Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sonny McWilliams who wrote (91810)	11/6/1999 6:14:00 AM
From: puborectalis	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Posted at 8:59 p.m. PST Friday, November 5, 1999 Intergraph's antitrust case is dealt a severe setback BY TOM QUINLAN Mercury News Staff Writer A federal appeals court has undermined severely Intergraph Computer Corp.'s claims that Intel Corp. violated the nation's antitrust laws, turning what had been a forum on Intel's overall business practices into a far more routine trial about a failed business relationship. After suing Intel in 1997 for antitrust violations, patent infringement, breach of contract and interference with customer relationships, Intergraph was granted last year a temporary injunction -- largely on antitrust grounds -- that forced Intel to continue supplying Intergraph with products and technical information. It was that injunction that the three-judge panel vacated Friday. But although the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit did not address whether Intergraph could continue to pursue its antitrust claims against Intel, it consistently and emphatically ruled that the claims were on shaky legal foundation, and were unlikely to be successful, primarily because Intel and Intergraph are not competitors. ''In the proceedings whose record is before us, Intergraph has not shown a substantial likelihood of success in establishing that Intel violated the antitrust laws in its actions with respect to Intergraph,'' the court said. Although the Intergraph suit will continue, according to the company, this and previous rulings have taken a lot of the sizzle out of the case. When Federal District Court Judge Edwin Nelson granted the preliminary injunction to Intergraph, his 80-page ruling was seen as a scathing indictment of virtually all of Intel's business practices. In many circles, the ruling, which stopped short of declaring Intel an illegal monopoly that flouted antitrust laws, was seen as one of the primary reasons the Federal Trade Commission filed its own set of antitrust charges against the Santa Clara chip company in June 1998. Wars won by Intel Since then, however, the legal wars largely have been won by Intel. In March, the FTC reached a settlement with Intel that widely was seen as being favorable to the chip company. Without admitting it was a monopoly, Intel agreed that it wouldn't use its control of the microprocessor market to punish companies that sued it for patent infringement or other intellectual property disputes -- as long as they didn't try to keep Intel from shipping its processors. In June, Nelson reversed himself, ruling that a cross-licensing agreement between Intel and National Semiconductor Inc. covered the disputed patents in the Intergraph case, in effect throwing out that part of the suit. Intergraph is appealing that ruling. Dispute not over That doesn't end the dispute, but the stakes are much smaller for Intel. The ruling was a major vindication for Intel's position, said company spokesman Chuck Mulloy, as the Santa Clara firm had argued vociferously that its relationship with Intergraph had no antitrust ramifications. ''Antitrust law was set up to ensure competition, not to protect specific competitors or consumers,'' Molloy noted. ''What we're most pleased about is that the appeals court really seemed to listen to our arguments and accept them.'' In a statement, Intergraph said the temporary injunction was no longer critical to the company's survival, because the settlement between Intel and the FTC would offer the same kind of protection. That agreement ''will ensure that we get information from Intel just as other companies that do business with Intel get the information,'' Intergraph spokesman Tom Gates told Bloomberg News. Intergraph said it would continue to pursue the breech of contract and customer interference charges while it appeals Nelson's decision to throw out the patent infringement claims. The statement did not indicate whether it would continue to pursue the antitrust charges. Mulloy said Intel would not change its relationship with Intergraph initially, and that the company would need to study the ruling before it decided its next step. Contact Tom Quinlan at tquinlan@sjmercury.com or (408) 271-3667.

To: Sonny McWilliams who wrote (91810)	11/6/1999 7:13:00 PM
From: Barry Grossman	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 186894

Sonny, Judge Jackson wrote that while Microsoft may not be able to stop all innovation, ``it can thwart some and delay others by improving its own products to the greater satisfaction of consumers.' Isn't "improving its own products to the greater satisfaction of consumers" a main goal of any company's R&D? Nothing wrong with that. The judge ought to go back to school. He needs an education. As does our esteemed Justice department. Seeing Reno & Klein and the rest of their team cheering the judge's findings of fact made me wonder where reason has gone. And the beat goes on... Barry