|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 17 2012 @ 09:04 PM EDT |
I didn't misread anything. What the judge
has done is weigh which
witnesses he believes
more than the other side's, and that is
wrong. Everything else you said in that comment may be true, but I
am certain the quoted part is not. Motz is merely saying that there is some
evidence (Gates's email) that could allow a reasonable jury to find that
the official reasons were pretextual (not legitimate reasons).
Look at it
from the other point of view. Microsoft was arguing that there is no way
that any reasonable jury could find that Microsoft's stated reasons weren't
legitimate. Clearly, Motz could have (theoretically) agreed with Microsoft on
that point, but only if there was no way a reasonable jury could decide
differently. What if that's not the case? He has to point to a piece of evidence
that could allow a jury to decide differently (just to explain things)
and he has to side with Novell. That's what he did.
I think you
understand that this come up under Microsofts's
JMOL motion, Part II (A Reasonable Jury Would Not Have a Legally Sufficient
Evidentiary Basis to Find
that Microsoft Engaged in Anticompetitive Conduct),
Subpart C. (Microsoft's Decision to Withdraw Support for the Namespace
Extension
APIs Was Based on Legitimate Business Justifications.) There has to be
no way a reasonable jury could conclude that those "Business
Justifications" were not legitimate (i.e. were pretextual). If a jury
could find that they were pretextual (not legitimate), then Novell
wins.
I think I remember the same sort of thing coming up in other cases
where you didn't have a problem with it. I'm sure it came up in the Oracle
Google case just recently. As I remember it, Judge Alsup said that a reasonable
jury could find that everything Oracle's expert witness said was
untrustworthy.
If you don't believe me on this, can you check with
someone?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
