Microsoft Files Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law(Groklaw)

Ah yes, Microsoft gets around to filing its renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. And to quote from the Groklaw article as well as the motion itself:

... given the evidence at trial, (1) a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find, and as a matter of law there is no basis to find, that Microsoft’s withdrawal of support for the namespace extension APIs constituted anticompetitive conduct under the antitrust laws; (2) a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find, and as a matter of law there is no basis to find, that Microsoft’s withdrawal of support for the namespace extension APIs harmed competition in the PC operating system market; (3) a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find, and as a matter of law there is no basis to find, that Microsoft’s withdrawal of support for the namespace extension APIs was the cause of any meaningful delay in the release of versions of PerfectOffice?, WordPerfect? and Quattro Pro for Windows 95; (4) a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find, and as a matter of law there is no basis to find, that Microsoft’s withdrawal of support for the namespace extension APIs caused injury to Novell or entitles Novell to an award of any damages; ... emphasis added

As mentioned in the Groklaw article it is interesting to note that Microsoft's argument seems to suggest that a reasonable jury could not have come to the decisions it did. Of course, most if not all motions of this kind offer the same irony.

It is unreasonable for a jury to find that Microsoft violated the antitrust laws in regard to WordPerfect?.

Clearly Microsoft is just protecting its rights for appeal. As for this having some affect upon negotiations for settlement, I serious doubt Novell is affected in the least.

To recap, the jury was hung. Eleven supported Novell. One did not but it is clear that he misunderstood the difference between the determination of liability and the determination of damages. And both Novell and Microsoft hope to resolve the matter through the help of a magistrate to settle the case rather than go through a new trial. It is also unlikely that any magistrate is going to be influenced by this motion either.

But, this is the legal process. Often times motions are made before the court even when the moving party deems it pretty much hopeless.

Twelve out of twelve thought Microsoft was liable. But, they were each unreasonable, right?

It is also interesting to note that since the jury voted 11-1, no court is going to render a judgment against Microsoft anyway. Perhaps a new trial. Perhaps a session with a magistrate in an effort to settle. But, as it stands, no judgment is going to be rendered. But, Microsoft just can not resist the temptation to try to convince the public (and the judge) that no reasonable jury would find that Microsoft violated antitrust law.

Remember the day when Microsoft claimed it did not hold a monopoly (or monopoly power)? Or, that Internet Explorer was part of the operating system (even when the appellate court found that Microsoft illegally commingled code between the OS and IE). Or, when three witnesses including Bill Gates himself testified that they thought the illegally commingled code was okay if an icon or two could be temporarily deleted? That is not what the appellate court said. They said the commingled code violated the antitrust law. Icons, deletable or not had nothing to do with it.

But, having said all of this, judges do sometimes grant these motions. So why not spend some money and type out the motion?

Microsoft's credibility is mud anyway. Might as well claim a reasonable jury would never find against Microsoft, right?

Let me see now. Microsoft has paid settlement amounts to Caldera (Novell got all the money), IBM, SUN, AOL (Netscape), BeOS, Bristol, State of California and a few others I can not recall at the moment. The total amount must exceed 6 billion dollars and could have reached 8 billion or so. A little more to Novell seems in the cards.

But, the public is to believe that no reasonable jury would find Microsoft guilty? Microsoft found Microsoft guilty. And they have been paying huge amounts of cash to keep cases away from juries. And no doubt offering political support to the Bush DOJ in order to get that case settled in a meaningless manner. As you must recall, that case was settled but the illegal acts committed by Microsoft as found by the appellate court did not cease.