|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 17 2012 @ 04:49 PM EDT |
Well, to this outsider on the other side of the pond, his actions seem to have
guaranteed a pro-Novell appeal judgement. That would be the likely outcome here.
For one thing, how can any trial be just if key evidence is denied an airing by
the judge?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 17 2012 @ 07:44 PM EDT |
all 12 jurors from the first trial admitted Microsoft's
conduct
towards Novell was anticompetitive, but one of them refused to punish MS
for it,
and I am unwilling to believe that Microsoft did nothing to influence
that juror
and that outcome
You might want to click on the link PJ
put at the top of her article about the 11 to 1 vote. The holdout juror
did agree that Microsoft's conduct was anticompetitive, but that doesn't
mean that Novell could win. Novell's case was gutted early on because they filed
too late to say that Microsoft was being anticompetitive against WordPerfect.
(Microsoft obviously was being anticompetive against WordPerfect.) As a
result, Novell is stuck trying to argue that Microsoft harmed WordPerfect in
order to be anticompetitive in a market that Novell didn't even compete
in.
Novell's argument is complex and the one juror didn't buy all of it.
I don't think it's necessary to assume that the juror was corrupt. (Obviously,
Microsoft influenced the juror just by arguing the case, but I don't think
that's what you meant.)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
