Intergraph CEO claims Intel “grossly misrepresented” facts

Alabama judge sets date for trial in Year 2000

A year ago Posted 22 June 1998 -- a year ago A war of words between Intergraph and Intel has escalated after the chip giant filed a counter suit in Alabama last week. Jim Meadlock, CEO of Intergraph, which is cited by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) along with Compaq and Digital in antitrust allegations against Intel, was also responding to a request for a summary injunction it made in the same court. He hit out at Intel for attempting to delay the legal process. Meadlock's company is separately suing Intel for anti-competitive behaviour, patent infringement and alleged antitrust violations. He said: "Intel's motion for a summary judgement mistakenly implied that there is no need for a trial on Intergraph's parents. It reflects Intel's orchestrated efforts to obscure the facts, distract attention away from the core issues surrounding Intergraph's case, and delay the legal proceedings." He revealed that Judge Edwin Nelson, who presides over a district course in Alabama, denied Intel's request to stay the prosecution of his company's patent infringement claims, and also set a date for the hearing. But that hearing will not begin until the middle of February, in the year 2000. Judge Nelson said that he has set aside five weeks for the trial. The judge added that the preliminary injunction he granted Intergraph on 10 April last still stands. Meadlock hit out at Intel's claims that when it bought Fairchild technology from National Semiconductor it also inherited cross licence agreements. He said: "Intel is grossly misrepresenting the facts surrounding its licensing agreement with National Semiconductor by selectively quoting portions of the agreement. Moreover, Intel has asked the court to seal their licensing agreement with National Semiconductor from public view, thus keeping the complete facts from the public." He claimed that Intergraph bought the Clipper chip directly from Fairchild in 1987, which was before NatSemi bought Fairchild. That meant, he said, that Intel had no cross licence agreement with Fairchild, when it bought the Clipper patents. He added: "Most importantly, Intergraph's case isn't just about patent infringement. It's about Intel's wilful and unconscionable anti-competitive behaviour that threatened to put Intergraph out of business in its efforts to access Intergraph's patents royalty free. Intergraph has a strong case and we're confident that we'll prevail." He claimed that Intel did not raise its cross licensing defence until after Intergraph had filed suit against it. "Its a late and baseless claim," said Meadlock. ®

Sponsored: 5 critical considerations for enterprise cloud backup