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
Out of context? | 111 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Out of context?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2012 @ 04:15 PM EDT
The way I read those quotes is that Judge Motz established the context that took competition in the applications market out of the discussion. I read "Microsoft's conduct was not anticompetitive within the meaning of the Sherman Act" as meaning "anticompetitive in the operating systems market within the meaning of the Sherman Act". As I mentioned, he also said,
Although Novell presented evidence from which a jury could have found that Microsoft engaged in aggressive conduct, perhaps to monopolize or attempt to monopolize the applications market, it did not present evidence sufficient for a jury to find that Microsoft committed any acts that violated 2 in maintaining its monopoly in the operating systems market.
That indicates to me that he was much more receptive to the idea that there was illegally anticompetitive behavior with respect to that market. Earlier he said,
...Fourth Circuit affirmed a ruling I made that Novell's monopolization and attempted monopolization claims in the applications market are barred by limitations. Thus, the only remaining claim is the second: that Microsoft violated 2 of the Sherman Act and caused antitrust injury to Novell by maintaining its monopoly in the operating systems market.
I think that sets the context for everything after that point.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Out of context? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 04:25 PM EDT
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 )