|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 01:25 PM EDT |
Perhaps you can recall another case we watched, where what a certain CEO said
"at the time", quite publicly, was contrasted against what he had to
say on the stand?
Perhaps you recall which statements were found to be admissable evidence?
(In case I'm being too cryptic - Judge Stewart had no problems with allowing Mr.
McBride's "we didn't need the copyrights to run the business"
statement from the stand to go to the jury. He also made specific note of it in
his ruling. If your "black letter law" was, in fact, real - I don't
think BSF would have hesitated even a second to object to that testimony, or to
use that for the basis of an appeal.)
In Google's case, they wanted to use an affirmative defense of "We didn't
need a license." Well, "We didn't think we needed a license." OK,
who was thinking that? Did Sun's CEO mutter in a crowd once, "Nah, they
don't need a license." That needed to be brought up to another level.
In this case, Novell v. Microsoft, on this particular subject - a similar
exposure is neither needed nor warranted. Does a monopolist have a right to
require that all *potential* competitors communicate, CEO to CEO, all their
potentially competitive strategies and plans, along with all weaknesses in those
plans, both those forseen and those not yet imagined?
As I said, you would make anti-competitive harm a logical impossibility.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
