|Authored by: PJ on Saturday, October 06 2012 @ 02:07 PM EDT|
|By the way, here's
something you might want
to consider, that the judge dismissed Novell
his idea that there was no middleware
threat, among other things. So not
everyone agrees that Microsoft
behaved badly enough to merit an antitrust
The judge didn't. Here's what he wrote:|
I need not decide this issue
because, even assuming Novell's argument is correct, its claim nevertheless
fails for three separate and independent reasons: (1) Microsoft's conduct was
not anticompetitive within the meaning of the Sherman Act; (2) Novell did not
present sufficient evidence from which a jury could find that its products would
have been successfully developed as middleware; and (3) there is no underlying
business reality to the claims.
So your comment that it's obvious
to everyone that Microsoft was guilty of antitrust violations isn't so. Nor is
it obvious that the only issue
is timing on Novell's part. What the holdout
juror didn't agree about was the idea that what Microsoft did resulted in damage
that could be quantified and ordered as paid to Novell for what Microsoft did.
Here's how Deseret News
reported his own words, in an
excerpt from the first
did on the deadlocked jury:
One juror kept Novell Inc. from exacting
as much as $1.3 billion from one-time rival Microsoft Corp. for alleged
I think you can see that his reasons don't precisely match what
you seem to think. He really didn't agree totally with the rest, even on the
antitrust part. He agreed Microsoft acted badly, but he wasn't sure it was bad
enough to merit finding guilt and the damages that would ensue. So what i wrote
wasn't well-written, but it was not inaccurate altogether either. It was like
what you wrote, accurate as far as it goes, but not complete.
Corbyn Alvey, a 21-year-old security guard, was the
lone holdout who deadlocked the 12-person jury after three days of deliberations
in the complex, two-month trial in federal court.
"I walk away feeling
honestly myself, and I can't speak for the other jurors, that I made the right
decision even if it resulted in a hung jury," he told the Deseret News Friday.
"There were so many inferences that needed to be drawn that I felt that it was
unfair to Microsoft to go out on a limb and say yes."...
were clearly upset with the hung jury. Johnson said, "One juror had strong
technical views, and he wasn't about to budge."...
Alvey, the holdout juror,
said the jury agreed on the technical aspects of the case but disagreed on the
marketing aspects or what Novell could have accomplished "but for" Gates'
decision. "There was a lot of speculation in this 'but for' world," he said.
So that is
part of the issue on appeal, whether what Microsoft did was bad enough, meaning
did it not only try to harm Novell but did it succeed in the antitrust sense.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
- Out of context? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2012 @ 04:15 PM EDT
- Out of context? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 04:25 PM EDT