asp). (Entered:
12/08/2011)
12/08/2011 - 355 - DOCKET TEXT ORDER granting 354 Motion to Seal,
subject to a motion by Novell to unseal, if Novell deems it appropriate.
Signed by Judge J. Frederick Motz on 12/08/2011. No attached document.
(asp) (Entered: 12/08/2011)
12/08/2011 - 356 - NOTICE OF FILING of Letter to the Honorable J.
Frederick Motz filed by Defendant Microsoft. (Jardine, James) (Entered:
12/08/2011)
12/09/2011 - 358 - NOTICE OF FILING of Letter Regarding the Court's
Tentative Jury Instructions in Response re 356 Notice of Filing filed by
Plaintiff Novell. (Johnson, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/09/2011)
12/09/2011 - 359 - NOTICE OF FILING of Letter to the Honorable J.
Frederick Motz re 358 Notice of Filing of Novell's Letter Regarding the
Court's Tentative Jury Instructions filed by Defendant Microsoft.
(Jardine, James) (Entered: 12/09/2011)
11/21/2011 - 371 - Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge J.
Frederick Motz: Jury Trial held on 11/21/2011. Jury present. Evidence
received, testimony taken. Jurors are excused and directed to return
11/22/2011 @ 8:00 a.m. to resume trial. Attorney for Plaintiff: Jeff
Johnson, Esq; Paul Taskier, Esq; Max Wheeler, Esq; John Schmidtlein,
Esq., Attorney for Defendant: David Tulchin, Esq; Sharon Nelles, Esq;
James Jardine, Esq; Steve Holley, Esq; Adam Paris, Esq. (tab) (Entered:
12/13/2011)
11/30/2011 - 372 - Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge J.
Frederick Motz: Jury Trial held on 11/30/2011. Jury present. Evidence
received, testimony taken. Jurors are excused and directed to return
12/01/2011 @ 8:00 a.m. Attorney for Plaintiff: Jeff Johnson, Esq; Paul
Taskier, Esq; Max Wheeler, Esq; John Schmidtlein, Esq., Attorney for
Defendant: David Tulchin, Esq; Sharon Nelles, Esq; James Jardine, Esq;
Steve Holley, Esq; Adam Paris, Esq. (tab) (Entered: 12/13/2011)
12/08/2011 - 365 - Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge J.
Frederick Motz: Jury Trial held on 12/8/2011. Evidence received,
testimony taken. Jurors are excused at 9:30 a.m. and directed to return
12/12/2011 @ 8:30 a.m. to resume trial. Out of the presence of the jury,
the Court discusses jury instructions and the testimony of Dr. Bennett.
Attorney for Plaintiff: Jeff Johnson, Esq; Paul Taskier, Esq; Max
Wheeler, Esq; John Schmidtlein, Esq., Attorney for Defendant: David
Tulchin, Esq; Steve Holley, Sharon Nelles, Esq; James Jardine, Esq; Adam
Paris, Esq. Court Reporter: Patti Walker, Kelly Hicken. (tab) (Entered:
12/12/2011)
12/11/2011 - 360 - MOTION to Preclude Improper Rebuttal filed by
Defendant Microsoft. (Jardine, James) (Entered: 12/11/2011)
12/11/2011 - 361 - MEMORANDUM in Support re 360 MOTION to Preclude
Improper Rebuttal filed by Defendant Microsoft. (Jardine, James)
(Entered: 12/11/2011)
12/11/2011 - 362 - AFFIDAVIT/DECLARATION of Steven L. Holley in Support
re 360 MOTION to Preclude Improper Rebuttal filed by Defendant
Microsoft. (Jardine, James) (Entered: 12/11/2011)
12/11/2011 - 363 - NOTICE OF FILING of Letter Regarding Juror Questions
filed by Plaintiff Novell. (Johnson, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/11/2011)
12/12/2011 - 364 - NOTICE of Filing of Letter to The Honorable J
Frederick Motz by Microsoft (Jardine, James) (Entered: 12/12/2011)
12/12/2011 - 366 - NOTICE OF FILING of Letter Regarding the Court's
Tentative Jury Instructions and Verdict Form in Response re 359 Notice
of Filing filed by Plaintiff Novell. (Johnson, Jeffrey) (Entered:
12/12/2011)
12/12/2011 - 367 - Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge J.
Frederick Motz: Jury Trial held on 12/12/2011. Jury present. Evidence
received, testimony taken. The defendant rests. Jurors are excused at
12:35 and directed to return 12/13/2011 @ 8:00 a.m. to resume trial. Out
of the presence of the jury, the Court denies renewed motion for a
directed verdict. The Court further denies plaintiff's motion to re-open
case. The Court will not allow further testimony about Quattro Pro.
