The Chief and Microsoft

As expected, Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr. stood up and left the Supreme Court chamber at the beginning of oral arguments Wednesday in the complex patent case Microsoft v. AT&T. According to his most recent financial disclosure form, Roberts owns between $100,001 and $250,000 worth of Microsoft stock, a clear trigger for recusal. (For more on recent recusal decisions by Roberts and other justices, see the Legal Times feature Recusal Report). With Roberts out, Justice John Paul Stevens presided over the oral argument — which led to a minor slip-up by former solicitor general Ted Olson, arguing for Microsoft. When Olson, a Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner, rose for his rebuttal, he addressed Stevens as "Justice Scalia," which got a hearty laugh from Stevens. Olson recovered quickly, explaining that he was focused on answering a point Scalia had made earlier.

Posted by Tony Mauro on February 21, 2007 at 01:57 PM in Supreme Court | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d94869e200d83468607b69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Chief and Microsoft:

» Reading the Tea Leaves: Microsft v. AT&T Oral Arguments from Chicago IP Litigation Blog
The big news in patent law this week is the Supreme Court oral argument in Microsoft v. ATT. Microsoft exports software from the United States to various countries. The software code alone cannot infringe ATT's patents until it is... [Read More]

Comments

Sorry for this belated reply. The situation you describe happens from time to time when a justice recuses and the rest of the Court is tied 4-4. In such a case, the Court by longstanding tradition issues a judgment affirming the lower court decision and announcing the fact that it was equally divided. So the winner in the court below wins the case, and it's over. But also by tradition, the affirmance does not carry any weight as precedent in other cases.

Posted by: Tony Mauro | February 27, 2007 at 12:37 PM

Forgive this simpleton's question, but when a justice recuses him/herself from a case, doesn't it result in an even number of votes? What happens when a vote ends up 3-3? Who then is the decider[sic]? Does the presiding judge have the tiebraker? Katherine Harris?

Posted by: Anon | February 22, 2007 at 11:51 AM

Forgive this simpleton's question, but if a justice recuses himself/herself from a case, doesn't this leave an even number of total votes? Should a decision be 3-3, who the ultimate decider [sic]? The presiding judge?

Posted by: Anon | February 22, 2007 at 10:25 AM

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

Posted by: |

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:

Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Supreme Court Insider

Sign up for our e-newsletter all about the U.S. Supreme Court. It’s delivered every week to your mailbox and features exclusive news and analysis of the high court from The National Law Journal’s Tony Mauro and Marcia Coyle.