|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|