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
Planning to pin a potential loss on BSF? | 111 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Planning to pin a potential loss on BSF?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 05 2012 @ 10:31 PM EDT
...there is no doubt in my mind, after transcribing all the Comes v. Microsoft exhibits, that Microsoft messed with them.
Of course they did. Novell's sole remaining claim doesn't hinge on that, though. To win, Novell must prove other things that are far more difficult.

Notice how there was no resistance from Motz to the idea that Microsoft illegally monopolized the applications market:
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...
The problem is that Novell's remaining claim isn't about that.
...so where do you get off with the idea that Novell was a loser here? Really am curious.
Novell's case against Microsoft was gutted because they filed too late to pursue those claims where they could win by proving little more than the fact that Microsoft "messed with them," as you put it. Had they filed on time, they obviously deserved to win. (To me, what is unfair is that, because Novell didn't almost suicidally fight back against Microsoft in the courts quickly enough, Microsoft may be able to get away with what they did to Novell.) As it is, Motz did dismiss what's left of Novell's case, so, pending appeal, Novell lost. If you meant anything beyond what I just explained, I don't understand what you are asking.
But if, by any chance, you are connected in any way to either of the parties, you have to tell openly to comment. This is Groklaw, where we don't pretend.
I am not and never have been.

[ 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 )