|
|
|
| Authored by: Chromatix on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 05:47 AM EDT |
| The judge only had to show here that *a* reasonable answer to each of the
questions posed to the jury *could* be "no". He did that very
thoroughly.
Equivalently, a JMOL motion of this type brought by Google would
have to
demonstrate that no reasonable jury could *possibly* have answered
"yes". I
think there's such a high standard of proof required for this, that
knowing that
one of the jurors held out against it for so long would probably
weaken such a
motion. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 09:29 AM EDT |
Because either answer could be correct, *depending*
on how they got to their answer after hearing all
the evidence.
If there was evidence that X is true, and no
countervailing evidence it isn't, the X is so
in the law. That's why the judge overruled,
incorrectly in my view, the jury on the test files,
because Mitchell said X and there was no evidence
introduced that it was not X. The flaw, in my
eyes, was that I think it was quite logical for
the jury not to believe a word Mitchell said.
But keep in mind that Google went into this trial
admitting that there was a mistake regarding the
test files, made by a contractor against the
instructions given by Google. So, probably this
very pragmatic judge realized that Oracle would
appeal this issue. So he maimed that course by
reversing the jury, giving the appeals court a
way to undo it if they wished without having to
have another trial.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
