Single juror prevented verdict in Novell-Microsoft lawsuit

One single juror on Novell's anti-trust violation case against Microsoft enabled the case end without a verdict, according to Deseret News.

As we reported on Friday, the two month trial ended after three days of deliberation and no decision by the 12 person jury. The trial include testimony by Bill Gates over Novell's claim that Microsoft deliberately delayed the release of Windows 95 in order "to suppress the sales of WordPerfect and Novell's related office productivity applications." Novell was asking for as much as $1.3 billion in damages.

Corbyn Alvey, a 21 year old security guard, was the one who felt that Novell had not made their case and held out against 11 others who felt differently, telling Deseret News:

I walk away feeling honestly myself, and I can't speak for the other jurors, that I made the right decision even if it resulted in a hung jury. There were so many inferences that needed to be drawn that I felt that it was unfair to Microsoft to go out on a limb and say yes.

It's unknown if the jury would have awarded the damages that Novell was requesting, even if Alvey had been persuaded. Five jurors who spoke with Microsoft attorneys after trial said they would have not. Microsoft is now seeking to have the case dismissed.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Saudi Prince pumps $300 million into Twitter

Next Story

Google handing out custom Galaxy Nexus to employees

25 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Facts show that Microsoft delayed the release of Windows 95 for the same reasons almost all versions have been delayed. They had problem with even their own apps working with it.

So why shoudl they released an unflinished product? How can you prove that because of your sour relationship, a company needs to taylor to YOUR needs.

Windows has to work for a vast majority, not just Novell. The case shouldnt have ever went to court. Pay for MS court fees, you frikking losers!!!

I honestly think trials in the US that involve "well known" parties should import jurors from remote regions of the planet that dont have access to the internet or TV. Just find 12 "adults", pack em up, ship em in, and then explain what they will be doing. Its the only way to get truly "Fair" and "unbaised" decisions. Eventually with media being the way it is, you wont be able to find anyone who doesn't "know" at least something about a trial before hand and/or have an opinion about it..... Amish... there you go.. Amish people would work out just fine.

It's laughable how people are so quick to jump on the anti-Microsoft bandwagon while ignoring the fact that that's how the justice system works. You always have to convince the entire jury of your case and Novel wasn't able to do that. Microsoft doesn't get off scott free - it's a retrial...

11-1 for an almost defunct company against "big evil" Microsoft. Just goes to show how powerful the MSM anti-MSFT propaganda machine works.

What's surprising is that it was 11 for Novell, 1 for Microsoft.

When when the initial reports came through on a hung Jury, it sounded like it was only 1 holdout on Novell's side.

Anyone in industry can tell that there is too much speculation from Novell, yet it turns out that only 1 juror could see that too. Novell must have better lawyers than Microsoft in this case, because from the outside, it looks more likely that Microsoft would win based on the facts of the case.

And this is why the US system of "justice" is a total failure, a single guy with a bias can crash the entire verdict.

MiukuMac said,
And this is why the US system of "justice" is a total failure, a single guy with a bias can crash the entire verdict.

No, that's exactly why it works so well!

MiukuMac said,
And this is why the US system of "justice" is a total failure, a single guy with a bias can crash the entire verdict.

What tells you he's bias?

MiukuMac said,
And this is why the US system of "justice" is a total failure, a single guy with a bias can crash the entire verdict.

"Trial by jury" says hi. Something that not only didn't originate in the US ... but actually ancient Greece.

Your argument makes little sense. Majority verdict is something that is generally avoided, anyway - who wants to convict someone on the basis of what 50% of people think?

MiukuMac said,
And this is why the US system of "justice" is a total failure, a single guy with a bias can crash the entire verdict.

Actually I think it's reflective of everything that works about it. If Novell had made their case, it shouldn't have been an issue.

Kirkburn said,
Your argument makes little sense. Majority verdict is something that is generally avoided, anyway - who wants to convict someone on the basis of what 50% of people think?

What about ~92% like in this case?

Majority voting might not be the best option but it is, looking at the greater democratic perspective, a better choice than allowing one person to completely overrule the views of everyone else.

MiukuMac said,

What about ~92% like in this case?

Majority voting might not be the best option but it is, looking at the greater democratic perspective, a better choice than allowing one person to completely overrule the views of everyone else.


Novell did not sufficiently prove their case to this one person. And from the looks of it, it looks like this person was paying attention to the case.

Would you argue then, that a person who has a valid, well formed rebuttal to a decision should be ignored because the rest of the jurors didn't see it. You are literally THROWING out information for the sake of democracy, which just makes democracy stupid.

MiukuMac said,
What about ~92% like in this case?

When dealing with major convictions, 92% is not really reasonable, without very good cause.

21 year old? He probably doesn't even know what Novell is. Okay, maybe Windows 95.

Seriously, they needed a more educated jury to be able to make a fair decision, IMO.

Raa said,
21 year old? He probably doesn't even know what Novell is. Okay, maybe Windows 95.

Seriously, they needed a more educated jury to be able to make a fair decision, IMO.

the point is they're supposed to be educated by the trial, if they've already heard about novell and ms then they've probably already made an opinion on the matter

Raa said,
21 year old? He probably doesn't even know what Novell is. Okay, maybe Windows 95.

Seriously, they needed a more educated jury to be able to make a fair decision, IMO.


He's definitely old enough to know about Windows 95. He's the same age as me...and I definitely remember Windows 95.

mulligan2k said,
the point is they're supposed to be educated by the trial, if they've already heard about novell and ms then they've probably already made an opinion on the matter

Indeed. It wouldn't be much of a trial if the jurors already knew the case.

Raa said,
21 year old? He probably doesn't even know what Novell is. Okay, maybe Windows 95.

Seriously, they needed a more educated jury to be able to make a fair decision, IMO.

THATS the point, they are supposed to get their facts in a fair and balanced way through the trial, not from outside media.