Intel Claims No Important Evidence Lost In AMD Antitrust Case - InformationWeek

InformationWeek is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

IoT
IoT
Business & Finance

Intel Claims No Important Evidence Lost In AMD Antitrust Case

The chipmaker claims the missing e-mails were the result of "human error" but adds it has alternative sources to retrieve any important data.

Intel, which acknowledged losing potential evidence in an antitrust suit filed by rival Advanced Micro Devices, said in court documents that an internal investigation showed that "nothing of any genuine significance" was lost.

Intel disclosed last month that e-mails that should have been saved might have been deleted, prompting U.S. District Judge Joseph Farnan Jr. to order the chipmaker to determine the importance of missing messages as evidence.

In the report filed with the court Monday evening and sent to InformationWeek, Intel acknowledged the loss of some e-mails that should have been saved after the suit was filed. However, Intel found no evidence that the loss was deliberate and said it was the result of "human error in attempting a challenging task -- in retrospect a task of such magnitude that it probably never could have been accomplished without some lapses."

"Fortunately, because of the ambitious program Intel put into place at the outset, Intel has the ability to remediate potential losses in an individual's e-mails from a multitude of alternative sources, and has a sound basis to believe that ultimately nothing of any genuine significance will prove to have been lost," Intel said in the 42-page report.

An AMD spokesman said in an e-mail that the company's legal counsel was in the process of studying the report and a "very dense and lengthy package of supporting materials" that had been filed with the court under seal as exhibits.

"We will be prepared to say more once we've had an opportunity to assess the materials and talk to witnesses inside Intel under oath regarding their document retention processes and related issues," the spokesman said.

Determining whether Intel was negligent in protecting potential evidence once notified of the lawsuit is important because of the punishment it could face. If Farnan decides Intel failed to take proper steps, he could fine the company million of dollars. 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 play a role in swaying the jury toward AMD.

In the report, Intel said human errors are unavoidable in producing what amounts to tens of millions of pages of documents. "This production will encompass many hundreds of Intel employees company-wide -- a massive level of document production almost certainly unmatched in any other case in the history of U.S. litigation."

As to reasons why Intel believed nothing of significance was lost, the company said the missing e-mails were sent by employees after the suit was filed, while all potential evidence before the filing was retained. In addition, Intel had duplicate layers of preservation, so materials not found in one level may be located in another. Also, AMD would eventually receive documents that allow it to determine the terms of every transaction between Intel and its customers, which should address the key issues in the case.

Intel in March acknowledged that for 3-1/2 months after AMD filed its suit on June 27, 2005, a small number of employees whose e-mails were considered potential evidence failed to move all messages to their hard drives, which means they would have been purged automatically from Intel's system. In addition, "a few" employees believed erroneously that Intel's IT group was automatically saving their e-mails.

The disclosure brought an angry response from AMD. While not accusing Intel of intentionally destroying evidence, the company questioned the effectiveness of the procedures Intel put in place to protect potential evidence created after the suit was filed. All available e-mails and documents created before the filing were copied to backup discs.

AMD's suit, filed in Delaware, accuses its rival of using improper tactics to maintain its monopoly with PC manufacturers.

We welcome your comments on this topic on our social media channels, or [contact us directly] with questions about the site.
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
2021 State of ITOps and SecOps Report
2021 State of ITOps and SecOps Report
This new report from InformationWeek explores what we've learned over the past year, critical trends around ITOps and SecOps, and where leaders are focusing their time and efforts to support a growing digital economy. Download it today!
InformationWeek Is Getting an Upgrade!

Find out more about our plans to improve the look, functionality, and performance of the InformationWeek site in the coming months.

News
How SolarWinds Changed Cybersecurity Leadership's Priorities
Jessica Davis, Senior Editor, Enterprise Apps,  5/26/2021
Commentary
How CIOs Can Advance Company Sustainability Goals
Lisa Morgan, Freelance Writer,  5/26/2021
Slideshows
IT Skills: Top 10 Programming Languages for 2021
Cynthia Harvey, Freelance Journalist, InformationWeek,  5/21/2021
Register for InformationWeek Newsletters
Video
Current Issue
Planning Your Digital Transformation Roadmap
Download this report to learn about the latest technologies and best practices or ensuring a successful transition from outdated business transformation tactics.
White Papers
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Sponsored Live Streaming Video
Everything You've Been Told About Mobility Is Wrong
Attend this video symposium with Sean Wisdom, Global Director of Mobility Solutions, and learn about how you can harness powerful new products to mobilize your business potential.
Sponsored Video
Flash Poll