Source: http://www.hagley.lib.de.us/library/collections/manuscripts/findingaids/ibmantitrustpart1.ACC1912.htm
Timestamp: 2013-05-23 04:02:02
Document Index: 6754881

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1292', '§ 1292', '§ 1292', '§ 1292', '§ 1292', 'arts 1']

I.B.M. Antitrust Suit Records1969-1980
Finding aid forI.B.M. Antitrust Suit Records1969-1980(72 linear feet)
Accession 1912
P.O. Box 3630 Wilmington, DE 19807-0630 Table of contents
This collection of I.B.M. antitrust suit records includes discovery documents, trial transcripts, plaintiff and defendant
exhibits, and depositions.
RestrictionsProvenanceProcessing info
Added entriesContact informationCollection overview
Series I. United States v. International Business Machines Corporation. Court Records, 1969-1982.
Series II. Control Data Corporation v. International Business Machines Corporation and Commercial Credit Company. Court Records, 1972-1973.
Series III. Greyhound Computer Corporation, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corporation. Court Records, 1972.
Series IV. The Telex Corporation and Telex Computer Products, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corporation. 1963 - 1975.
Series V. California Computer Products, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corporation. Court Records, 1953 - 1977.
Series VI. International Business Machines Corporation v. United States and IBM and Cravath, Swaine & Moore v. U.S., 1973.
Series VII. International Business Machines Corporation v. Catamore Enterprises, Inc. Court Records, 1972 - 1977.
Appendix A. Index of Depositions for Series I. U.S. v. IBMInventory
Series I. United States v. International Business Machines Corporation
Series II. Control Data Corporation v. International Business Machines Corporation and Commercial Credit Company
Series III. Greyhound Computer Corporation, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corporation
Series IV. The Telex Corporation and Telex Computer Products Inc. v. International Business Machines Corporation
Series V. California Computer Products, Inc. v. IBM
Series VI. IBM v. U.S. and IBM and Cravath, Swaine & Moore v. U.S. in U.S. Court of Appeals
Series VII. IBM v. Catamore Enterprises, Inc.
The U.S. Department of Justice began preliminary inquiries in 1964 into possible antitrust violations on the part of IBM.
The complaint filed in January 1969, led to the longest and most complex of the antitrust suits brought against IBM. Earlier
actions, filed by the Justice Department against `Big Blue,' included a 1932 indictment
This suit also named Remington Rand, Inc. as a co-defendant because of agreements between the two major operators in the tabulating
machine field which amounted to conspiracy in restraint of trade, a violation of the Clayton Act. The government's suit charged
that IBM and Remington Rand had agreed not to sell tabulating machines, but only to lease them and to conform to certain minimum
for illegal tying-in agreements, a form of contract which required customers to purchase supplies used with leased equipment
from the lessor, in this case, tabulating cards. In January 1952 a charge of monopolizing and attempting to monopolize the
tabulating machine industry, infringements of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, was filed.
IBM had achieved, prior to the Second World War, a dominant position in the market for electro-mechanical punched-card tabulating
equipment and office machines, through the adroit and aggressive management of Thomas J. Watson. The firm entered the electronic
data processing market, under Thomas J. Watson, Jr.'s equally determined and skillful management, and rapidly attained a large
market share. Like other early entrants in the electronic data processing (EDP) field, IBM relied heavily on government contracts
for its early research and development. Its connections with the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Atomic Energy Commission
(AEC) were the strongest, but other federal agencies and the defense establishment were also crucial. It has been
estimated that, as late as 1963, IBM drew 35% of their financing of R&D costs from government sources.
Kenneth Flamm. Creating the Computer: Government, Industry and High Technology, (The Brookings Institution, 1988), p. 94.
The development of the SAGE system for the Air Force, and the STRETCH systems for the AEC and NSA, in addition to allowing
the participating firms
The contractors on SAGE included AT&T's Bell Telephone Labs and Western Electric, Burroughs, RCA, GE, and Bendix, in addition
to recoup a substantial portion of their initial R&D expenditures, enabled the early manufacturers of electronic digital computers
to establish a sound foundation of technical personnel, programming techniques, manufacturing technologies and other know-how
that made entry into the commercial market most promising. The design of a number of components, such as high-performance
micro alloy diffused transistors (MADTs) and core memories, and the Standard Modular Systems (SMS) printed circuit card assembly
technologies were among the innovations developed in the STRETCH program that were fully incorporated in IBM's commercial
products, such as the 7080 transistorized business computer
The scientific version, the 7090, was developed for use in the Ballistic Missile Early Warning System (BMEWS).
and the 1401 small business computer.
Neither these technological innovations, nor the advantages accruing to government contractors in early EDP development, were
the determining factors of IBM's success. Many observers of the computer industry in the 1950s would have evaluated Sperry
Rand's position in these areas as superior to IBM's.
Nancy S. Dorfman, Innovation and Market Structure: Lessons from the Computer and Semiconductor Industries, (Ballinger Publishing, 1987), pp. 53-57.
Maintaining exclusive
control over the technology or the technicians in a rapidly growing industry was clearly impossible for IBM. If fact, the
1956 Consent Decree, which settled the antitrust suit of 1952. mandated that IBM adopt a rather liberal policy of licensing
technologies to other manufacturers.
Richard Thomas DeLarmarter. Big Blue: IBM's Use and Abuse of Power. (Dodd. Mead & Co., 1986), p. 341. Even this critic of IBM allowed that the provisions of the 1956 Consent Decree were strictly
adhered to by IBM.
Technological expertise in the form of engineering and technical personnel, also frequently moved from one manufacturer to
another, but, unlike licensing agreements, these offered no compensation to firms like IBM, who had entered the EDP field
in the 1950s and had assembled staffs of qualified engineers, programmers, and sales and service personnel. It has been recognized,
therefore, that the combination of IBM's R&D ventures in EDP with its well-established marketing and service expertise, its
dominance in the tabulating machines market, and its overall financial health, all contributed to its tremendous success in
commercial production and promotion of computers. With the introduction of the IBM's integrated System 360 product line in
1964, the industry giant's success and its reputation for monopolization of its markets, gave both the government and IBM's
competition cause for alarm. The economies of scale available to IBM, both because of its market share and of the manufacturing
innovations developed for earlier systems, made rival firms, particularly Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs). Plug-Compatible
Manufacturers (PCMs) and peripherals manufacturers, virtually dependant on accepting `Big Blue's' standards, particularly
after the introduction of the integrated System 360. The other manufacturers of full systems of EDP equipment, such as Burroughs,
Sperry Rand. Digital
Equipment, Xerox, Honeywell. NCR and Control Data found specialization in specific market niches their best strategy.
Because IBM's success in the computer industry was attributable to so many diverse factors, the antitrust actions in which
it was involved reflect this complexity. Not only were the advantages of IBM's early government contracts and connections
examined in great detail, but its marketing practices, product development and support, sales and lease arrangements and service
contracts, and other business policies, were also scrutinized for monopolistic practices.
The principal case documented by this collection was filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York on 17
January 1969. The Justice Department alleged that IBM was again in violation of the Sherman Act in the general purpose digital
computer systems market. The case went to trial in May, 1975, and if measured on the volume of material generated, the case
may be considered a landmark. The litigation itself, however, has had remarkably little direct impact on the competitive atmosphere
of the computer industry, for on 8 January 1982. Assistant Attorney General William F. Baxter concluded that the case against
IBM was without merit and signed a Stipulation of Dismissal. Had the case ended with a judgement, or had the court adopted
any of the Relief Proposals of the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), the Association of Data Processing
Service Organizations (ADAPSO), or other firms in the industry, this would certainly not have been true. The arrangements
and solutions discussed in the 1970s, included various schemes for the dismemberment and division of the computer industry
giant, much as was done with AT&T. What effect the suit has had on the IBM's activities in the marketplace,
therefore, has been more akin to moral suasion. Clearly, corporate decision making, not only at IBM, but for all firms with
large market shares, will adjust to the prevailing atmosphere at the Department of Justice.
Concurrent with the government's case, numerous civil suits were brought against IBM by others in the industry. The majority
of the private legal proceedings, filed against IBM in the 1970s, charged the firm with antitrust violations, either under
provisions of the Clayton Act or the Sherman Act. These civil suits entitled the plaintiff to claim treble damages and typically
alleged that IBM's behavior in the leasing, peripherals and components, or software markets, was exclusionary, predatory,
demonstrated intent to monopolize or some other anticompetitive attribute. These cases include: Advanced Memory Systems, Inc.; ITEL Memory Equipment Corporation; ITEL Computer Leasing Corporation v. IBM, Applied Data Research,
Inc. v. IBM. Vernon M. Bugg v. IBM and AT&T, California Computer Products, Inc. and Century Data Systems, Inc. v. IBM, Control
Data Corporation v. IBM. Data Processing Financial & General v. IBM, Data Research Corporation, International Data Terminals,
Inc. and Western Union Computer Utilities Corporation v. IBM, Eaton Allen Corporation v. IBM. Forro Precision Inc. v. IBM.
and counterclaim suit IBM v. Forro Precision Inc., Greyhound Computer v. IBM, Hudson General Corporation v. IBM. Levin Computer Company v. IBM.
The William Marion Co. v. IBM, Marshall Industries v. IBM. Memorex Corporation and ILC v. IBM. Memorex Corporation v. IBM
and counterclaim suit IBM v. Memorex Corporation, Memorex S.A. v.
IBM.Notes
This complaint was filed with European Economic Community (EEC) Directorate General for Competition. The charges alleged violations
of Article 86 of the Treaty of Rome, which formed the Common Market. The Directorate General, acting much like the U.S. Department
of Justice, actually files the suit when its investigation determines that the complaints warrant such action.
Memory Technology, Inc. v. IBM. Mira-Pak. Inc. v. IBM. Reynolds Computer Corporation v. IBM. Sanders Associates Inc. v. IBM.
Symbolic Controls Corporation v. IBM, The Telex Corporation and Telex Computer Products Corp. v. IBM, and Transamerica Computer Company v. IBM. Many of these suits were eventually dismissed by the court or withdrawn by the plaintiff “with prejudice,” precluding appeals
or refiling of the suit against IBM. A portion of the plaintiff's legal costs were often paid by IBM, when an out of court
settlement was reached.
As will often happen, even the attempt to settle litigation can spawn further court actions. The 1973 settlement with Control
Data Corporation (CDC), for example, provoked Albert R. Weiss and William A. Robinson v. IBM, and Marihelen Jones, et. al. v. IBM. These cases were brought on the grounds that IBM's subsidiary, Service Bureau Corporation (SBC), although a separate legal
entity, was a mere framework to allow IBM to comply with the 1956 Consent decree. The employees of SBC were, for all intents
and purposes, employed by IBM and the transfer of the subsidiary to Control Data amounted to a breach of employment contract
with the plaintiffs. The SBC employees pointed particularly to the clause in the agreement with CDC which specified that former
SBC employees could not be rehired by IBM for a period of six years.
Other efforts, on the part of IBM to seek redress of its losses, occasioned countersuits. The 1973 Grand Jury investigation
for conspiracy in the theft of trade
secrets from IBM's San Jose disk drive facility, provoked another sort of complaint against IBM. In Wolfgang Arnold v. IBM, the plaintiff claimed a violation of his civil rights in obtaining a search warrant of his home leading to his arrest and
indictment for the theft of trade secrets. Charges against Arnold had been dismissed on 3 April 1974.
Even IBM's routine collection suits in the 1970s, such as IBM v. Catamore Enterprises, Inc., IBM v. VIP Systems Corporation, often resulted in counterclaim suits with charges including fraud, breach of contract, and the ever-popular monopolization
and antitrust violations.
In a countersuit emerging from Telex v. IBM. Information Storage Systems, Inc. (ISS), a subsidiary of Sperry Rand Corporation was charged as a co-defendant in a complaint
charging non-payment of royalties and patent infringement of disk drive ISS was supplying to Telex. A five-year cross-licensing
agreement was concluded between Sperry Rand and IBM in 1974 and IBM dropped charges against ISS.
Other patent infringement suits include: Norfin, Inc. v. IBM, Sycor. Inc. v. IBM, and William H. Wolowitz and Frallen Inc. v. U.S., in which IBM was named as a third-party defendant. Ampex Corporation, although no suit was filed, negotiated a settlement
with IBM in return for not pursuing its allegations of patent infringement and antitrust violations by IBM. Xerox Corporation
and IBM carried on eight years of litigation involving patents for office copying and electronic typewriting machines, ending
in August 1978 with the mutual exchange of patent rights and payment of $25 million by IBM.
Some of the litigation in which IBM was involved, however, was quite unusual. The alleged failure of IBM to warn or protect
shareholders from fraudulent use of IBM computers was charged in Equity Funding Shareholders v. IBM. Royal Data v. IBM charged that IBM sales staff spread false rumors that the plaintiff was connected with the Mafia, thereby driving the Las
Vegas firm out of business in early 1973. Royal Data originally sought $50,000 in punitive damages and $4,000/day for each
day it was out of business but later raised ante to a total of $6.5 million.
Throughout the 1970s, probably the most litigious decade of the computer industry's short existence, IBM's overall average
was successful. Nearly all of the suits were either dismissed, settled out of court, or if decided against IBM, reversed on
appeal. Despite some substantial financial settlements, no admission of wrongdoing ever emanated from IBM's corporate headquarters
in Armonk, New York.
