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: Chromatix on Tuesday, July 17 2012 @ 05:28 AM EDT
No, I think it's a valid point. The facts and subject matter are different, but the principle is about whether the evidence could be weighed one way or the other.

Alsup ruled that because no evidence had been entered on one side, but had been on the other, on a very specific question, the jury was wrong to find for the side that had entered no evidence - on *that* specific question. It turned out to be moot because no damages were awarded for it.

But even a very small amount of evidence is enough to avoid that particular line of reasoning to overturning a jury verdict (or, in this case, near-verdict). And as the plaintiffs, Novell have lined up every bit of evidence they can scrape together, from 18-inch battleship guns right down to bows and arrows, on every question they think matters and which the judge permitted to be argued. So the bar for deciding the jury was unreasonable is very high indeed.

Or at least that's how I understand it.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Of course not, but irrelevant
Authored by: cjk fossman on Tuesday, July 17 2012 @ 10:06 AM EDT
It [judge overturning a jury] happens on a fairly regular basis.

Where is the data to support this statement?

Judges are trained to think in legal terms so they occasionally do a better job than a jury (or the spectators) do.

Not relevant. It is the job of the jury to make findings of fact.

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.

Um, Judge Alsup ruled against Google.

[ 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 )