| ||Thread Tools|
|22nd June 2004, 10:56||#1|
Join Date: May 2002
AMD defeats Intel in US Supreme Court
Intel may soon be obliged to hand over internal documents to a European Commission (EC) anti-trust investigation.
A US Supreme Court yesterday paved the way for such a move when it said US federal courts were authorised to force a company to submit documents made public in a US case to foreign jurisdictions.
The ruling follows legal action brought against Intel by arch-rival AMD. AMD alleges Intel's European operation engaged in anti-competitive behaviour. It claims that 60,000-odd pages of documentation submitted by Intel to the US court will demonstrate the validity of its allegations, and wants Intel to be forced to hand the files over to EC investigators.
On 1 October 2003, AMD asked the San Jose District Court to force Intel to release to EC investigators expert witness testimonies presented during Intergraph's anti-trust and patent violation action against the chip giant. The court agreed and said Intel had to hand the documentation over.
However, Intel claims that while US law allows documents made public in one case to be used in another, the EC investigation is not a legal action and thus is not covered by this US legal provision.
"They're seeking to get access to documents that are under court-ordered seal in discovery for litigation that doesn't exist," Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy said at the time.
Earlier this year, Intel appealed against the San Jose District Court ruling, an appeal that went to the Supreme Court on 20 April.
Since then, the EC has re-opened its investigation into Intel's behaviour following a renewed complaint from AMD, which has also supplied new evidence.
Yesterday's ruling paves the way for AMD to enforce the October District Court ruling. In a 7:1 verdict, the Supreme Court said federal courts can allow case documents to be made available to "a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal, including criminal investigations conducted before formal accusation".
In short, the San Jose District Court was right to come to the decision it did. However, it's now up to that Court to enforce its original ruling.
|22nd June 2004, 17:59||#2|
Join Date: Mar 2004
It's always interesting to know/find out how far could a large company with assets more than a small country could get away from the laws applied only to small companies.
The supreme count nailed Microsoft with no big deal kind of "punishment"; and it took several years.
Opteron 165 (2) @2.85 1.42 vcore AMD Stock HSF + Chill Vent II
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|Intel Sues AMD For Not Keeping Documents||jmke||WebNews||0||15th October 2009 20:44|
|AMD Announces Widespread Availability and Broad Global OEM Support for New Quad-Core||jmke||WebNews||0||13th November 2008 16:17|
|AMD GAME! Enables Console-like Simplicity for Mainstream PCs||jmke||WebNews||9||19th May 2008 20:51|
|AMD Introduces ‘AMD Business Class’, Designed With Business in Mind||jmke||WebNews||0||28th April 2008 09:33|
|AMD Launches World’s First x86 Triple-Core Processors||jmke||WebNews||0||27th March 2008 15:16|
|Intel answers AMD in court||Sidney||WebNews||0||2nd September 2005 05:53|
|Could AMD be the Next Intel?||jmke||WebNews||0||1st July 2005 16:47|
|AMD sues Intel, the monopolist||Sidney||WebNews||6||29th June 2005 11:01|
|Half-Life 2 CPU Shootout: AMD versus Intel||jmke||WebNews||0||22nd November 2004 08:05|
|AMD, Intel to meet in court — again||jmke||WebNews||0||20th April 2004 10:51|