Francis and All,
Here is another article on Intel's request for "Summary Judgement" dismissing Intergraph Corps. charges. It is good to see Intel taking positive action.
Perhaps someone can tell me why, in view of all the air time that CNBC gave last week to the rumors of the then pending FTC action against Intel, that the finacial news network has given NO notice of the actual defense mounted by Intel, in the Intergraph suit? I also wonder why none of the analysts that we saw paraded on CNBC last week have not been asked onto CNBC to give their interpretation of the Intel request for "Summary Judgement"
Jules
=================================
SANTA CLARA, Calif., June 18 (Reuters) - Intel Corp said
that it is seeking a summary judgment in Intergraph Corp's
lawsuit against it, which alleges anticompetitive
behavior and patent infringement by Intel.
Intel, in its motion for summary judgment in defense to
Integraph's claims of patent infringement, said, "there is no
geniune issue as to any material fact." A motion for summary
judgment seeks a ruling by a judge without going to trial.
Intel said it filed its motion, which is its first response
to Intergraph's lawsuit, late Wednesday in U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama, Northeastern Division.
Intel said that the facts underlying its defense are
straightforward and undisputed.
As part of Intergraph's suit against Intel, it is alleging
that Intel is infringing on its patents for its Clipper
processor technology. National's Fairchild Semiconductor unit
sold the assets of its Advanced Processor Division, including
the Clipper processor, to Intergraph in 1987.
Intel said it is licensed to these patents rights through a
broad cross-licensing agreement with National it signed in 1976
that extends through December 2003.
Intel said in its answer to the complaint filed by
Intergraph in November - which also includes allegations of
anticompetitive behavior by Intel - that Intergraph has not
been legally harmed in any way and that Intergraph has failed
to mitigate its alleged injury and damages.
In its lawsuit, Intergraph says its business has been
harmed by Intel's anticompetitive behavior, which included
cutting off Intergraph from receiving information about future
Intel products. Intergraph said this caused lost sales and a
slowing of its momentum in the computer workstation market.
Intergraph's suit is a key component in the Federal Trade
Commission's lawsuit against the semiconductor giant, which was
filed earlier this month.
Intergraph officials, in Huntsville, Ala., were not
immediately available to comment on Intel's court filing.
However, last week, in an interview, Jim Meadlock,
Intergraph's chief executive, said that Intergraph was in the
number one position in the Intel-based workstation market at
the end of 1996, and its share has since dropped to number
three or four, because of its product delays in 1997.
"We went from number one to number three or four," Meadlock
said. "That is directly attributable to their withholding
information." Meadlock said he did not yet have any estimates
on the financial impact to Intergraph from its product delays.
In April, Intergraph won an injunction from the U.S.
District Court, which forced Intel to resume giving Intergraph
advanced product information, advanced chip "samples," early
production chips and production chips.
Sent: 15:36 ET |
