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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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
Kicking over the hornet's nest. | 134 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Kicking over the hornet's nest.
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 | # ]

Kicking over the hornet's nest.
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 | # ]

Kicking over the hornet's nest.
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 | # ]

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 )