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
So my crystal ball says... | 354 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
s/enough/any/
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Sunday, November 25 2012 @ 12:58 PM EST
I believe that is the reality and all of the
sabre-rattling was just some FUD stirred
up by some moles.

Google has been waiting and willing to take
this attack on, but I doubt it will occur.


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

FTC unsure if it has enough evidence against Google in antitrust case
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 25 2012 @ 01:31 PM EST
I was going to thank you for the Emphasis Added on the first quote,
but I see it there on The Inq's page :)

IMO if the case were to proceed it would prove that
The Internet Makes You Stupid.
If people can't learn how to frame search terms,
they deserve the results they are given.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Sherman tanks
Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, November 26 2012 @ 04:54 AM EST
From NY et al v. Microsoft (without citations):
In order to review the district court’s findings on this point, the appellate court outlined a four-part test for determining whether particular conduct can be said to violate antitrust law.
“First, to be condemned as exclusionary, a monopolist’s act must have an ‘anticompetitive effect.’ That is, it must harm the competitive process and thereby harm consumers.”

Second, the plaintiff must “demonstrate that the monopolist’s conduct harmed competition, not just a competitor.”

Third, “the monopolist may proffer a ‘procompetitive justification’ for its conduct.” If this justification stands unrebutted by the plaintiff, the monopolist may escape liability.

Therefore, the fourth prong of the inquiry requires that the plaintiff “demonstrate that the anticompetitive harm of the conduct outweighs the procompetitive benefit.”
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.”

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

So my crystal ball says...
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 27 2012 @ 04:17 PM EST
Expect more silly lawsuits.

This is because the wording strongly suggests word games. Its not about whether
there is a case or not, its about "insufficient evidence". Therefore,
expect M$ and cronies to file even more specious lawsuits that make ever more
far-reaching claims, that they can then turn around and point to as
"evidence".

After all, as SCO said... hearsay and innuendo are kind of evidence...

[ 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 )