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
Motive and intent. | 111 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Motz is (again) getting the basic allegation wrong
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 | # ]

Motive and intent.
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 | # ]

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 )