The impact of these antitrust actions extends beyond the computer or data processing industries. This litigation has generated
much debate about points raised by monopoly charges -- the definitions of market scope and share, the distinctions between
competitive and predatory behavior, and the burdens associated with prosecuting the charge of “intent” to monopolize trade.
As these issues are likely to be the focus of important discussions among jurists, economists, and many in business, the documentary
evidence contained in this collection will be a valuable resource for those interested in this important aspect of American
business. This chapter of the development of the data processing industries has raised more questions than it has answered
about our understanding of competitive markets and free enterprise in dynamic growth industries.
The Computer Industry Association is a non-profit trade association, formed in 1972 by the presidents of seven companies in
the computer industry. The organization was created to provide a forum for these companies to express their opinions, needs,
and problems to those outside of the industry. The goal was to put together an association that would speak for all segments
of the computer industry with specific reference to the problems of competition and monopoly. Its purpose is “to bring about
the establishment and preservation of a sound and viable U.S. computer industry, based upon the unrestricted exploitation
of technology and free and open competition.” Establishing standards in the computer industry and lobbying for favorable legislation
were also seen as concerns of the Computer Industry Association. In 1977, the association's name was changed to Computer and
Communications Industry Association (CCIA).
The collection accessioned by Hagley was created by the Computer and Communications Association and consists largely of documents
that became part of the public record as a consequence of the antitrust litigation against IBM. Since the potential for a
complete restructuring of the computer industry was likely, were the government's case successful, most firms in the computer
and electronic data processing (EDP)
Electronic Data Processing or EDP is often used interchangeably with Automatic Data Processing or ADP.
businesses were very interested in the proceedings of these lawsuits. CCIA obtained permission to reproduce documents from
the courts' records, which were then made available to the association's membership, for a fee.
This collection owes much of its character and content to the influences of its various `collectors.' First, as documents in legal proceedings, those items entered as evidence have been separated from their context and cannot document, as fully as corporate records might, the actions associated with their original creation. In addition to the selection process imposed
by the needs of legal argument and defense, the Computer and Communications Industry Association, in it's role as a collector
of these records, also culled and arranged the documents. And, finally, the collection at the Hagely Museum and Library is
one of two incomplete sets of the antitrust suit records. The Charles Babbage Institute Collection of Computer and Communications
Industry Association United States v. IBM Records
The Charles Babbage Institute Collection of Computer and Communications Industry Association United States v. IBM Records, ca. 1940-1980, CBI 13. A collection of Telex v. IBM records, also collected by the CCIA, is available at the Baker Library of the Harvard Business School, in addition to those
records from the case housed at the Charles Babbage Institute and Hagley Museum & Library.
was also obtained from the CCIA. The fact that neither repository has a complete set of the records, has itself affected both
the arrangement description of these collections.
Given the nature of the relationships and roles of antitrust litigants, it is not surprising that the documents offer the
greatest degree of detail for IBM. IBM divisions involved in the design, development, research, manufacturing, testing, marketing
or maintenance of EDP equipment are well represented in this series. Nearly seventy corporate executives responsible for planning
and policy decisions were deposed at length. A great many reports, minutes, and memoranda were culled from IBM's files, and
presented by the government, as well as by the defense, both differing from and duplicating one another's evidence.
IBM adopted a standard antitrust defense strategy, that the firm's “superior skill, foresight, and industry” were responsible
for its position in and share of the EDP market. Apropos of this position, much of the evidence presented by the defense documents
those IBM practices, policies, and decisions that demonstrate the company's contributions to advanced research, commitment
to pure research (through university grants and support programs), attention to customer relations issues, and so on. The
documents also illustrate the hard-fought corporate struggles over particular responses to market pressures. The System/360
model 44 `scientific' computer is a good example of the battles within IBM's upper-management over the timing of product releases,
the amount of programming support to offer customers, and, in general, how the firm could best respond to the demands of the
marketplace and the needs of its customers. A notable aspect of these management decisions, is the extent to which Thomas
J. Watson, Jr., Frank Cary, and T. V. Learson, i.e. the chairman of the board, actively participated in technical and engineering
planning decisions. In an industry where technological innovation occurs rapidly, and product improvements respond to advances
in scientific understanding, the extent of a firm's “foresight” may be found in management's planning decisions.
The Hagley Museum and Library's Collection of IBM Antitrust Suits Records has been divided into seven series, corresponding
to the antitrust lawsuits represented by these documents. The Department of Justice's case. United States v. International Business Machines Corporation, because of its size and importance, is Series I. The private civil lawsuits consist of four cases which named IBM as a defendant,
Series II. Control Data Corporation v. International Business Machines Corporation and Commercial
Credit Company. Series III. Greyhound Computer Corporation. Inc. v. International Business Machines Corporation, Series IV. The Telex Corporation and Telex Computer Products, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corporation, and Series V. California Computer Products. Inc. v. International Business Machines Corporation. Two lawsuits, Series VI. International Business Machines Corporation v. United States and IBM and Cravath, Swaine & Moore v. U.S. and Series VII. International Business Machines Corporation v. Catamore Enterprises. Inc., in which IBM was the plaintiff, complete the collection. These series are organized in chronological order according to the
filing date of the complaint.
The types of documents in a particular series often comprise several distinct forms, such as trial transcripts, exhibits and
depositions, and non-evidentiary court documents like motions, stipulations, court orders, memoranda, and other legal filings.
Wherever possible, these records have been arranged into subseries, according to their form; individual files and documents
are either in chronological or sequential order according to the court-assigned docket or exhibit numbers. In some instances,
principally in Series I, U.S. v. IBM. physical arrangement into the subseries that would have logically emerged from these documents, i.e., depositions, motions,
defense and plaintiff exhibits, was not possible. The photocopy and microform reproductions of the court record produced by
CCIA were often bound together in volumes which reflect a filing arrangement created by the Association. This organization
roughly follows the order in which such documents were entered as docket items in the District Court. To some extent, therefore,
legal documents, motions and memoranda, for example, are arranged according to the date of their creation. Some occasional
attempt appears to have been made by CCIA, however, to group together materials of like subject matter.
Thus, `Materials Relating to the Production of Documents' are contained in CCIA volume 1, although they are not the earliest
created documents in the case, and, in fact, were generated some four years after the original complaint was filed. Likewise,
CCIA volumes containing exhibit materials and those comprised of non-evidentiary court documents are often intermixed in the
sequential number system imposed by CCIA.
The Collection of IBM Antitrust Suits Records at the Hagley Museum and Library is not a complete copy of the court records
for any of the antitrust litigation involving IBM. There are significant and notable gaps in each of the series. In some cases,
these deficiencies simply indicate clerical omissions or oversight. In other instances, however, the items not reproduced
by the Computer and Communications Industry Association reflect the association's estimation of the material's value or interest
for its membership. This is particularly so in the case of the records for Telex v. IBM, where the association copied very few of the defense exhibits. The litigants and the court itself also imposed restrictions
on some of materials which are part of the court record. As CCIA was required to obtain the approval of the court for the
duplication of the exhibits, sensitive materials, i.e., those containing proprietary information and documents protected by
claims of privilege, were not available to CCIA and, therefore, did not become part of this collection.
