|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 01:04 AM EDT |
Surely, the jury is expected to be reasonable?
If the Judge can decide that as a matter of law that a reasonable jury /has/ to
find a certain outcome (and can change their result to this outcome if not
given), then surely it is a waste of time asking the Jury to decide in the first
place?
Or is it a rhetorical question?
Or one to check if the Jury is reasonable?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: whoever57 on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 02:08 AM EDT |
And if he decides as a matter of law
that no reasonable jury could
find Y, he
can indeed change it to N.
I understand that this is a
settled matter of law, but I think it is also an example of judicial
doublethink. Judge Paul Michel's views on software patents are similar
doublethink.
In the case of whether the copying was de minimus is quite
clearly a matter of fact, not law. The "no reasonable jury ..." is pure
sophistry to support the honorable judge's prejudices.
If it was a
matter of law, why were the jury asked to decide about this? Why did it only
become a matter of law when the jury disagreed with the decision of the judge?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: eachus on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 07:52 AM EDT |
I understand the desire to keep Groklaw family safe, but there is also a need to
discuss things like (reasonable) adults. I look at it as I am testifying in
court. Name calling is right out, but there are cases where the English language
uses expletives to indicate strength of feeling or commitment. This was one
such case. I did try to think of a way to express the feeling here without even
mild profanity and came up short. If people want to suggest a better way to
indicate stronger position than No! I'll be glad to use it in the
future.
I have to believe that at this point the judge recognizes that a
mistrial would favor Oracle, and he may be going out of his way to favor Oracle
so that the final decision will stand against appeals from Oracle.
However, he risks turning the trial into a farce. He may already have done
that--or turning the jury against the bench. His only protection there is what
the jury hasn't heard, including this ruling. (The cataclysm if the jury
somehow found out about this ruling and, for example, asks the judge when
considering the patent part of the verdict, is certainly beyond my family safe
vocabulary to describe. ;-) [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|