decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
To be decided by judge after jury decides | 342 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Ah, but Oracle demanded a jury trial
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 04:45 PM EDT
so they get it and can showboat when it doesn't mean a thing.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

To be decided by judge after jury decides
Authored by: bugstomper on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 06:03 PM EDT
My IANAL understanding is that it is something like this: The jury has to decide
whether we are dealing with fact pattern A or fact pattern B. Then the judge has
to decide what the law is for whichever fact pattern has been decided by the
jury. He is not going to go through the process of deciding new case law for
both A and B in advance of knowing which it is. He does know that in either case
there is a decision to be made that he has not yet made.

This is in contrast to a more clear cut case in which the judge could say
"Given undisputed facts X, Y and Z, The law says that if A is true the
plaintiff wins and if the contrary B is true then the defendant wins. A or B is
a matter of fact which has to be decided by the jury".

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )