Judge tells New York to bog off on Intel vs Nvidia antitrust papers

Intel has got jammy after a judge decided not to allow a New York Attorney General to obtain information in an ongoing antitrust claim against the company.

The New York Attorney General applied to gain records from a case between Intel and Nvidia, which was settled earlier this year. It wanted to review the papers following a current investigation into Intel antitrust claims.

Intel sued Nvidia in 2009 in a dispute over whether Nvidia had the rights to keep making a type of chip that used an Intel design – without a new licence deal. However, Nvidia was having none of it. It countersued and claimed it was covered by a deal the pair made back in 2004.

The suit was settled earlier this year, and Intel seemingly shot itself in the foot as it was the one which had to shell out $1.5 billion.

As a result of the payout, Nvidia is reluctant to talk to the New York authorities, meaning they have turned to trying to obtain the court documents.  

Delaware Chancery Court Judge Leo Strine has rejected these claims. He has said the documents were solely for the purpose of the Delaware litigation and not for other Intel investigations.

This of course has angered the authorities, who, according to Bloomberg, have called the move “ridiculous.”

Stine is sticking to his guns, telling the authorities:that Intel already had turned over all documents in the Delaware case to New York’s lawyers.

Intel has been shrouded in controversy for what feels like forever, but is technically just the last 14 months. There have been antitrust claims surrounding its chips and code of practice. As a result it agreed to shell out more than $2.7 billion in settlements, including the $1.5 billion accord with Nvidia.

Last year it also made a pact with the Federal Trade Commission, where it promised that it would not use exclusive deals to block customers from choosing its rivals’ products. It was alleged that Intel bought out the competition for exclusive rights to Intel chips – creating a false monopoly.