|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 05 2012 @ 09:26 PM EDT |
That wasn't it. All 12 jurors agreed that Microsoft was guilty of
antitrust violations. Here is your article about that: Holdout
Juror Was Convinced Microsoft Was Guilty of Anticompetitive Behavior ~pj -
Updated: MS Motion to Dismiss
If you stop and think about it, it's so
obvious that Microsoft broke antitrust law that almost no one could honestly
disagree. Therefore, the trial didn't hinge on that. Novell's problem is that it
has to prove a number of other things that aren't nearly as obvious. One of them is why the holdout juror held out.
I don't doubt
that, given the chance, the holdout juror would have sided with the other jurors
on the four claims that were thrown out simply because Novell filed too late. At
least some of those claims would have been slam dunks for Novell. But they were
thrown out, so the jurors weren't allowed to render a verdict on
them.
IMO, it's a bit misleading to think of the remaining claim in the
trail as being about Microsoft's behavior. What Microsoft did isn't really in
question. (Yes, Microsoft still hasn't conceded that, but it's obvious.) The
difficulty is with what Novell did and with what Novell would have done (and the
effects that would have had) if Microsoft hadn't done what it did. That's where
the judge said no reasonable jury could conclude what Novell needed them to
conclude.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|