The researcher may also find these materials difficult to use due to the unreliable quality of the reproductions. In spite
of these limitations, the collection provides a remarkable resource, if only because it brings together so much information
from such a large number of firms in the domestic EDP industry for the crucial decades of the 1950s through the 1970s.
Gift of Computer and Communications Industry Association
Processed by Gail P. Dunleavy
The Computer and Communications Industry Association also gave a collection of I.B.M. antitrust suit records to the Charles
Babbage Institute at the University of Minnesota. Hagley also has another collection of I.B.M. antitrust suit records in Accession
California Computer Products, Inc.
Cary, Frank T. (Frank Taylor), 1920-.
Century Data Systems, Inc.
Competition--Computer industry.
Computer leasing.
Eckert, J. Presper (John Presper), 1919-1995.
Greyhound Computer Corporation.
Greyhound Leasing and Financial Corporation.
Hudson Leasing Corporation.
IBM 360 (Computer).
IBM 370 (Computer).
IBM 650 (Computer).
Learson, T. Vincent (Thomas Vincent), 1912-.
Leeds and Northrup Company.
Memorex Corporation.
Opel, John R. (John Roberts), 1925-.
Potter Instrument Company, Inc.
Rodgers, F. G. (Francis G.).
SAGE (Air defense system).
Storage Technology Corporation.
Telex Computer Products, Inc.
Telex Corporation.
[http://www.hagley.lib.de.us]P.O. Box 3630Wilmington, DE 19807-0630©1988
The records found in this Series constitute the largest and most significant portion of the collection. Their research value
is as broad and diverse as the number of issues covered by the suit itself. While only three subseries have been established
for these documents, the forms of the materials could logically be divided into at least five categories: 1) trial transcripts,
2) court documents, 3) depositions and their exhibits, 4) plaintiff and defense trial exhibits, and 5) the documents created
by or for CCIA about the trial or as references to the materials reproduced. The court documents, such as memoranda, orders,
stipulations, motions, and affidavits, were interfiled and bound with the pre-trial evidentiary materials, i.e., the depositions
and their exhibits, and with the trial exhibits. As these documents represent distinct forms, with different values for the
researcher, they are described separately. Appendices to the inventory offer retrieval lists based on these distinct forms,
although they have not been boxed in separate subseries.
The trial transcript provides a nearly complete record of the court proceedings extending from May 1975 through November 1981.
The government's case spans May 19, 1975 through April 26, 1978 and the defense rested its case on June 1, 1981. The transcript
contains not only the direct testimony and cross-examinations of witnesses appearing in the courtroom, but also includes a
number of depositions, taken in the discovery process, under oath but out-of-court, that Chief Judge David N. Edelstein caused
to be read into the transcript record, to an empty bench. Exhibits offered by the parties or provided by the witnesses were
also sporadically reproduced
in the trial transcript. More usually, the evidence was separately logged by the court and organized according to the assigned
exhibit numbers.
The non-evidentiary documents of the court:
In Series I, subseries B, non-evidentiary materials, depositions, and exhibits are physically intermixed.
memoranda, motions, interrogatories, etc., are self-explanatory genres. These documents include pre-trial items and therefore
cover a broader time span than does the transcript, from January 1969 through January 1982. They offer not only an insight
into prosecution and defense strategies throughout the litigation, but also into the fundamental issues of market definition,
market share measurement, and opportunities for entry into the market. A number of motions, some of protracted length, were
entered by parties who had been subpoenaed by the litigants, seeking, in general, to have the subpoena quashed and vacated.
These dockets offer some perspective on the attitudes in the financial community, the computer industry and the civil service,
to the antitrust suit.
The depositions, over 500 of which appear in this subseries, were taken between 1972 and 1974. They include extensive testimony
from IBM executives. Many government agencies, such as the Atomic Energy Commission, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Science Foundation, FBI, Federal Trade Commission, General Services Administration, National Air and Space Administration,
the Bureau of the Census and, the National Bureau of Standards, as well as the Army, Navy, and Air Force are represented.
In addition to EDP systems manufacturers like Honeywell, Burroughs and Sperry Rand (UNIVAC),
The government, primarily on the testimony of Frederic G. Withington and Alan K. McAdams, had determined that the market IBM
was accused of monopolizing, was comprised of only four manufacturers: IBM, Burroughs, Honeywell and Univac.
the testimonies of executives from other important firms, such as Control Data Corporation, NCR, and Harris, are also found
in these depositions. Of the many manufacturers of plug-compatible and peripheral devices, Amdahl, Advanced Memory Systems,
CalComp, Cambridge Memories, Electronic Memories and Magnetics, Memorex, Intel, Lockheed Aircraft, National Semiconductor,
Itel, Telex and Storage Technology Corporation are among the firms represented. Alathus, GE, Shared Medical Systems, CIT Leasing,
Greyhound Computer are among the leasing companies, time-sharing firms and service bureaus deposed.
Among the significant firms in the EDP industry whose depositions are missing from this collection are: Hewelett-Packard,
Xerox, Digital Equipment Corporation, Data General, Motorola, Prime Computer, Perkin-Elmer, and Wang Labs. The depositions
of commercial end-users, such as American Airlines, Chemical Bank, Union Carbide, were excluded. While some depositions are
available for a number of government agencies, there are, perhaps, again as many that were not reproduced here. A listing
of deponents not included here, but identified as part of the court record, may be found in the appendices to this inventory.
It should also be remembered that the government's case specifically excluded foreign manufacturers. Firms such as Mitsubishi,
Fujitsu, Hitachi, and Nippon Electric in Japan, the Dutch electronics firm, Philips, the British conglomerate, International
Computers Limited (ICL), the German firms, Nixdorf, Siemans, and Bandische Anilin und Soda-Fabriken (BASF), and the French
Compagnie International pour l'Informatique (CII), for example, were, naturally, not subpoenaed or deposed. The only material,
therefore, relating to these and other non-U.S. companies is found in the trial exhibits of domestic firms which had 1) some
relationship with foreign manufacturers (e.g., the Telex/Hitachi agreement to produce plug-compatible central processing units
(CPUs) or the CII-Honeywell-Bull agreement), 2) a significant share of a foreign market or, 3) whose primary domestic market
was experiencing inroads from foreign competitors (e.g., peripheral and plug-compatible manufacturers).
The testimonies, both of witnesses who appeared in court and of those deposed during the pre-trial discovery process under
the subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum,Notes
The subpoena specifically required deponents to provide certain documents, such as annual reports, to the court.
were often accompanied by trial and deposition exhibits. These offer some of the most interesting and diverse documentation
in this case. They include annual reports, financial records, 10-K reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission, a large
variety of correspondence and intercompany memoranda, as well as in-house studies and reports of the marketplace and of competitive
firms, from many companies in the EDP industry. The range of subjects covered by these documents varies for each firm, but
most of the major Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) and Plug-Compatible Manufacturers (PCMs) are represented in a fairly
broad and extensive fashion.
Subseries A. Trial Transcripts. 19 May 1975 - 6 November 1981.
(22 linear feet.)
The transcripts are arranged in chronological order. There are gaps in the copy of the transcript, generally only one day
or 50-100 pages of transcript. A significant omission, however, appears between 14 February 1979 and 19 September 1979 where
a total of 2,150 pages of the trial record are missing.
Subseries B. Court Documents, 1953-1982.
(47 2/3 linear feet.)
These documents are arranged according to volume and folder numbers assigned by the Computer and Communications Industry Association.
The volumes with CCIA numbers between 1 and 1900 generally contain evidentiary material, such as depositions and exhibits,
or legal documents, of which motions, petitions, stipulations, interrogatories, transcripts of pre-trial hearings, memoranda,
and affidavits, are representative types.
Trial exhibits are found throughout this series, but are the only type of document contained in volumes numbered 1900 or higher.
That is, of the more than 300 volumes of exhibits in this series, approximately 41% are intermixed with other types of documents.
In some instances, the exhibit volumes comprise materials dealing with essentially the same subject material, e.g., Plaintiff
exhibits relating to IBM's System/360 model 44 `scientific' computer, or the implementation of IBM's Fixed Term Plan (FTP)
leasing program in the early 1970s. Additional exhibits are also found at the end of this series. These are volumes that were
not numbered by CCIA. They include evidence dealing with a particular subject, such as Standards Policy, or contain only one
exhibit per volume, such as the Company Capability Study reports.
Subseries C. Documents Created by/for CCIA.
(3 2/3 linear feet.)
This subseries is composed of various indices, clipping files, and other documents created by the Computer and Communications
Industry Association. They provide useful cross-references and item lists and it is expected that the items in this subseries
will be used in conjunction with this inventory.
Most of the indices and cross-referencing lists assembled by CCIA, or by Ed Burnett Consultants for the association, are not
complete and are less useful for the later years of court proceedings. They do, however, provide valuable tools for researchers
using this collection. Wherever the materials contained in this subseries, or similar reference tools prepared for the other
See Series IV. Telex v. IBM, Subseries C, below.
offer sufficiently detailed access to the individual items, this inventory contains only a brief description of the materials
in that subseries. Generally, the description and arrangement of the collection reflect the form followed by CCIA in these
lists and cross-references. Detailed descriptions were included in this inventory only when no other adequate listing of the material was to be found among the documents created by CCIA.
The volumes and files organized by CCIA include a table of contents, listing and describing each of the items reproduced there.
Because these contents pages offer a valuable retrieval tool and provide a detailed item-by-item description of the court
documents and evidence,
they have been reproduced and arranged here according to the boxes in which volumes are to be found. Contents pages for CCIA
volumes in The Charles Babbage Institute Collection of Computer and Communications Industry Association United States v. IBM
The Charles Babbage Institute Collection of Computer and Communications Industry Association United States v. IBM Records, ca. 1940-1980, CBI 13.
are interfiled with those for the volumes Hagley possesses. Researchers may, therefore, use these pages in conjunction with
the inventory prepared by the Charles Babbage Institute, as well as with this inventory.
The Numerical Index, Alpha-Index of Key Names & Categories, Exhibit Indices, and Witness-Exhibit Index all offer varying degrees
of access to the court materials based on docket or exhibit numbers, personal and corporate names, and key words. All of these
references provide extremely detailed access to the court documents, but none, unfortunately, extend to items entered into
the court record after 1976.
In addition to the cross-reference lists and indices, CCIA also created or compiled reports analyzing the case, collections
of trial exhibits pertaining to issues of particular importance to the industry association, and reports of the trial proceedings.
The analysis reports were prepared by J. Thomas Franklin for the Computer and Communications Industry Association, and offer
its perspective and interpretation of the proceedings. `Daily Report' and `Weekly Analysis.' produced by International Data
Corp. Trial Reporting Service and `Trial Monitor.' prepared by Sweeney & Franklin, are collections of copyrighted analysis
reports and narrative descriptions of the trial proceedings. They offer a concise overview of the trial for 1975 and 1976.
Researchers may refer to these reports to identify portions of the trial transcript and testimony for closer examination.
The clippings files supplement the reports by providing selected items of press coverage of the trial. The clippings are principally
from trade journals, Computerworld. EDP Weekly, Datamation, Electronic News. Computer News. and Computer Decisions. Other publications represented here include The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, L.A. Times. Washington Post. Christian Science Monitor, Business Week, Dun's Review.
The Boston Globe, and The Chicago Tribune. The clippings provide a good overview, not only to the progress of the Justice Department's case, but also to the more than
40 private litigation cases involving IBM in the 1970s. In addition, the clippings files cover events from 1972 through 1982,
offering some of the broadest chronological coverage in this collection.
Compilations of trial exhibits (some from Telex v. IBM), documents from other public sources, and reports produced by the CCIA staff, were created which bring together evidence relating
to specific issues or topics, such as minicomputers, satellite communications, programming.
The remainder of this subseries consists of miscellaneous files documenting some of CCIA's activities. The topics covered
include Freedom of Information requests, documents relating to the subpoena
served by the court on CCIA, correspondence with the trade association's attorneys, and incomplete lists and notes. Some of
the most interesting items in these files concern the various proposals for relief. Not only are the proposals of the Computer
and Communications Industry Association found here, but also the Joint Position Paper on Relief of Control Data Corporation.
Honeywell, NCR, and Sperry Rand Corporation, and the proposal of ADAPSO (Association of Data Processing Service Organizations).
It is unfortunate that so little of the court record from this, the first, antitrust suit against IBM, has become part of
this collection. While perhaps not as crucial a case as Telex v. IBM. it remains, by virtue of its timing alone, an important action against IBM and a precursor of much of the government's argument.
Indeed, depositions and testimony presented in this case, in conjunction with those from Telex v. IBM and Greyhound Computer Corporation v. IBM provide some of the important primary material on which the revenue measure of market share was determined in U.S. v. IBM.
The settlement of Control Data Corporation v. IBM also gave rise to a rather notorious debate on the question of attorneys' work product. The controversy refers to the `CDC
database,' prepared by Control Data legal staff as a means of organizing the evaluation of the
enormous quantity of documents subpoenaed from IBM. As part of the settlement agreement arranged by the litigants, the `CDC
database' was to be destroyed. The Justice Department and many firms with pending litigation against IBM were incensed at
this move, since they had expected to make use of the database, particularly in their pre-trial discovery programs. The most
vocal response to this turn of events came from The Telex Corporation, CCIA and Memorex. The documents relating to the offended
parties complaint against IBM and CDC offer fascinating insights into the legal skill and expertise of the counsel involved.
