|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 13 2012 @ 04:44 PM EDT |
I wrote the parent. I forgot I was doing that as HTML in the middle of it. My
part was supposed to be divided into paragraphs, thusly:
Yes, it
seems strange. Just trying to think of what excuses there might be...
He
is on the road, operating out of a temporary office. Some people don't do that
well. He seemed very confused about what resources he had available to him.
That's not much of an excuse since it was his decision to do that.
He
didn't seem to realize that he was misremembering things and didn't know what it
was that he didn't know. The previous week he seemed to be insisting that he
understood Novell's theory. What he thought he didn't understand then is how
Novell was going to offer any evidence to support it (the wrong theory). Going
back to read what he wrote earlier might not have occurred to him, because he
originally decided that the suit wasn't timely and Novell lacked standing to
sue. That didn't bear on what he thought the problem was this
time.
What's really worrying is how he didn't seem to give Novell's
lawyers time to walk him through things. It seems like he should have run long
or stopped testimony 1/2 hour early if necessary to allow for that. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 13 2012 @ 05:02 PM EDT |
I wrote the parent.
One of the things I've been wondering is if there is
some friction between Novell's attorneys and the judge because the Judge Motz
doesn't think they have been showing him enough respect. This, in particular,
jumps out at me:
MR. JOHNSON: Your Honor, if I could since we do
have five minutes, and we will address in a fuller fashion to Your
Honor.
But two short points. First with your -- with respect to your
first comment about duty of a monopolist to help a competitor, and you asked
if there was a case. And there is a case. It's called Novell vs. Microsoft.
And you addressed this point in summary judgment. In fact -- I
could see how the part I underlined might come across as being very smart-alecy.
I probably wouldn't handle the situation very well myself, but I'm not an
attorney who earns the kind of money they do, either. Wouldn't it have been
better to have said something like, "Well, actually, you did a very good job of
summarizing our argument, with citations, when you wrote the earlier summary
judgement. I believe it's covered in there?" [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
