Please stop claiming that text says more than it actually says. The word "ordered" does not mean that IBM will actualy pay anything. Given the presence of sealed motions, I doubt that anybody on the list is in a posiiion to make more than an educated guess about the final outcome. Even with knowledge of all the facts in the case predictions would be dicey because of, e.g., excluded evidence. The only prediction that I would make is that the appeal process will be complicated, expensive and long.
-- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Bill Johnson [00000047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu] Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 3:48 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC Saying it will or won’t be overturned is just as silly as insinuating IBM will now hand over 1.6 billion at this stage of the proceedings. Yet, the headline states and the OP assumes exactly that. Gleefully I might add. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Friday, June 3, 2022, 3:09 PM, Tony Harminc <t...@harminc.net> wrote: On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 14:16, Charles Mills <charl...@mcn.org> wrote: > Well, #1 we are a bunch of jailhouse lawyers without even the source > documents in front of us. Who knows EXACTLY what IBM agreed, or how it is > effectively modified by the operation of law, or what exactly transpired > between IBM and AT&T. Indeed. Anyone who has ever seen a program written by a lawyer may appreciate this. I have seen a few (mostly but not entirely spreadsheets), and it just reinforces my thinking that lawyers live in a "differently logical" world from the rest of us. Many of us here have all kinds of experience dealing with lawyers and contracts (to say nothing of personal matters), but that kind of "legal experience" doesn't make us lawyers or even experts. Looked at another way, "legal reasoning" is a law school topic of instruction and study, and is generally the thing that we programmers take to because it most closely resembles programming, and we like to think that the law is algorithmic in nature. But legal reasoning is very far from being "the law", and is actually quite a small part of the education of a lawyer. Applying it other people's cases to conclude that this or that judgement is correct or will obviously be overturned is just silly. Tony H. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