Another aspect of the settlement agreement which sparked further legal actions, was the sale of IBM's Service Bureau Corporation
(SBC) to Control Data. The agreement provided that employees of the Service Bureau would not be eligible for rehire by IBM
for six years. A number of the employees attempted to file a class-action suit against IBM and CDC, arguing that they had
been deprived of rights and opportunities accruing to IBM employees as a result of this action.
No documents, other than items in the clippings files above, are to be found in this collection for any of the SBC employees'
suits. See Albert Weiss v. IBM, and Marihelen Jones, et. al. v. IBM.
Subseries A. Court Documents, 1972-1973.
(2/3 linear feet.)
This series contains only two depositions from this antitrust suit and a small portion of documents relating to the destruction
of CDC's
database. None of the evidence that was the basis of Census I and the revenue measure of IBM's market share have been included
Little material from this trial has been preserved in this collection. Greyhound v. IBM is the only suit, of the cases represented here, involving a leasing company. The leasing company issue figures substantially
in IBM's defense in Justice Department's suit and a number of important questions are raised about the nature of and activity
in a marketplace where leasing companies play an influential role.
The suit, originally tried without a jury, was dismissed by the district court in 1972 with a directed verdict, after Greyhound
concluded its argument of the case. Greyhound appealed the decision, and a 1977 ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals found
that some of the charges against IBM may be found valid by a jury, and a new trial was ordered by the court. IBM filed a brief
with the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that the decision ordering a new trial would serve to intimidate competition, rather than
foster it, and that the retrial was a burden to the lower courts. IBM's appeal was denied in January 1978. The second trial
was set to begin on January 26, 1981. An out of court settlement was reached between Greyhound Computer Corporation and IBM
on January 27, 1981. Greyhound received $17.7 million and withdrew its suit `with prejudice.'
Subseries A. Trial Transcript. 24 May 1972 - 7 July 1972.
(2 linear feet.)
These documents are arranged in chronological order. A gap of 153 pages of transcript between 20 - 23 June 1972 exists in
The records from this lawsuit from the second largest series of the collection. The case of Telex v. IBM may be considered the most influential of the civil suits against `Big Blue.' As a result of Telex's initial victory, many
other firms also filed cases against IBM. The Justice Department, likewise, amended its complaint to incorporate the issues
successfully argued by Telex, in particular, the allegation that IBM's monopoly extended beyond the scope of the Justice Department's
claim to embrace the “submarket” for plug-compatible peripheral devices. When the case was reversed on IBM's appeal, some
of these issues continued to be pressed in U.S. v. IBM.
IBM's counterclaims raised a further important issue for the computer industry. The charges filed by IBM involved a 1973 Grand
Jury investigation into the theft of trade secrets from IBM's San Jose disc drive facility.
See also Wolfgang Arnold v. IBM.
Additional allegations charged Telex with unscrupulous behavior in the recruitment and hiring IBM engineers. Telex was not
successful in defending itself against these charges and was ordered to pay IBM $17.5 million in compensation and $1 million
IBM. weighing the likelihood of collecting from Telex, dropped its claims for the $18.5 million in compensation and damages.
Perhaps the final indignity for Telex, following the reversal on appeal of the district court's favorable decision, and the
loss of the counterclaims suit, came from a suit filed by Telex outside counsel, suing the firm for collection of his fee.
Subseries A. Transcripts, 16 April 1973 - 19 June 1973.
(94 microfiche cards.)
The complete transcript is available in microform. Portions of the transcript also appear as exhibits in U.S. v. IBM.
Subseries B. Miscellaneous Court Records. 1972-1974.
These documents consist of items entered in the Court's docket in the course of the trial. They consist almost entirely of
motions, briefs, memoranda, and transcripts of hearings on motions. A list of docket items appears at the beginning of this
subseries, which shows that a large percentage of these documents were not reproduced. Some defense exhibits for this case
appear as exhibits to various memoranda in support of motions and are identified in the inventory. The Computer and Communications
Industry Association also compiled a Topical Cross-Reference.
a Deposition Markings Index and a List of Depositions Taken, which may be found in box 2 of this subseries.
Subseries C. Appeals. 1975.
(1/6 linear feet.)
The Appeals process is not fully documented by this subseries which includes some files of petitions, briefs, and decisions
for IBM's appeal of the judgment in Telex v. IBM.
Subseries D. Plaintiff Exhibits. 1963-1973.
(6 linear feet.)
These documents are arranged according to the court-assigned exhibit numbers. The bulk of available plaintiff exhibits, i.e.,
those not sequestered by the court, were reproduced and appear here. The unrestricted documents that were not included in
this collection, are, for the most part, duplicated in the deposition or trial exhibits of U.S. v. IBM. Very few defense exhibits were reproduced, however. Specifically, a number of defense exhibits from Telex v. IBM were entered as evidence in U.S. v. IBM.Notes
A partial cross-reference of exhibits appears in the appendices to this inventory that will help the researchers identify
items that became part of the court records of other trials and were reproduced there.
One of the most interesting sets of exhibits in this case are IBM's Management Committee (MC) and Management Review Committee
(MRC) minutes for 1968 through September 1972. Recording the decisions of IBM's high-level management on a variety of issues
relating, not only to the
domestic EDP industry, but to many other aspects of the firm's operation, these documents and the supporting division reports,
provide a valuable insight into IBM's management.
California Computer Products, Inc. (CalComp), a manufacturer of digital plotters, was incorporated in 1958. It began selling
disk drives manufactured by Century Data Systems in 1968. The complaint in this case, filed on 3 October 1973, charged IBM
with monopolization of the markets for peripheral equipment and unfair competition for over ten years. IBM, it alleged, had
prematurely introduced new central processing units (CPUs), cut prices on disk products, and created leasing programs designed
to drive competitors out of the market for `plug-compatible' peripheral devices. CalComp requested that the court issue an
injunction, proscribing IBM's activities, and a divestiture order, in addition to the plaintiff's $300 million treble damages
claims. A directed verdict, that IBM's pricing policies and Fixed Term Plan (FTP) for leasing contracts were not proven to
be below costs and were in response to lower price competition, was handed down in 1977. The District Court's decision was
upheld on appeal in June 1979. Sanders Associates acquired CalComp in 1980.
Subseries A. Trial Transcript, 9 November 1976 - 11 February 1977, 15 February 1977.
(4 linear feet.)
The complete transcript is to be found here, arranged in chronological order.
Subseries B. Trial Exhibits, 1953 - 1977.
