|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 09 2012 @ 11:23 PM EDT |
Just to be clear, this is the same Judge Motz who was referred to as "a
clearly
biased judge" against Microsoft when he ruled in the in the Sun injunction
case?
http://www.capitalismcenter.org/Philosophy/Commentary/02/12-27-02.htm
The same judge who, in open court, described Microsoft as the equivalent of
Tonya Harding knee-capping Nancy Kerrigan?
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Government-IT/No-Motz-vs-Motz-in-Microsoft-
Appeal/
The same judge who quashed a settlement worth $1 billion, because it wasn't
hard enough on Microsoft? http://www.tortreform.com/node/43
The same judge who was soundly reversed by the the 4th Circuit for going way
overboard in his collateral estoppel ruling against Microsoft (and, notably, he
held onto that case even though his ruling against Microsoft had been
overturned, just as happened here). http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-
circuit/1422936.html
The same Judge Motz that this website showed no concern about when he ruled
against Microsoft on an earlier Novell motion to dismiss?
http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/articlebasic.php%3fstory=20050722065825697
I have no idea if Judge Motz is inclined toward Microsoft in this case. I have
no
idea if he has some kind of anti-Novell bias. But, before condemning him as
some kind of Microsoft toady, it seems kinda relevant to note that he has been
presiding over Microsoft antitrust cases for well over a decade, and the
accusations hurled at him (when accusations have been hurled) are that he is
unfairly anti-Microsoft. Actually kinda funny that a judge who spent years
being accused of getting the law wrong in his quest to find Microsoft guilty has
one case where he seems inclined to rule in Microsoft's favor and finds himself
immediately branded as a bought-off sell-out who will do anything to help
Gates et al...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
