|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 23 2012 @ 08:31 PM EDT |
> suing an already convicted car thief for smashing your
> fruit stand during the police chase. You don't need to
> prove that he had a good reason to smash it, only that he
> unlawfully smashed it as part of his crime.
Good luck with that. The jury aren't allowed to be told there
was a police chase, and the judge is saying the conviction was
in another state, that law doesn't apply here, and anyhow
that judge got it wrong.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, July 24 2012 @ 04:59 AM EDT |
From NY et al v. Microsoft, Memorandum Opinion:
The appellate court
stressed that, although evidence of intent is
relevant “to understand the likely
effect of the monopolist’s conduct,” when assessing the
balance between the
anticompetitive harm and the procompetitive effect, the trial court should
focus
on the “effect of [the exclusionary] conduct, not the intent behind
it.”
So, Bill Gate's intentions, obviously malicious as they were
from his emails, are not the primary consideration of the court.
Also:
Eventually, reasoned Plaintiffs, if applications were written
to rely on the middleware API
set, rather than the Windows API set, the
applications could be made to run on alternative
operating systems simply by
porting the middleware. Ultimately, by writing to the middleware
API set,
applications developers could write applications which would run on any
operating
system on which the middleware was preset. Plaintiffs focused their
attention primarily upon
two such middleware threats to Microsoft’s operating
system dominance–Netscape Navigator and the Java technologies. See Microsoft,
253 F.3d at 53. The district and appellate courts
accepted Plaintiffs’ theory of
competition despite the fact that “neither Navigator, Java, nor any
other
middleware product could [at that time], or would soon, expose enough APIs to
serve as a
platform for popular applications.” Id.; Findings of Fact ¶¶
28-29.
The claim of damage to WP had already been rejected by the
appeal court. It was the two claims about middleware that were remanded to Motz
and the jury. Motz erred by declaring that WP had to be a complete middleware
set of APIs with an existing market for the claims to be upheld. This was
rejected in the Findings of Fact and the NY v. Microsoft Memorandum
Opinion.
--- Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|