It was Microsoft's JMOL, so the judge was required to draw all inferences
about
evidence, disputed facts, etc. in the way most favorable to the non-
moving
party, Novell. He was not supposed to weigh anything--unless
there was no
possible way a reasonable jury might find for Novell,
he was supposed to
deny the motion and let Novell have their chance to
convince the jury.
The
judge seems to have made a bad call here, one which violates the
rules and
gives Novell obvious grounds to appeal.
The interesting question is:
Why did he rule that way? Is he
biased against Novell? He has been
hard on Microsoft in previous
antitrust cases, but in this one he's been happy
to buy whatever
arguments Microsoft was selling. What changed?
Does he
feel that Microsoft has been picked on enough for those antitrust
acts already?
Was he compromised somehow
by someone associated with MS
(blackmail/extortion/bribery/whatever?)
Was he getting a little old and
forgetful, or was he deliberately looking for
a way to rule against Novell (and
if so, why?) [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|