|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 09:44 PM EDT |
If Apple are shown up as sneaky
conniving [redacted] in one case,
surely it's okay for her to assume they will
behave the same way in
another? I'd say that Judge Prost might say that it's no longer
necessary to assume. :D But yes, one of the advantages of having Judge Kimball
handling the IBM and Novell cases was that he wouldn't have to learn about SCO
twice.
On one hand, I think dio gratia's point works as you interpreted
it. The appeal was of Judge Koh's ruling in this case, which was written at the
end of June. Judge Koh's outburst (other case) was in mid August. She might have
come to realize some things about Apple between those dates. On the other hand,
dio gratia's comment might still work if you limit it to the other case. I don't
know if PJ interpreted it that way or not. Maybe PJ was just concerned that
people might be confused, so she clarified something that you and I already
knew, but other people might not have known.
TL/DNR: I don't know what
PJ's intention was.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|