|
|
|
| Authored by: rocky on Monday, July 16 2012 @ 06:39 PM EDT |
I know you wouldn't say something as specific or accusatory as a fix. But
usually you wouldn't even imply that a judge is ruling purely from bias, which
does seem to come through in this article.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Kevin on Monday, July 16 2012 @ 07:20 PM EDT |
Indeed, you wouldn't stoop so low as to say that the fix is in.
Which doesn't alter the situation.
Judge Motz is sending a clear message to the circuit court that whenever this
case appears in his courtroom, the outcome will be the same.
Microsoft is betting that among three random judges from the circuit court,
there will be two that see it Microsoft's way. It's a reasonable bet that
Microsoft is right. In which case, Novell loses, fair and square.
Or could it be that the fix is indeed in?
I wouldn't lay long odds that the result of Novell's appeal will be anything
other than, "per curiam, affirmed."
---
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin (P.S. My surname is not McBride!)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 17 2012 @ 06:26 AM EDT |
I actually really expected to read the following (expectation added in
brackets):
It was foreshadowed in the hearing on June 7, which the
judge [conveniently] forgot to post on PACER so that the public couldn't
attend.
and was impressed by the restraint it must have cost not
adding this word.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