Proposed jury instruction and verdict form will be given to counsel by
the end of the day. Attorney for Plaintiff: Jeff Johnson, Esq; John
Schmidtlein, Esq; Paul Taskier, Esq; Max Wheeler, Esq., Attorney for
Defendant: David Tulchin, Esq; Steve Holley, Esq; Sharon Nelles, Esq;
James Jardine, Esq. Court Reporter: Kelly Hicken, Patti Walker, Laura
Robinson. (tab) (Entered: 12/12/2011)
12/12/2011 - 368 - NOTICE OF FILING of Letter to the Honorable J.
Frederick Motz regarding Verdict Form and Jury Instructions filed by
Defendant Microsoft. (Attachments: # 1 Microsoft's Handwritten Suggested
Revisions to the Verdict Form, # 2 Microsoft's Handwritten Suggested
Revisions to the Jury Instructions)(Jardine, James) (Entered: 12/12/2011)
12/12/2011 - 369 - NOTICE OF FILING of Microsoft's Trial Exhibit List
filed by Defendant Microsoft. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Jardine,
James) (Entered: 12/12/2011)
12/12/2011 - 370 - NOTICE OF FILING of Letter Regarding Novell's
Proposed Changes to Jury Instructions and Verdict Form in Response re
368 Notice of Filing, filed by Plaintiff Novell. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit (Novell's Proposed Changes to Verdict Form), # 2 Exhibit
(Novell's Proposed Changes to Jury Instructions))(Johnson, Jeffrey)
(Entered: 12/12/2011)
12/13/2011 - 373 - Jury Trial Witness List by the court. (tab) (Entered:
12/13/2011)
12/13/2011 - 374 - Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge J.
Frederick Motz: Jury Trial held on 12/13/2011. Jury present. Plaintiff
will not call rebuttal witnesses. Closing arguments are heard. Jurors
are excused at 2:00 p.m. and directed to return 12/14/2011 @ 8:00 a.m.
for jury instructions and deliberations. Attorney for Plaintiff: Jeff
Johnson, Esq; John Schmidtlein, Esq; Miriam Vishio, Esq; Paul Taskier,
Esq., Attorney for Defendant: David Tulchin, Esq; Sharon Nelles, Esq;
Steve Holley, Esq; James Jardine, Esq. Court Reporter: Patti Walker, Ed
Young, Kelly Hicken. (tab) (Entered: 12/13/2011)
12/13/2011 - 375 - NOTICE OF FILING of Proffer in Response to
Microsoft's Motion to Preclude "Improper Rebuttal" filed by Plaintiff
Novell. (English, Maralyn) (Entered: 12/13/2011)
12/13/2011 - 376 - NOTICE OF FILING of Plaintiff's Exhibit List filed by
Plaintiff Novell. (English, Maralyn) (Entered: 12/13/2011)
12/13/2011 - 377 - NOTICE of Letter regarding Novell's summation by
Microsoft (Jardine, James) (Entered: 12/13/2011)
12/13/2011 - 378 - NOTICE OF FILING of Letter in Response re 377 Notice
(Other) filed by Plaintiff Novell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2
Exhibit B)(Johnson, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/13/2011)
12/14/2011 - 379 -
Filed & Entered:
Notice (Other)
Docket Text: NOTICE of Letter regarding Novell's summation by Microsoft (Jardine, James)
12/14/2011 - 384 -
Filed: 12/14/2011
Entered: 12/15/2011
Jury Trial - Held
Docket Text: Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge J. Frederick Motz: Jury Trial held on 12/14/2011. Jury present. Jury instructions are given by the Court. The CSO is sworn. Jury deliberations begin @ 8:45 a.m. Jury questions are received at 11:15 a.m., 1:00 p.m., 1:35 p.m, 3:25 p.m., 4:47 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. At 7:00 p.m., the Court calls jurors into the courtroom and answers last two questions in open court and releases jurors for the day with instructions to return 12/15/2011 @ 8:00 a.m. to continue deliberations. Court is in recess beginning at 7:15 p.m. Attorney for Plaintiff: Jeff Johnson, Esq; Paul Taskier, Esq; Max Wheeler, Esq; John Schmidtlein, Esq., Attorney for Defendant: David Tulchin, Esq; Sharon Nelles, Esq; James Jardine, Esq; Steve Holley, Esq; Adam Paris, Esq. Court Reporter: Ed Young, Kelly Hicken, Ed Young. (tab)
12/15/2011 - 380 -
Notice (Other)
Docket Text: NOTICE of Filing of Letter to the Honorable J. Frederick Motz by Microsoft (Jardine, James)
12/15/2011 - 381
-
Docket Text: NOTICE of Filing of Letter to the Honorable J. Frederick Motz by Microsoft (Jardine, James)
12/15/2011 - 382 -
Notice (Other)
Docket Text: NOTICE of Letter by Microsoft (Jardine, James)
12/15/2011 - 383
-
Notice of Filing
Docket Text: NOTICE OF FILING of Letter Regarding Testimony of Professor Noll in Response re [382] Notice (Other) filed by Plaintiff Novell. (Johnson, Jeffrey)
12/15/2011 -
385 -
Entered: 12/16/2011
Jury Trial - Held
Docket Text: Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge J. Frederick Motz: Jury Trial held on 12/15/2011. Jury deliberations continue. Juror questions are received at 8:05 a.m., 12:25 p.m., and 3:15 p.m. At 3:30, jurors are brought into the courtroom and given an Allen Charge by the Court. Jurors are released at 7:00 p.m. and directed to return 12/16, 2011 @ 8:00 a.m. to resume deliberations. Attorney for Plaintiff: Jeff Johnson, Esq; Paul Taskier, Esq; Max Wheeler, Esq; John Schmidtlein, Esq., Attorney for Defendant: David Tulchin, Esq; Sharon Nelles, Esq; James Jardine, Esq; Steve Holley, Esq; Adam Paris, Esq. Court Reporter: Kelly Hicken. (tab)
