|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 17 2012 @ 12:12 PM EDT |
You provided a point where you stated Judge Motz agreed in favor of
Novel, the point on the pretextual decision by Gates:
He
decided that point in Novell's favor.
Yes, PJ
realized that, too. The point I was making was in the next sentence: "He even
went about it the correct way, as far as I could tell. " PJ said he didn't.
But.... that's what P.J. said too:
The judge
agrees that this was pretextual No, I quoted the judge
as saying that the jury could find that it was pretextual. That's
different that saying that he agreed that it was
pretextual.
Perhaps I misunderstood your point and you don't view
the measuring of Gates testimony as weighing said testimony?
He
only weighed what Gates said to the extent that he determined that it was
possible for a (reasonable) jury to not believe it. (You said that it was
testimony. I think it probably was, but didn't double-check.)
Keep in
mind that this is a JMOL motion. Everything has to be interpreted in the light
most favorable to Novell. To win on its points, Microsoft must show that it's
not possible for a reasonable jury to decide in favor of Novell. If a reasonable
jury could -- not would -- decide something in favor of Novell, Novell
wins on that point. That's what Judge Motz was looking at. I think he did that
correctly (for that point, at least).
I agree that it would have been
wrong for Judge Motz to say "It was pretextual" or "the jury would find" or "the
jury must find," but I can't find anything like that. I think PJ must have
misread something.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Clarification - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 17 2012 @ 01:26 PM EDT
|
|
|
|