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 : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mark Fowler who wrote (45828)	3/15/1999 7:18:00 PM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

wired.com Wal-Mart Responds to Amazon Suit by Chris Stamper 2:10 p.m. 15.Mar.99.PST SEATTLE -- Wal-Mart Stores responded to Amazon.com's trade secrets lawsuit in a Seattle court Friday, saying it had found a "smoking gun" that showed Amazon executives had taken sensitive Wal-Mart documents. "Many of these documents contain the very trade secrets that Wal-Mart seeks to protect by this litigation," Wal-Mart said in the 12 March court filing. The response, filed with Judge Linda Lau of King County Superior Court, also attacks Amazon's (AMZN) recent strategic alliance with Dell Computer. Wal-Mart argued that it could prove the two companies were not only swapping Web links, but using Wal-Mart's trade secret data warehousing techniques. The filing is another development in a six-month-old lawsuit that could affect the ways high-tech companies hire executives away from each other. Wal-Mart (WMT) originally sued Amazon and online pharmacist Drugstore.com, claiming that the online retailers were stealing trade secrets by hiring away some of its top-level logistics executives and information systems managers. Wal-Mart relies on its logistical expertise to undercut competitors in price. Last week, Amazon countersued, accusing Wal-Mart of unfair competition, violating the Washington Consumer Protection Act, interference with prospective employees, libel, and slander. In the response, Wal-Mart asked the court to act with urgency. Go to link for the balance: