|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 12 2012 @ 04:52 PM EDT |
Microsoft was not allowed to say that Novell delayed filing, but did it
anyway. Judge Motz harshly criticized Microsoft for doing it. Microsoft
appologized. Judge Motz
then told the jury that Novell had the right to delay filing and had reasons to
do it, so they should just ignore the fact that it happened:THE
COURT: In terms of the opening statements, there was one statement made by
Microsoft's counsel about this case not having been filed for a certain number
of years, nine or ten years after the event, to reflect or put the suggestion
that, look, if this was a problem why didn't you file suit earlier. It is fair
game to say why didn't you comment earlier, why didn't you criticize it earlier,
and that is a matter of evidence for you all to decide.
Don't worry
about when the suit was filed. They acted within their rights. It is a long
time, but there are reasons and limitations were tolled and they acted within
their rights in not filing a suit for whenever they filed the suit. Just
disregard that part of the opening statement. If that's not good
enough for Novell, of course they could appeal. Keep in mind, though, that if
Judge Motz had made a really big deal about what Microsoft had said, it might
have been more satisfying for us, but the jury would be sure to remember and
think about it then. It's probably better for the judge to be low key about
things like that.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
