[B Knotts]

A bit off topic, I suppose, but this is intriguing to me.

Ruled against Microsoft on a copyright case.

How in the heck is that an example of liberalism?

[AmishDude]

Essentially this judge said that "Windows" is like "Xerox" or "Polaroid" or "Kleenex". It cannot be used as a copyrighted word for an operating system because it's part of common usage. As I said (in the freakin' post itself, for crying out loud) I probably agree with the decision. In fact, this is by all appearances, a non-ideological case. If there is a liberal position to be had in this case, however, it would certainly be reflexively anti-Microsoft.

Given this judges' extra-judicial remarks, I would not be surprised if that were his motives, but who can say?

As I said in a following post, I wasn't looking for liberal decisions. I was looking for the first few that come up in a Google search. It seems that this guy has NEVER ruled on a non-controversial case and that he has yet to take a conservative stance. I've done this with other judges and I often get a balanced and boring record.