Control Data Australia Memories compiled by Brian Membrey
Telex v. IBM : And the winner is …
Of course, the legal profession!
Following “Curioser and Curioser”, the major anti-
Telex versus IBM : The ball-
IBM files a $750,000 damages suit against the Telex Corporation alleging Telex refused to pay royalties under a July 1, 1966, agreement for use of I.B.M. patents in magnetic tape and disk equipment.
Telex Corporation files suit in the U.S. District Court in Tulsa, Oklahoma asking for the dissolution of IBM as a single entity for monopolizing and controlling the E.D.P. industry. The suit asks for treble damages under the Sherman Act totalling about $877 million.
Telex updates its $877 claim to include a request for a temporary (pending a permanent) injunction barring IBM from offering new long-
Judge Philip Neville of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minneapolis in St. Paul issues a restraining order barring IBM from announcing a new product line -
Judge Neville hears Telex's motion for a preliminary injunction preventing IBM from marketing its equipment on extended-
The Minnesota District Court denies both IBM's motion for a summary hearing and Telex's motion for a preliminary injunction.
A date of April 16 is set for the beginning of the Telex versus IBM trial under the direction of Judge A. Sherman Christensen in the District Court, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Telex asks the District Court in St. Paul to set aside the out-
IBM sues Telex for misappropriation of IBM trade secrets and aggressive pirating of IBM employees and asks the court for $25 million in damages.
IBM files suit against Telex charging breach of a 1966 patent agreement and asking for payment to IBM of royalties due under the agreement. Telex reacts by claiming this suit was only intended to divert attention from the antitrust case.
The District Court in Minneapolis denies the Telex motion to set aside the out-
Telex versus IBM goes before court Judge Christensen.
All testimony in the anti-
Telex requests that IBM pay $1.3 million in legal fees if it is found guilty of the anti-
After a trial, lasting 29 days, Judge Christensen finds IBM guilty of monopolization of the plug-
IBM complies with one of the provisions in Judge Christensen's decision by suspending collection of penalty charges under the fixed-
IBM and Telex both file motions seeking to amend the judgements made against them by the District Court. Telex requests Judge Christensen set the trial date for the case it wants to bring against IBM for monopolization in the international market.
Judge Christensen admits his computation of the anti-
Judge Christensen sets aside his $352.5 million judgement for Telex
Damages to be paid by IBM are reduced by $93 million, now to pay $259.5 million (three times the actual damages of $86.5 million found for its domination of the plug-
IBM and Telex complete delivery of their now-
and that IBM marketing was ”valid competitive practice and neither predatory nor otherwise violative of the antitrust acts”, and reverses the decision of the lower court on the basis of the arguments in IBM's counterclaim. Telex is fined $18.5 million in compensatory ($17.5m) and punitive damages (1m) on the theft of trade secrets charges.
Telex files for a rehearing of the anti-
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals denies Telex's petition for a rehearing.
Telex files an appeal on its anti-
Telex files that the $18.5 million judgement against it in favour of IBM would send it into insolvency and withdraws its appeal to the Supreme Court in the anti-
and the winner is ...
Well, perhaps not the clear-
“Numerous lawsuits are amassing in the Tulsa Court following the settlement of the Telex versus IBM suit a year previously , most pertaining to the payment of legal fees by Telex”.
As a precautionary measure, IBM also re-
Cases involved a former Telex attorney, Floyd Walker (Walker, Jackman & Associates, Inc) who claimed he was owed $1.5 million by Telex for services rendered under his employment contract -
IBM itself filed suit against Telex and its chairman Roger M. Wheeler, claiming that as part of the settlement agreement, he and Telex had agreed to compensate IBM for any loss, expense incurred in the anti-
(The Computerworld article adds "continued on page 46" ... go for it folks!
Here come de Judge!
Albert Sherman Christensen (1905-
January 30, 1972 Notes:
March 29, 1972 Notes:
February 2, 1972 Notes:
August 2, 1972 Notes:
September 11, 1972 Notes:
October 18 1972 Notes:
January 17, 1973 Notes:
January 24, 1973 Notes:
January 31, 1973 Notes:
February 7, 1973 Notes:
February 21, 1973 Notes:
April 16, 1973 Notes:
June 18, 1973 Notes:
July 25, 1973 Notes:
September 17, 1973 Notes:
September 27, 1973 Notes:
October 10, 1973 Notes:
October 16, 1973 Notes:
November 9, 1973 Notes:
May 14, 1974 Notes:
January 24, 1975 Notes:
March 5, 1975 Notes:
April 9, 1975 Notes:
June 11, 1975 Notes:
October 3, 1975 Notes:
|CDC : The Office|
|CDC : Early Executives|
|CDC : Frank Mullaney|
|Introducing the 1604|
|A Satellite Computer System|
|A Nebraskan's Success story|
|1963 :IBM in praise of Seymour Cray|
|The Bill Norris Scrapbooks >>|
|And Cedar Engineering|
|Roseville :The Plant That Wasn't|
|Bloomington : And One That Was|
|1973 : The I.B.M. settlement|
|Curiouser and Curiouser|
|Telex v IBM : the winner is ...|
|The New York Times says ...|
|"The Anti-Trust Division's Vietnam"|
|Service Bureau Corporation|
|Facts for Management|
|Facts for Management|
|Facts for the technical staff|
|Control Data Corporation|
|Scrapbooks : V1 Pages 01-60|
|Scrapbooks : V1 Pages 61-120|
|Scrapbooks : V1 Pages 121-180|
|Scrapbooks : V1 Pages 181-215|
|Scrapbooks : V2 Pages 001-060|
|Scrapbooks : V2 Pages 61-180|
|Scrapbooks : V2 Pages 181-240|
|Scrapbooks : V2 Pages 241-300|
|Scrapbooks : V2 Pages 301-331|