Authored by: PJ on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 10:49 AM EDT |
I now have had time to read the order, and he
explains his reasoning. The jury was thinking
pretty much the way you are, apparently. But
the judge says that Oracle's expert, Dr. Mitchell,
testified that the test files were very important,
and no on testified otherwise. So as a matter of
law, that testimony stands. However, the jury is
entitled to take Mitchell's testimony as not
credible. I did. If that was their reasoning,
I think he is wrong to overrule their honest
decision. The jury instructions say they are
the ones responsible to decide who is and isn't
credible.
He didn't address that. Now, we were not there for
all of the trial, so I also don't know if he is
correct that no one testified that the test files
were no important. I'm sure the Google lawyers
are looking for that or did over the weekend, but
I think he's wrong to overrule the jury's right
to find everything Dr. Mitchell says sliced baloney.
That is their job, not his.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|