|
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 | # ]
|
- There is evidence - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 17 2012 @ 11:07 AM EDT
- Sadly - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 17 2012 @ 02:59 PM EDT
- There is evidence - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, July 17 2012 @ 07:26 PM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|