LawTalkers

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   The Big Board (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   It was the wrong thread (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=573)

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 01-22-2010 05:12 PM

Re: It was the wrong thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 413879)
The fact that the argument wasn't raised in the trial court suggests that it wasn't a likely winner on the merits in the appellate court, no? Maybe this is just a procedural way to put a dog out of its misery.

Perhaps so. And they reviewed it anyway, just under a nominally different standard.

But it doesn't matter whether the court got it right or wrong--it's a question of efficiency and whether they've enhanced it or reduced it.

Tyrone Slothrop 01-22-2010 05:28 PM

Re: It was the wrong thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 413887)
Perhaps so. And they reviewed it anyway, just under a nominally different standard.

But it doesn't matter whether the court got it right or wrong--it's a question of efficiency and whether they've enhanced it or reduced it.

I was more wondering how much egg was on the faces at Weil and Gibson. Do they now regret not having filed that motion, or did they think at the time that it wasn't worth the candle?

Hank Chinaski 01-22-2010 05:59 PM

Re: It was the wrong thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 413879)
The fact that the argument wasn't raised in the trial court suggests that it wasn't a likely winner on the merits in the appellate court, no? Maybe this is just a procedural way to put a dog out of its misery.

how do you argue the award is excessive at trial? they did file motions just not that one.

Hank Chinaski 01-22-2010 06:02 PM

Re: It was the wrong thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 413894)
I was more wondering how much egg was on the faces at Weil and Gibson.

I wonder if microsoft sues it's lawyers.

it'd hard for them to say the lost argument was a loser when they took up valuable pages explaining it should prevail.

Tyrone Slothrop 01-22-2010 07:32 PM

Re: It was the wrong thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 413901)
how do you argue the award is excessive at trial?

IIRC, I've done it (and it was).

PresentTense Pirate Penske 01-22-2010 07:42 PM

Re: It was the wrong thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 413924)
IIRC, I've done it (and it was).

"IIRC" gives me pause for concern. I know you are out of your element when you are not just citing a blog, but come on, its a first hand experience. Take a position. Either it happened or it didn't.

Tyrone Slothrop 01-22-2010 07:45 PM

Re: It was the wrong thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by PresentTense Pirate Penske (Post 413925)
"IIRC" gives me pause for concern. I know you are out of your element when you are not just citing a blog, but come on, its a first hand experience. Take a position. Either it happened or it didn't.

It was state court, and we definitely did not waive the argument for appeal.

PresentTense Pirate Penske 01-22-2010 07:54 PM

Re: It was the wrong thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 413926)
It was state court, and we definitely did not waive the argument for appeal.

Okay. I feel better now.

Barrel tasting time. Matthews Estate. 2008 claret.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 01-22-2010 08:48 PM

Re: It was the wrong thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 413924)
IIRC, I've done it (and it was).

Before or after the verdict?

It seems that arguing damages pre-verdict is particularly difficult. It's one thing to move for JMOL on the ground that the plaintiff failed to show, say, one necessary element of the claim. But for damages you would have to argue that no reasonable jury could find damages exceeding X amount, and then litigate whatever that amount is. Damages are on a continuum not binary (yes/no), so it seems like a particularly unproductive form of motion. It's another thing to argue post-verdict that the damages were excessive.

Hank Chinaski 01-22-2010 09:51 PM

Re: It was the wrong thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 413933)
Before or after the verdict?

It seems that arguing damages pre-verdict is particularly difficult. It's one thing to move for JMOL on the ground that the plaintiff failed to show, say, one necessary element of the claim. But for damages you would have to argue that no reasonable jury could find damages exceeding X amount, and then litigate whatever that amount is. Damages are on a continuum not binary (yes/no), so it seems like a particularly unproductive form of motion. It's another thing to argue post-verdict that the damages were excessive.

what you have is an expert saying MS sold X software packages and $96 is a reasonable royalty. it sounds like lost profits was not in the mix, but usually the P's claim would be

i'm entitled to my lost profits of $150 on 2/3 of X and the $96 royalty for the other 1/3 X, and if you disagree I should get lost profits then the $96 for the whole X

so it goes to the jury and D has to move that if the jury buys that, it's excessive? what if the jury hears D's proposal of a $.5 royalty and p's $96 and splits. does my motion that $96 is excessive save my right?

anyway, no judge would grant any of it then. a good judge says "let's see what the jury does first" on most issues. there are about 3 dozens issues of similar weight in this case and they're all patent intensive. it's stupid that you'd have to move on all of them.

ltl/fb 01-22-2010 10:00 PM

Re: It was the wrong thread
 
I got Burger's Sugar Cured Bacon the other day and thought, "Mmmm."

Hank Chinaski 01-22-2010 10:01 PM

Re: It was the wrong thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ltl/fb (Post 413936)
I got Burger's Sugar Cured Bacon the other day and thought, "Mmmm."

i invented giving you bacon

Adder 01-22-2010 10:33 PM

Re: It was the wrong thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Flinty_McFlint (Post 413795)
Heh, the main defense counsel is in my neigborhood--pretty well known as a bigshot. Always nice to see a local guy do bad.

Hey, look at that. I know one of the Weil associates. She's crazy in a work too hard, take things too seriously and accuse co-counsel of stealing your umbrella sort of way. For some reason, it is kind of my hope that it was her screw up (although she really never did me any harm).

Flinty_McFlint 01-23-2010 12:54 AM

Re: It was the wrong thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 413942)
Hey, look at that. I know one of the Weil associates. She's crazy in a work too hard, take things too seriously and accuse co-counsel of stealing your umbrella sort of way. For some reason, it is kind of my hope that it was her screw up (although she really never did me any harm).

I'm sorry, you're going to have to narrow it down a bit more. I guess if I see a female associate with what looks like egg on her face, that's her. Either that, or she had the misfortune to get too close to Hank when he's hopped up on cialis again.

ltl/fb 01-24-2010 04:33 AM

Re: It was the wrong thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 413937)
i invented giving you bacon

Did someone post about Bacon of the Month on here over a year ago?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:39 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com