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Kilz on Wednesday, December 14 2011 @ 05:02 PM EST |
| Please mention the mistake in the title of your post. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Kilz on Wednesday, December 14 2011 @ 05:03 PM EST |
| For all posts that are not on topic. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Jury deliberates in Novell-Microsoft trial - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 14 2011 @ 05:06 PM EST
- Off Topic - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 14 2011 @ 11:45 PM EST
- Apple Go Down In Europe - Authored by: MadTom1999 on Thursday, December 15 2011 @ 02:56 AM EST
- Android phones - Authored by: N_au on Thursday, December 15 2011 @ 05:54 AM EST
- Montclair State sues Oracle - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 15 2011 @ 10:14 AM EST
- #SOPA on twitter - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 15 2011 @ 06:12 PM EST
- The Year’s 10 Best Tech Quotes - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 15 2011 @ 07:54 PM EST
- The "Wal Mart" Law - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 16 2011 @ 11:42 AM EST
- UMG claims "right to block or remove" YouTube videos via private deal, not DMCA - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 16 2011 @ 12:26 PM EST
- Europeans not interested in Nokias windows phone - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, December 16 2011 @ 03:08 PM EST
- You gotta feel sorry for Microsoft - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 16 2011 @ 04:38 PM EST
- Why? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 16 2011 @ 05:15 PM EST
- Nah... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 16 2011 @ 06:12 PM EST
- Hung jury declared in years-long Novell v. Microsoft battle - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 16 2011 @ 07:05 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Kilz on Wednesday, December 14 2011 @ 05:04 PM EST |
| Please mention the name of the story in the title of the top post. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Teachers Don’t Like Creative Students - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 14 2011 @ 06:02 PM EST
- (correction in News Picks) SLT article link goes to NZ Herald - Authored by: bugstomper on Thursday, December 15 2011 @ 01:12 AM EST
- Guest Post: Where do Processes of Nature End and Processes of Human Invention Begin? - Authored by: PolR on Thursday, December 15 2011 @ 07:03 AM EST
- Judge A Sketch??? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 15 2011 @ 08:46 AM EST
- Microsoft's new automatic update plan could (finally) spell the end of IE6 - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 15 2011 @ 03:07 PM EST
- Amazon Selling 'Well Over' 1 Million Kindle Devices Per Week - Authored by: Rhialto on Thursday, December 15 2011 @ 06:27 PM EST
- Error in Newspicks - Authored by: tyche on Friday, December 16 2011 @ 07:35 AM EST
- IBM Lotus Symphony Viewer (ODF) - Authored by: JamesK on Friday, December 16 2011 @ 07:52 AM EST
- People at windows glasses shouldn't throw stones. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 16 2011 @ 10:01 AM EST
- But.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 16 2011 @ 10:16 AM EST
- Not true. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 16 2011 @ 11:32 AM EST
- Another case of blogger malice Korea - Authored by: dwandre on Friday, December 16 2011 @ 11:16 AM EST
- Europeans not interested in Nokia's Windows phone - Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Friday, December 16 2011 @ 11:30 AM EST
- Give them time... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 16 2011 @ 04:14 PM EST
- Too late - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 17 2011 @ 06:23 AM EST
- Jurors in Novell-Microsoft case ask court about meaning of 'hung jury' - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 16 2011 @ 02:51 PM EST
- Senator Al Franken grills FBI director on Carrier IQ - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 16 2011 @ 04:00 PM EST
- well... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 16 2011 @ 06:18 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 14 2011 @ 06:45 PM EST |
So, you're going to hang your hat in closing arguments that
"They have not shown you a single document that suggests..."
when you KNOW documents that show this are in the case, but
were suppressed by the judge?
