|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 10 2012 @ 02:20 PM EDT |
I agree. It may be that he doesn't like the way Novell did things. They bought
WordPerfect and Quattro Pro cheaply when they were already loosing ground
against Microsoft Office, then quickly sold them when things didn't work out.
Another thing is that the US DoJ didn't pursue Microsoft for creating the
Microsoft Office monopoly. Did Motz take this as an indication that there wasn't
anything there? Then Novell didn't try to sue Microsoft for antitrust violations
related to the Office monopoly in time and is trying to get in through the
backdoor by tying that monopoly to the OS monopoly. (If Judge Motz took the DoJ
not going after the Office monopoly as an indication that there wasn't an
antitrust violation involved, he would never buy Novell's argument in this
case.) I think Novell has a valid case, but I can also see why someone might be
suspicious it.
For all I know, it could also be that Judge Motz just isn't a very good judge,
but the findings of fact made things so blatantly obvious in the other cases
that he couldn't hardly make an mistake in Microsoft's favor, so he only make
mistakes that worked against Microsoft. Now that things aren't so clear, he can
finally make mistakes in Microsoft's favor, so now he is doing that. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
