|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 17 2012 @ 11:07 AM EDT |
Keep in mind that there always (virtually always?) will be some evidence that
supports the jury's conclusion. There had to be a reason that the jury decided
what it decided. IIRC, in the example of the eight files, the evidence was that
files were just a few test files; Java and Android contained many more files;
the files weren't shipped with any phones. That was enough evidence for the
jury. The judge decided that all of that evidence was irrelevant, so he
disregarded it.
I wouldn't be too quick to assume that Judge Motz isn't doing the same sort of
thing. Many people here seem to be seeing that there is a lot of evidence that
Microsoft sabotaged WordPerfect so that WordPerfect couldn't compete against
Microsoft. Yes, that evidence exists, but the part of Novell's case that was
specifically about that (four of Novell's six claims) was thrown out early on.
(That was upheld on appeal.) The question isn't simply: Did Microsoft break
antitrust law? (The evidence makes it obvious that Microsoft did, but that's not
particularly relevant.) Judge Motz has to decide based on what's left of
Novell's case after it was gutted by having Novell's four best claims thrown
out. That's much trickier.
Novell will now argue that Motz is wrong. The logic behind Novell's remaining
claims (what Motz just ruled against)is so complex, I'll defer to the judgement
of the appeals court.
You might have been confused by what PJ wrote in the update to the article. She
seems to have misread what Judge Motz wrote and accused him of deciding
something that was for the jury to decide. It's clear that he didn't in that
case. (Read what he said at the top of page 17.) He decided that point in
Novell's favor, for what that's worth.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- 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
|
|
|
|
