Actually, there is a very practical reason for an opinion as such. The decision is appealable, and if there isn't any factual and legal basis for the decision, there is a good chance it will be appealed. Because of the depth of the legal ground that this judge was standing on, there isn't much chance that he'll be appealed.
Besides, judges don't write opinions, law clerks do....
Actually, while it does define the ruling in case of appeal, its also used as basis of other lawsuits and rulings. So if MS names its next OS SmallDog, a lawsuit by SmallDog Electronics would most likely be dismissed (rather than even going to trial) because of this ruling and the 58 pages of opinion.
But we all know this was just another ruling by those damned activist judges making their own law as opposed to following the constitution! The fact that religion isn't mentioned at all in the ruling shows he's just another liberal judge who should be tossed on his ass!
Actually, while it does define the ruling in case of appeal, its also used as basis of other lawsuits and rulings. So if MS names its next OS SmallDog, a lawsuit by SmallDog Electronics would most likely be dismissed (rather than even going to trial) because of this ruling and the 58 pages of opinion.
But we all know this was just another ruling by those damned activist judges making their own law as opposed to following the constitution! The fact that religion isn't mentioned at all in the ruling shows he's just another liberal judge who should be tossed on his ass!
You were supposed to put a smiley at the end of that.
Actually, while it does define the ruling in case of appeal, its also used as basis of other lawsuits and rulings. So if MS names its next OS SmallDog, a lawsuit by SmallDog Electronics would most likely be dismissed (rather than even going to trial) because of this ruling and the 58 pages of opinion.
Yeah, sorry you're wrong here. Keep in mind that the judge did not make any finding as to the case. The ruling was only regarding the motion for an injunction.
Further, your analogy has serious flaws.
First, MS does not have any history of naming it's Operating Systems along any sort of pattern that would lead them to "SmallDog."
Second, SmallDog is not a common enough English term that one could claim that use of it would not reasonably infringe on the trade mark of a company by that name. While it would depend entirely on the totality of the circumstances, this ruling would not necessarily form precedent for the situation you created.
This is especially true because the judge did not dismiss the case, but only denied the request for the Preliminary Injunction.
Quote:
But we all know this was just another ruling by those damned activist judges making their own law as opposed to following the constitution! The fact that religion isn't mentioned at all in the ruling shows he's just another liberal judge who should be tossed on his ass!
Yeah, sorry you're wrong here. Keep in mind that the judge did not make any finding as to the case. The ruling was only regarding the motion for an injunction.
Further, your analogy has serious flaws.
First, MS does not have any history of naming it's Operating Systems along any sort of pattern that would lead them to "SmallDog."
Second, SmallDog is not a common enough English term that one could claim that use of it would not reasonably infringe on the trade mark of a company by that name. While it would depend entirely on the totality of the circumstances, this ruling would not necessarily form precedent for the situation you created.
This is especially true because the judge did not dismiss the case, but only denied the request for the Preliminary Injunction.
Comments
Originally posted by OBJRA10
Actually, there is a very practical reason for an opinion as such. The decision is appealable, and if there isn't any factual and legal basis for the decision, there is a good chance it will be appealed. Because of the depth of the legal ground that this judge was standing on, there isn't much chance that he'll be appealed.
Besides, judges don't write opinions, law clerks do....
Actually, while it does define the ruling in case of appeal, its also used as basis of other lawsuits and rulings. So if MS names its next OS SmallDog, a lawsuit by SmallDog Electronics would most likely be dismissed (rather than even going to trial) because of this ruling and the 58 pages of opinion.
But we all know this was just another ruling by those damned activist judges making their own law as opposed to following the constitution! The fact that religion isn't mentioned at all in the ruling shows he's just another liberal judge who should be tossed on his ass!
Originally posted by Louzer
Actually, while it does define the ruling in case of appeal, its also used as basis of other lawsuits and rulings. So if MS names its next OS SmallDog, a lawsuit by SmallDog Electronics would most likely be dismissed (rather than even going to trial) because of this ruling and the 58 pages of opinion.
But we all know this was just another ruling by those damned activist judges making their own law as opposed to following the constitution! The fact that religion isn't mentioned at all in the ruling shows he's just another liberal judge who should be tossed on his ass!
You were supposed to put a smiley at the end of that.
Originally posted by Louzer
Actually, while it does define the ruling in case of appeal, its also used as basis of other lawsuits and rulings. So if MS names its next OS SmallDog, a lawsuit by SmallDog Electronics would most likely be dismissed (rather than even going to trial) because of this ruling and the 58 pages of opinion.
Yeah, sorry you're wrong here. Keep in mind that the judge did not make any finding as to the case. The ruling was only regarding the motion for an injunction.
Further, your analogy has serious flaws.
First, MS does not have any history of naming it's Operating Systems along any sort of pattern that would lead them to "SmallDog."
Second, SmallDog is not a common enough English term that one could claim that use of it would not reasonably infringe on the trade mark of a company by that name. While it would depend entirely on the totality of the circumstances, this ruling would not necessarily form precedent for the situation you created.
This is especially true because the judge did not dismiss the case, but only denied the request for the Preliminary Injunction.
But we all know this was just another ruling by those damned activist judges making their own law as opposed to following the constitution! The fact that religion isn't mentioned at all in the ruling shows he's just another liberal judge who should be tossed on his ass!
What a ridiculous thing to say.
Originally posted by OBJRA10
Yeah, sorry you're wrong here. Keep in mind that the judge did not make any finding as to the case. The ruling was only regarding the motion for an injunction.
Further, your analogy has serious flaws.
First, MS does not have any history of naming it's Operating Systems along any sort of pattern that would lead them to "SmallDog."
Second, SmallDog is not a common enough English term that one could claim that use of it would not reasonably infringe on the trade mark of a company by that name. While it would depend entirely on the totality of the circumstances, this ruling would not necessarily form precedent for the situation you created.
This is especially true because the judge did not dismiss the case, but only denied the request for the Preliminary Injunction.
What a ridiculous thing to say.
I assumed it to be a joke.