(1 1/3 linear feet.)
These documents are arranged according to court-assigned exhibit number. Less than 17% of the exhibits entered as evidence
are available in this subseries. Exhibits numbered 1321 through 2314 are missing entirely.
The bulk of the evidence appearing here consists of internal memoranda, reports/presentations, and minutes from IBM's files,
principally for the period between 1963 and 1976, although some documents cover topics as early as the development of the
701 Defense Calculator. Approximately 50 items, of the 400 in this subseries were created by CalComp.
Subseries C. Appeals, 1977.
The Brief of Appellants is the only document reproduced for this series.
This case, brought in the U.S. Court of Appeals, illustrates some of the legal complexities involved in the protracted litigation
of U.S. v. IBM. The appeal involved one of the pretrial orders of the court dealing with documents for which IBM claimed privilege. In order
to obtain an evaluation of IBM's claims of privilege, the company and its outside counsel, the New York law firm of Cravath,
Swaine & Moore, refused to release certain subpoenaed files. This action provoked a contempt citation, which allowed IBM and
Cravath, Swaine & Moore to air its position on the claims of privilege.
Subseries A. Transcript of Appeals Hearing. 1973.
(1/3 linear feet.)
This suit, while part of the collection, is not an antitrust case. Catamore Enterprises, a jewelry manufacturer and distributer,
was sued by IBM for non-payment on a contract. The issue here was a dispute over contract fulfillment, marketing strategy
and product suitability. It would appear that CCIA included this case among the antitrust litigation, because it was seen
to demonstrate some of the arguments about IBM's market behavior that were central issues in the government's and the other
As no trial exhibits have been reproduced in this case, the value of this material is based solely on the transcript and legal
Subseries A. Trial Transcript, 10 March 1975 - 1 July 1975.
(3 linear feet.)
The entire transcript appears in this subseries.
Subseries B. Briefs and Memoranda, 1972 - 1975.
(1 linear foot.)
This subseries includes the pretrial brief for Catamore Enterprises and several memoranda regarding counterclaims.
Subseries C. Appeals, 1976 - 1977.
This series includes petitions for rehearing, appeals, and motions for enlargement of time, and orders of the court.
19-23 May 1975
p.804-990
p.992-1158
p.1159-1374
9-13 June 1975
p.1375-2287
16-19 June 1975
p.2288-2930
23-24 June 1975
p.2931-3285
p.3287-3401
p.3561-3732
1-2 July 1975
p.3733-4037
Transcript pp. 4038-4081 missing
8-10 July 1975
p.4082-4358
17-18 September 1975
p.4359-4486
22-25 September 1975
p.4487-5048
29-30 September 1975
p.5049-5304
1-2 October 1975
p.5305-5544
6-9 October 1975
p.5545-6104
14-16 October 1975
p.6105-6433
20-21 October 1975
p.6434-6684
22-23 October 1975
p.6876-6989
5-6 November 1975
p.6990-7311
13-14 November 1975
p.7312-7505
17-20 November 1975
p.7506-8038
1-2 December 1975
p.8039-8445
4-5 December 1975
p.8446-8600
8-11 December 1975
p.8601-9148
15-18 December 1975
p.9149-9849
5-8 January 1976
12-15 January 1976
p.10501-10957
19-22 January 1976
p.10958-11617
26-29 January 1976
p.11618-12165
2-5 February 1976
p.12166-12760
p.12761-13249
1-4 March 1976
8-11 March 1976
p.13819-14349
15-18 March 1976
p.14350-14893
22-25 March 1976
p.14894-15394
29-31 March 1976
p.15395-15771
p.15772-15905
5-8 April 1976
p.15906-16515
p.16516-16976
19-21 April 1976
p.16977-17418
26-29 April 1976
p.17419-17975
3-6 May 1976
p.17976-18484
10-13 May 1976
p.18485-19179
24-26 May 1976
p.19652-19838
14-17 June 1976
p.19839-20303
21-24 June 1976
p.20304-20735
28-30 June 1976
p.20736-21155
1-2 July 1976
p.21156-21336
6-8 July 1976
p.21337-21813
12-15 July 1976
p.21814-22319
19-22 July 1976
p.22320-23078
26-29 July 1976
p.23079-23607
2-5 August 1976
p.23608-24054
23-26 August 1976
p.24055-24537
p.24538-24731a
1-2 September 1976
p.24949-25164
13-17 September 1976
p.25165-26019
p.26020-26154
21-24 September 1976
p.26157-26821
27-30 September 1976
p.26822-27529
p.27530-27718
p.27719-28458
12-15 October 1976
p.28459-29078
18-22 October 1976
p.29079-29919
26-28 October 1976
p.29921-30603
p.30684-30833
p.30834-30955
Transcript pp. 30956-31035 missing
p.31036-31175
8-10 November 1976
p.31176-32297
p.32299-32311
15-19 November 1976
p.32312-33129
22-23 November 1976
p.33130-33443
29-30 November 1976
p.33444-33858
1-2 December 1976
p.33859-34121
p.34122-35289
27-28 December 1976
p.35290-35657
3-7 January 1977
p.35658-36512
10-14 January 1977
17-19 January 1977
p.37221-37747
p.37748-38044
24-28 January 1977
p.38045-38793
p.38794-38946
1-4 February 1977
p.38947-39431
7-10 February 1977
p.39432-39972
15-18 February 1977
p.39973-40531
22-24 February 1977
p.40532-41178
p.41179-41321
1-4 March 1977
p.41322-42007
7-8 March 1977
p.42008-42281
9-11 March 1977
14-18 March 1977
p.42624-43274
p.43275-43359
23-25 March 1977
p.43360-43628
28-31 March 1977
p.43629-44153
p.44154-44324
4-7 April 1977
p.44325-44861
11-16 April 1977
p.44862-45858
p.45859-46699
25-29 April 1977
p.46700-47484
2-5 May 1977
p.47485-48069
p.48070-48218
10-12 May 1977
16-20 May 1977
p.48743-49596
23-26 May 1977
p.49597-50303
p.50304-50501
1-2 June 1977
p.50502-50964
7-9 June 1977
p.50965-51561
13-15 June 1977
p.51562-52074
p.52075-52237
20-21 June 1977
p.52238-52581
p.52582-52769
27-30 June 1977
p.52770-53612
p.53613-53684
5-8 July 1977
p.53685-54156
11-12 July 1977
