|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 03:39 PM EDT |
| Thanks, PJ for bringing the balancing perspective here! :-) [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: IANALitj on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 05:30 PM EDT |
If a judge thinks that he knows which party is going to lose, he may want to
make decisions before or during the trial in such a way as to deprive that party
of arguments to use on the appeal.
It is my recollection that in the SCO trial, there were a lot of decisions
before and during the trial in SCO's favor. I further recall that there were a
lot of intemperate comments in Groklaw saying terrible things about the judge in
the SCO trial. Similarly, there were intemperate comments about Judge Kimball
and about the magistrate judge earlier in the SCO case. All three gave SCO a
great deal of the leeway it asked for.
Looking at this decision in that light, it appears that Judge Alsup may be
giving Oracle what Oracle asks for so that Oracle will have less to complain
about on appeal. (Of course, if Google were to lose, it would have more
ammunition for its appeal.)
The judge's feeling as to which party is going to win need not -- in this case
-- be a matter solely of what the jury decides. Better than any of us, Judge
Alsup knows how he is going to rule on matters of law that are in his hands. If
you consider the outcome of the copyright portion of the case -- not just the
jury's verdict -- as though it were a betting matter like a race, I think you
would have to say that it's rigged. The judge may already know the outcome, at
least of the copyright aspect, as it will be decided in his court. He may not
be guessing who is going to win. He may _know_.
On this basis, the more minor rulings he makes in Oracle's favor, the better.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
