|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 16 2012 @ 08:56 PM EDT |
OK - Maybe I am totally off base.
Unless this judge is totally incompetent or maybe he wants to force this to the
supreme court for a decision that may stop the flood of patent lawsuits.
PJ's comments " First, the judge didn't believe Bill Gates' testimony
either, that stability was the reason for undocumenting the APIs. The judge
agrees that this was pretextual. Second, the problem with the decision, from my
perspective, is that on a JMOL motion, the judge is not supposed to weigh the
testimony of witnesses, a role that is given to juries, unless there is *no* way
any reasonable jury could find for a party. Yet, here, that is precisely what
the judge does. And finally, the judge quotes not 10 Circuit cases to justify
his course, but cases from other circuits. That's mighty strange. "
It is almost as if the judge is setting this up for an appeal that will be
grnated in Novell's favour.
To m ethe ruling is way past being logical and I have a problem understandin how
a judge can ignore what has been presented to him and seems to be deviating from
the estaboshed rules of the court.
CC :>)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 16 2012 @ 09:31 PM EDT |
There is no jury verdict to reinstate. Jury was hung 11-1.
We'll see if the appeals court uses the same standard of law (remanding for a
jury trial) when the summary judgment goes against Novell (Microsoft) as when
the summary judgment favors Novell (SCO).
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 16 2012 @ 09:38 PM EDT |
Parent:I suspect this judge is one of those
who doesn't believe in
anti-trust law. Another anonymous (not me) wrote this as a comment in an
earlier article:
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?
htt
p://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.fi
ndlaw.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://ww
w.groklaw.net/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... Note: You didn't accuse Motz of being a Microsoft toady, so
that part doesn't fit, but you did say that he doesn't believe in anti-trust
law, even though this shows that he certainly aggressively applied it against
Microsoft.
There are others are making the "Microsoft toady" claim, and
the entire comment applies to them.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|