Lawyers spar at Microsoft-Google hearing

TalkBack 3 of 21:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

That's what it is: evidence!

Evidence is all that which can be reasonably be helpful in forming a conclusion or judgement. Application of force can null a non-compete under California law. Google wants to show, through the quote statement, that force occurred or could reasonably have occurred in Lee's case. They want the non-compete gone. Microsoft wants the non-compete kept and so they have an equal reason to deny the event described occurred. Both parties have something equal to lose depending on whether the statement is reasonably believed or disbelieved. Either is equally believable and disbelievable.

Richard saw a particular piece of evidence, which was filed with the court and quoted on Groklaw. He believes that evidence. He formed a judgement based upon that evidence. He stated his opinion. He used evidence properly to form his opinion. It is, to him, nice dispositive evidence.

One might infer you find the evidence even less persuasive: mere mudslinging? That's your judgement, hopefully based on the evidence as well. As an amateur jurist in a public forum; you're permitted to hang your hat on one piece of evidence or adjudge that evidence not credible and possibly eat your adjudication later as is Richard.

Richard finds this nugget of evidence strongly persuasive of force. You might disbelieve it and thus find it non-persuasive. Both of you have made judgements. That's for what evidence is presented: to allow the rendering of judgement. Part of jurisprudence - the philosophy of law - is deciding whom you believe.

How low you set your personal bar in the evidenciary limbo contest is a matter of psychology, not philosophy. Yours is low. Richards is high. Since the evidence standard, in this law, is "reasonable" and not "clear and convincing" nor "beyond a reasonable doubt"; your bar is set rather too low and Richards rather too high. Both need to change the altitude of that limbo bar.

Not very good at jurisprudence are you, ShadeTree? I can easily observe that you aren't, but then: neither are you a jurisprudent would you make a prudent jurist, if you're not capable of applying a standard of evidence.

PS - Try to use the words correctly: jurisprudence is the philosophy of law; jurisprudent is one steeped in the law; prudent jurists are those who apply the philosophy correctly and according to actual law. Jurist prudence, in the way you've used it, is meaningless gibberish.

Posted by: John Le'Brecage   Posted on: 09/07/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Security Explorer for File Servers Version 7.0.23 ScriptLogic Security Explorer is a powerful, graphical solution for real-time ... Download Now
• Busting the myths about QuickBooks Enterprise Solutions and IBM Smart Business IBM So you already know there aren't actually any alligators in the New York ... Download Now
• Evaluating Price/Performance of VMware ESX Server on Dell PowerEdge Servers Dell This paper examines the price/performance advantage that enterprises can ... Download Now