Farnan gave Intel 30 days to figure out whether any relevant E-mails had been lost and to assess their importance as evidence, says an Intel spokesman. After AMD responds, a court-appointed mediator will report to Farnan, who will make a ruling.
Intel insists that there's no indication that any of the lost E-mails were pertinent to the case or contained damaging evidence. Intel must convince the judge it took proper steps to save evidence or it risks millions of dollars in fines. Or worse--the judge could decide during the trial to instruct jurors that they should assume that the E-mails lost would have been detrimental to Intel's defense. Such a move could give AMD an advantage.
The disclosure brought an angry response from AMD, which questioned the effectiveness of the procedures Intel put in place to protect potential evidence after the suit was filed. Intel is responsible for the "destruction of potentially massive amounts of evidence, reaching to the highest executive levels of the company," Thomas McCoy, AMD's chief administrative officer and executive VP of legal affairs, said in a statement.
![]()

![]()
Judge Joseph Farnan Jr. has rivals working together--sort of![]()
Stay connected and informed by visiting our Enterprise IT Community!

Become a member today for instant access to free InformationWeek research, expert advice, peer perspectives, and more on the following topics:
- Application Performance Management (APM)
- Security Management
- Mainframe 2.0
- IT Automation
- Service Assurance
Also, visit our Government, Retail and Financial Services groups to see how these technologies apply specifically to those industries.
NOTE: Offer valid for U.S., U.S. possessions, & Canada only.