AMD vs Intel The Register has joined several other news organizations in a bid to make court records related to AMD's ongoing anti-trust lawsuit against Intel public.
Earlier this week, Situation Publishing - The Register's publisher - and the New York Times, Washington Post and Dow Jones & Co. filed a motion telling a Delaware court that certain records in the anti-trust case were being unnecessarily sealed. We're looking for all non-confidential information to make its way to the public, so that embarrassments in redaction such as this can be avoided.
AMD is understandably not too bothered by the motion, since presumably the juiciest bits in its lawsuit against Intel are those that the various parties are trying to free.
"AMD is aware that interested third parties, including major media organizations, have filed a motion with the court seeking to unseal various documents that the parties to the AMD v Intel U.S. antitrust suit filed under the protective order in that case. AMD does not oppose the motion," the company said rather bluntly.
For its part, Intel has sent a letter "indicating that we would like to cooperate with their requirements," said spokesman Chuck Mulloy. "However, it is a very complex matter with more parties than Intel and AMD involved, including scores of third parties . . . We thought it would be reasonable to sit down and talk to them about it.
"We are a bit surprised by the motion."
Some of the third parities involved include major technology companies such as HP, Dell and IBM. Intel's historic pricing and marketing practices with these companies are being scrutinized as part of AMD's allegations that Intel manipulated PC and server makers effectively into boycotting AMD chips.
"We believe that Intel needs to make a serious effort to review its documents and limit its redactions to those which are absolutely necessary, which we do not believe they have done so far," said David Finger of Finger & Slanina, LLC, the law firm representing the media companies and advocacy groups in this matter.
Due to a backlog of cases at the Delaware court, it's unclear when the motion to free up the information will be addressed. ®