decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
I think you're confused... | 185 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
I think you're confused...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 18 2012 @ 12:46 AM EDT
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 | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )