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
What are the odds? | 185 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
What are the odds?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 16 2012 @ 08:56 PM EDT
OK - Maybe I am totally off base.

Unless this judge is totally incompetent or maybe he wants to force this to the
supreme court for a decision that may stop the flood of patent lawsuits.

PJ's comments " First, the judge didn't believe Bill Gates' testimony
either, that stability was the reason for undocumenting the APIs. The judge
agrees that this was pretextual. Second, the problem with the decision, from my
perspective, is that 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 *no* way
any reasonable jury could find for a party. Yet, here, that is precisely what
the judge does. And finally, the judge quotes not 10 Circuit cases to justify
his course, but cases from other circuits. That's mighty strange. "

It is almost as if the judge is setting this up for an appeal that will be
grnated in Novell's favour.

To m ethe ruling is way past being logical and I have a problem understandin how
a judge can ignore what has been presented to him and seems to be deviating from
the estaboshed rules of the court.

CC :>)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Jury verdict reinstated? There wasn't one
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 16 2012 @ 09:31 PM EDT
There is no jury verdict to reinstate. Jury was hung 11-1.

We'll see if the appeals court uses the same standard of law (remanding for a
jury trial) when the summary judgment goes against Novell (Microsoft) as when
the summary judgment favors Novell (SCO).

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

He certainly seemed to believe in antitrust law
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 16 2012 @ 09:38 PM EDT
Parent:
I suspect this judge is one of those who doesn't believe in anti-trust law.

Another anonymous (not me) wrote this as a comment in an earlier article:
Just to be clear, this is the same Judge Motz who was referred to as "a clearly biased judge" against Microsoft when he ruled in the in the Sun injunction case?
htt p://www.capitalismcenter.org/Philosophy/Commentary/02/12-27-02.htm

The same judge who, in open court, described Microsoft as the equivalent of Tonya Harding knee-capping Nancy Kerrigan?
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Government-IT/No-Motz-vs-Motz-in-Microsoft- Appeal/

The same judge who quashed a settlement worth $1 billion, because it wasn't hard enough on Microsoft?
http://www.tortreform.com/node/43
The same judge who was soundly reversed by the the 4th Circuit for going way overboard in his collateral estoppel ruling against Microsoft (and, notably, he held onto that case even though his ruling against Microsoft had been overturned, just as happened here).
http://caselaw.fi ndlaw.com/us-4th- circuit/1422936.html

The same Judge Motz that this website showed no concern about when he ruled against Microsoft on an earlier Novell motion to dismiss?
http://ww w.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php%3fstory=20050722065825697

I have no idea if Judge Motz is inclined toward Microsoft in this case. I have no idea if he has some kind of anti-Novell bias. But, before condemning him as some kind of Microsoft toady, it seems kinda relevant to note that he has been presiding over Microsoft antitrust cases for well over a decade, and the accusations hurled at him (when accusations have been hurled) are that he is unfairly anti-Microsoft. Actually kinda funny that a judge who spent years being accused of getting the law wrong in his quest to find Microsoft guilty has one case where he seems inclined to rule in Microsoft's favor and finds himself immediately branded as a bought-off sell-out who will do anything to help Gates et al...
Note: You didn't accuse Motz of being a Microsoft toady, so that part doesn't fit, but you did say that he doesn't believe in anti-trust law, even though this shows that he certainly aggressively applied it against Microsoft.

There are others are making the "Microsoft toady" claim, and the entire comment applies to them.

[ 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 )