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
my theory | 185 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
my theory
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 17 2012 @ 02:03 PM EDT
I don't think Judge Motz is actually corrupt or getting alzheimers or any of the
other unflattering things that have been suggested.

I think he just knows Microsoft well enough to *know* that Novell can't win this
case--that Microsoft will somehow contrive a hung jury (not to put too fine a
point on it... all 12 jurors from the first trial admitted Microsoft's conduct
towards Novell was anticompetitive, but one of them refused to punish MS for it,
and I am unwilling to believe that Microsoft did nothing to influence that juror
and that outcome).

My theory is that Judge Motz has some sort of resentment towards Novell because
they won't drop this unwinnable case, and that he is actually trying to avoid
the waste of judicial resources that a second unwinnable trial would represent.
I think he granted this JMOL in the hope that the appeals court will just leave
it alone and the 2nd trial will never happen.

Of course, there was no way for him to do that without leaving Novell with some
legitimate grounds to appeal on, so it remains to be seen if Novell will appeal
(but they probably will) and then, whether the appeals court will go along with
Judge Motz and sweep the whole thing under the rug.

If they reverse him again and give Novell their 2nd shot, then I'm super curious
what Judge Motz will do: will he recuse himself and let someone else deal with
the mess? Or will he insist on keeping the case and continue with his clear
anti-Novell stance? Or will he flip back towards being more anti-Microsoft than
anti-Novell?

The whole macabre business is fascinating (in the same way that its hard not to
gawk at a car accident). We'll just have to watch and see what happens.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Strange that PJ omits to mention
Authored by: belboz on Wednesday, July 18 2012 @ 08:33 AM EDT
Novell filed this suit in 2004. They they had a dead product
(that they bought, Dead on Delivery, from Corel). This suit
was just a money grab.

I agree that MS should be *fined* for anti-competitive
behavior (if the 'crime' is not to old) - but not a cant
should be sent to Oracle.

I have no respect for the new US company strategy: make
money through lawsuit, not through selling products. Only
the lawyers will win. Customers will pay more for products
to cover risks of suits.

[ 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 )