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: PJ on Tuesday, July 17 2012 @ 12:59 PM EDT
We have a custom at Groklaw. If you have a connection
to any of the parties involved in an article, you
have to say so, even if you are "anonymous".

So, do you?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Of course not, but irrelevant
Authored by: cjk fossman on Tuesday, July 17 2012 @ 01:17 PM EDT

Stand up, dude(tte, if applicable), support your own claims. A few links from YOUR Google search would be very helpful and perhaps even convincing.

As to your second point, here's a quote from PJ right at the start of this very thread (emphasis mine):

on a JMOL motion, the judge is not supposed to weigh the testimony of witnesses, a role that is given to juries, unless there is 1*no* way any reasonable jury could find for a party. Yet, here, that is precisely what the judge does

If you disagree, a few credible references would be a lot more convincing than clever assertions.

Finally, if you were not calling Groklavians' respective reactions to judges Alsup and Motz hypocritical, what were you doing?

[ 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 )