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.
I disagree with that characterization. I think that a liberal judge would "liberally" interpret a common word to be validly copyright. A conservative judge would not allow such nonsense as a copyright on the word "window."
Anyhow...that whole "conservatives always support Microsoft" thing just gets under my skin. Microsoft is a bunch of pro-culture-of-death liberals.