That's almost gift-wrapping overturning the verdict if an
appeals court finds those documents were unfairly excluded.
You can't very well argue the impact those documents at trial
would have been minor in any case when you make their
exclusion a salient point in your closing statement. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, December 14 2011 @ 07:08 PM EST |
This Judge has made a number of comment indicating bias.
He made some more the other day, although the jury was not in the court room. I
wonder if it is enough to sway an appeals court, especially since some of the
comments were apparently directed their way.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: FreeChief on Wednesday, December 14 2011 @ 07:14 PM EST |
Gates's testimony that the extensions were “trivial and unimportant
-- hardly worth his time” doesn't withstand scrutiny,
If it did
withstand scrutiny it would have to be reconciled with testimony that the
extensions could not be delivered as promised because they would have made the
operating system "unstable".
These are not directly incompatible, but they
do seem to imply:
It is not worth our time to think about trivial
things such as whether the OS will crash.
I can believe that, but
I can't believe they want me to believe it.
— Programmer in
Chief
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, December 15 2011 @ 12:35 AM EST |
"why Microsoft wanted the case moved from Utah originally to go to
Delaware"
I've been looking and haven't been able to find a coherent description of why
this case was heard in Utah by a judge from Maryland .
It seems to have required the concurrence of the Chief Judge of the 10th Circuit
and the Chief Justice of the United States to get a Judge unhappy about hearing
the case to spend months away from his home "in the interests of
Justice".
Didn't a judge in Utah just recuse himselve from hearing the SCO/Novell case in
his own backyard, without disclosing the reason for his recusal? Didn't Judge
Kimball recuse himself for the simple reason he had been overruled?
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 15 2011 @ 01:18 AM EST |
It sounds like this should have been in Australia, the land of Kangaroos.
Tufty
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, December 15 2011 @ 05:42 AM EST |
I can't believe that he prevented the jury seeing Frankenberg's furious letter
to Bill Gates saying “Microsoft has leveraged its dominant OS position in the
applications market. It is our view that Microsoft’s OS’s contain undocumented
calls, features, and other interfaces that are made available to its own
applications developers to give competitive advantages to its applications
products.”
And bilg's email saying 'Ship extensible shell in Office!!!" -- "Billg
sez do it!'
And the slide from the retreat saying Microsoft would offer an excuse to ISVs as
to why the Chicago shell would be non-extensible, and that the excuse would be
that Microsoft "couldn't get it done in time."
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: maco on Thursday, December 15 2011 @ 09:14 PM EST |
for withholding evidence and not allowing them to do their
job?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, December 16 2011 @ 05:50 AM EST |
...pose the right questions. Two of the questions asked of the jury
were,
Whether Novell proved that Microsoft's withdrawal of support
for the name space extensions "caused harm" to competition in the market for PC
operating systems and "contributed significantly" to Microsoft's monopoly in
that market.
Whether Novell proved that Microsoft's withdrawal of
support for the name space extensions was "reasonably capable of contributing
significantly" to Microsoft's monopoly in PC operating systems
market.
However, in the obese child reply there is tons of stuff
from the original US v. Microsoft antitrust trial that could have been used to
make the questions much more pertinent. Why weren't the jurors taken through
those legal issues?
Oh, yes, because the judge considered that
Microsoft would be prejudiced by it. The problem is that the consideration of
middleware like Word Perfect is explicitly covered under the Sherman Act, but
questions about the middleware issues do not seem to be asked of the
jury.
I would have thought that the judge would have leapt on the
following excuse to dismiss the case.
If this justification stands
unrebutted by the plaintiff, the monopolist may escape
liability
How could he have passed up this opportunity? Well, you
will have to look at the fat kiddy.---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 16 2011 @ 08:09 AM EST |
Am I missing something here? Admittedly most of my knowledge on the US legal
system comes from TV (as most of my knowledge of Roman history comes from
Asterix and Obelix) but isn't a jury meant to consist of twelve people?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 16 2011 @ 02:11 PM EST |
It continually amazes me that anybody could still think that we have any justice
in American courts.
It would only be slightly more obvious if the judges just had a sign around
their neck stating: "Justice for sale to the highest bidder." [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
