Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> The Trade Secrets Vault
OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Intellectual Property Law
: The Trade Secrets VaultProtective Orders in Pretrial Discovery Phase Keep Journalists Unplugged - Technology - redOrbit
ADVERTISEMENTS
By Townsend, Virgie
Millions of pages of documents have been hidden from the public in a high-profile federal court antitrust case between two computer giants, illustrating how parties are able to essentially secretly litigate disputes in public courts. A model holds an Intel chip In 2006. Intel has been accused of unfair trade practices.
In September 2006, Delaware District Court Judge Joseph Farnan Jr. approved a protective order in AMD v. Intel, a long-running case in which the computer hardware behemoth Intel is being sued by its chief microprocessor rival over alleged anti-trust practices. With the protective order, Farnan effectively vaulted vast portions of evidence in the case. Predicting that "hundreds of millions of pages of documentation" would accumulate, Farnan moved to safeguard the companies' trade secrets, and make discovery documents easier to produce to the litigants.
Two years later, some reporters and lawyers say it's one of the most sweeping protective orders they've seen. So much so that many basic details of the allegations against Intel are still scant - even though AMD filed suit against Intel in 2005, and two foreign trade commissions have ruled against Intel in the last several years for violating antimonopoly or antitrust regulations.
What is known: AMD claims Intel monopolized the microprocessor industry by providing exclusivity agreements and rebates rewarding only loyal customers. Courts have generally decided loyalty rebates are exclusionary and a violation of anticompetitive practices when a competitor would have to price the product below their cost of production to be able to compete with the seller.Full post as published by The Trade Secrets Vault on September 26, 2008 (boomark / email).
Lawsuits and Settlements
Align Technology, Inc. ALGN Securities Fraud
Align Technology, Inc. ALGN
Greka Oll and Gas
EPA Orders Clean-up of Toxic PCBs
Align Technology, Inc. 401(k) / ERISA Stock Fraud
Align Technology, Inc. 401(k) / ERISA Stock Fraud
FDA Warns of Potentially Fatal Errors with GDH-PQQ Glucose Monitoring Technology
Glucose Monitoring Technology FDA Warns of Potentially Fatal Errors
Technician Whistleblower
Jury orders DuPont Chambers Works to pay $1.224 million settlement to employee.
Correctional Managers
Jury orders Marion County to pay $1 million racial discrimination settlement to two former employees.
Related Searches
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.









