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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
No. You wrote an article about it. You must have forgotten it. | 111 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
No. You wrote an article about it. You must have forgotten it.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 05 2012 @ 09:26 PM EDT
That wasn't it. All 12 jurors agreed that Microsoft was guilty of antitrust violations. Here is your article about that: Holdout Juror Was Convinced Microsoft Was Guilty of Anticompetitive Behavior ~pj - Updated: MS Motion to Dismiss

If you stop and think about it, it's so obvious that Microsoft broke antitrust law that almost no one could honestly disagree. Therefore, the trial didn't hinge on that. Novell's problem is that it has to prove a number of other things that aren't nearly as obvious. One of them is why the holdout juror held out.

I don't doubt that, given the chance, the holdout juror would have sided with the other jurors on the four claims that were thrown out simply because Novell filed too late. At least some of those claims would have been slam dunks for Novell. But they were thrown out, so the jurors weren't allowed to render a verdict on them.

IMO, it's a bit misleading to think of the remaining claim in the trail as being about Microsoft's behavior. What Microsoft did isn't really in question. (Yes, Microsoft still hasn't conceded that, but it's obvious.) The difficulty is with what Novell did and with what Novell would have done (and the effects that would have had) if Microsoft hadn't done what it did. That's where the judge said no reasonable jury could conclude what Novell needed them to conclude.

[ 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 )