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
Of course not, but irrelevant | 185 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Of course not, but irrelevant
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 16 2012 @ 10:29 PM EDT
"Judge Alsup's logic does not apply to this case."

Well, of course it doesn't apply to this case! This is an antitrust case, not a
copyright case. How could it apply?

The point was that Judge Motz isn't the only judge who said that no reasonable
jury could do something that a jury just did, even when it was done unanimously.
There can be good reasons to do it. It happens on a fairly regular basis. There
is no reason to be outraged just because Judge Motz, or any other judge, did it.
Judges are trained to think in legal terms so they occasionally do a better job
than a jury (or the spectators) do.

It's obviously hypocritical to accept a judge doing it when things work out they
way you prefer, yet act outraged just because a judge did it in a way you don't
like. It seemed to me that there was some of that going on here. (That's not
directed at the author of the parent post; it's a more general observation.)

[ 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 ) 		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
Powered By GeekLog
Created this page in 0.03 seconds