HP, Oracle target pretrial wins in Itanium case
The onset of spring has brought about a rebirth of hostilities in the struggle between technology behemoths Hewlett-Packard Co. and Oracle Corp. The two companies have been battling for the last few years over a number of issues, but yesterday both parties sought pretrial victories in the dispute over whether...
March 27, 2012 at 07:27 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The onset of spring has brought about a rebirth of hostilities in the struggle between technology behemoths Hewlett-Packard Co. (HP) and Oracle Corp. The two companies have been battling for the past few years over a number of issues, but yesterday both parties sought pretrial victories in the dispute over whether Oracle can stop supporting the Itanium microprocessor.
In March 2011, Oracle announced it would discontinue Itanium support, claiming Intel Corp., the chip's manufacturer, said the chip was nearing the end of its life and Intel planned to refocus its efforts on a different microprocessor. HP, however, says Oracle agreed to continue supporting Itanium in an earlier accord over Oracle's hiring of former HP CEO Mark Hurd, and sued Oracle in California state court.
Oracle then countersued, claiming HP failed to disclose the terms of its contract with Intel.
“[It's] a publicity stunt in a broader campaign to lay the blame on Oracle for the disruption that will occur when HP's Itanium-based server business inevitably comes to an end,” Oracle said at the time.
Both parties argued before the court yesterday seeking judgment before the May 31 trial date. HP claimed that Oracle GC Dorian Daley had said at the time of the Hurd settlement that the settlement meant that the companies would continue to work together as they had in the past.
Oracle reiterated its position that Daley never intended the Hurt accord to be anything more than a symbolic statement, and was not legally binding.
“We don't believe, nor do we think HP really believes, that a settlement agreement relating to Mark Hurd's employment could possibly obligate Oracle to write new software for a platform that is clearly (at the) end of life,” an Oracle attorney said in a statement.
A hearing on HP and Oracle's requests is scheduled for April 30.
For more, read Reuters.
The onset of spring has brought about a rebirth of hostilities in the struggle between technology behemoths
In March 2011, Oracle announced it would discontinue Itanium support, claiming Intel Corp., the chip's manufacturer, said the chip was nearing the end of its life and Intel planned to refocus its efforts on a different microprocessor. HP, however, says Oracle agreed to continue supporting Itanium in an earlier accord over Oracle's hiring of former HP CEO Mark Hurd, and sued Oracle in California state court.
Oracle then countersued, claiming HP failed to disclose the terms of its contract with Intel.
“[It's] a publicity stunt in a broader campaign to lay the blame on Oracle for the disruption that will occur when HP's Itanium-based server business inevitably comes to an end,” Oracle said at the time.
Both parties argued before the court yesterday seeking judgment before the May 31 trial date. HP claimed that Oracle GC Dorian Daley had said at the time of the Hurd settlement that the settlement meant that the companies would continue to work together as they had in the past.
Oracle reiterated its position that Daley never intended the Hurt accord to be anything more than a symbolic statement, and was not legally binding.
“We don't believe, nor do we think HP really believes, that a settlement agreement relating to Mark Hurd's employment could possibly obligate Oracle to write new software for a platform that is clearly (at the) end of life,” an Oracle attorney said in a statement.
A hearing on HP and Oracle's requests is scheduled for April 30.
For more, read Reuters.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLululemon Faces Legal Fire Over Its DEI Program After Bias Complaints Surface
3 minute readOld Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
Lawsuit Against Amazon Could Reshape E-Commerce Landscape
Trending Stories
- 1Cars Reach Record Fuel Economy but Largely Fail to Meet Biden's EPA Standard, Agency Says
- 2How Cybercriminals Exploit Law Firms’ Holiday Vulnerabilities
- 3DOJ Asks 5th Circuit to Publish Opinion Upholding Gun Ban for Felon
- 4GEO Group Sued Over 2 Wrongful Deaths
- 5Revenue Up at Homegrown Texas Firms Through Q3, Though Demand Slipped Slightly
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250