p.54157-54386
13-15 July 1977
18-22 July 1977
p.55026-55771
25-29 July 1977
p.55772-56646
1-5 August 1977
p.56647-57508
8-12 August 1977
p.57509-58348
15-18 August 1977
p.58349-58857
p.58858-58999
15-16 September 1977
p.59000-59310
19-21 September 1977
p.59311-59659
26-29 September 1977
p.59660-60152
p.60153-60313
12-14 October 1977
19-21 October 1977
p.60770-61197
p.61198-61310
27-28 October 1977
p.61311-61570
p.61571-61752
1-4 November 1977
p.61753-62549
7-11 November 1977
p.62550-63511
14-16 November 1977
p.63512-63986
p.63987-64149
5-9 December 1977
p.64150-64834
12-14 December 1977
p.64835-65403
21-23 December 1977
p.65404-65731
3-4 January 1978
p.65732-65983
16-18 January 1978
p.65984-66326
24-25 January 1978
p.66463-66767
30-31 January 1978
p.66768-67047
1-3 February 1978
p.67048-67447
6-8 February 1978
p.67448-67758
14-17 February 1978
p.67759-68274
21-24 February 1978
p.68275-68658
p.68659-68748
p.68749-68851
6-9 March 1978
p.68852-69301
14-17 March 1978
p.69302-69907
p.69908-70370
27-28 March 1978
p.70371-70600
p.70601-70750
5-7 April 1978
p.70751-71127
10-11 April 1978
p.71128-71315
p.71316-71487
24-25 April 1978
p.71488-71550
26-28 April 1978
1-5 May 1978
p.72187-72820
9-12 May 1978
p.72821-73414
15-19 May 1978
p.73415-74106
22-23 May 1978
p.74107-74337
25-26 May 1978
p.74338-74566
30-31 May 1978
p.74567-74748
1-2 June 1978
p.74749-74913
6-9 June 1978
p.74914-75358
12-14 June 1978
p.75359-75662
20-23 June 1978
p.75664-76096
p.76097-76165
Transcript pp. 76166-76219 missing
27-30 June 1978
p.76218-76737
5-7 July 1978
p.76738-77117
p.77118-77312
11-14 July 1978
17-18 July 1978
p.77809-78130
p.78132-78251
p.78253-78447
p.78448-78569
25-26 July 1978
p.78571-78684
11-15 September 1978
p.78685-79255
19-23 September 1978
p.79256-80095
26-29 September 1978
p.80096-80630
p.80631-80800
12-13 October 1978
p.80801-81096
16-20 October 1978
p.81097-81855
23-27 October 1978
p.81856-82493
30-31 October 1978
p.82494-82756
p.82757-82860
8-9 November 1978
p.82861-83554
14-17 November 1978
20-22 November 1978
p.84117-84586
p.84588-84826
p.84827-84940
4-5 December 1978
p.84941-85311
11-14 December 1978
p.85312-85942
19-20 December 1978
p.85943-86271
3-5 January 1979
p.86272-86765
11-12 January 1979
p.86766-87032
16-18 January 1979
p.87033-87472
22-24 January 1979
p.87473-87844
p.87845-87892
30-31 January 1979
p.87894-88111
1-8 February 1979
p.88112-88648
p.88649-88712
Transcript pp. 88713-90861 missing
20-21 September 1979
27-28 September 1979
p.91061-91361
p.91362-91415
p.91416-91437
p.91438-91673
10-12 October 1979
p.91674-92147
p.92148-92279
p.92281-92435
22-25 October 1979
p.92578-93037
p.93038-93108
p.93109-93257
1-2 November 1979
p.93258-93582
p.93583-93749
7-8 November 1979
p.93750-94087
p.94693-94708
p.94961-95115
p.95116-95229
5-6 December 1979
p.95230-95559
10-11 December 1979
p.95560-96255
p.96256-96498
7-11 January 1980
p.96500-97309
14-16 January 1980
p.97310-97722
17-18 January 1980
24-25 January 1980
p.97990-98266
28-29 January 1980
p.98267-98492
p.98674-98928
4-6 February 1980
p.98929-99263
p.99339-100302
p.100303-100461
21-22 February 1980
p.100462-100741
p.100742-100914
p.101005-101030
p.101031-101307
p.101311-102044
p.102045-102049a
p.102050-102068
p.102069-102089
p.102090-102203
p.102204-112761
p.112762-112807
p.112808-112952
p.112953-112969
p.112970-113041
23-24 July 1980
p.113042-113123
p.113124-113157
p.113158-113180
p.113181-113234
p.113235-113425
p.113426-113676
p.113677-113802
p.113803-113808
p.113829-113868
p.113869-113899
p.113900-113942
p.113943-114012
p.114013-114049
p.114050-114328
p.114329-114383
p.114384-114400
p.114401-114426
p.114427-114441
p.114442-114449
B. Court Records and Evidence
Pre-trial motions, stipulations, etc.
Vol. 0001-0032
Vol. 0033-0034
Vol. 0035
Vol. 0036
Vol. 0037-0045
Vol. 0046-0047
Vol. 0048-0055
American Financial Corporation, Applied Magnetics.
Vol. 0056
Data Pathing, Inc., Metridata Computing, Inc., Computer Dynamics
Vol. 0057
Central Data Systems, Inc.
Vol. 0058-0059
Scidata, Inc., General Design, Inc.
Vol. 0060
HW Systems, Inc., Instrumentation Technology Corporation
Vol. 0061
Vol. 0062-0064
Computer Data System, Tec. Inc.
Vol. 0065
Electron, Inc., NRG, Inc.
Vol. 0066
Reliance Electric Company. Middle South Services, Inc.
Vol. 0067
Computer Network, Reynolds and Reynolds Company, Intelligent Memory Systems, Inc.
Vol. 0068
Software Design, Inc., Computer Usage Company, Quotron Systems, Inc.
Vol. 0069
National General Corporation. Memory Systems, Inc.
Vol. 0070
Samsonite Corporation, Monitor Labs, Inc., MDB System, Inc.
Vol. 0071
Accounting Corporation of America, Wavetek
Vol. 0072
Houston Engineering Research Corporation
Vol. 0073
Courier Terminal Systems, Inc.
Vol. 0074-0075
Transcripts of Pre-trial Hearings: 1, 21 November 1972 and 5 December 1972
Vol. 0076-0079
Transcripts of Pre-trial Hearings: 14 February 1973
Vol. 0080
Transcripts of Pre-trial Hearings: 9, 25 May 1973; 11 June 1973; 9, 16 July 1973; 3, 24, 26, and 31 October 1973
Vol. 0081-0088
Transcripts of Pre-trial Hearings: 5, 7 November 1973; 5, 11, and 19 December 1973
Vol. 0089-0094
Vol. 0095-0101
Vol. 0102-0103
Vol. 0104
Vol. 0105
Vol. 0106-0109
Government's Answers to IBM's Requests for Admissions (Set II)
Vol. 0110-0114
Vol. 0115
Sterling Computer Systems, Inc.
Vol. 0116
Digital Scientific Corporation, Tektronix, Inc.
Vol. 0117
Martin, Wolfe, Inc.
Vol. 0117-0118
Progress Electronics Company of Oregon, Inc.
Vol. 0119
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, Standard Computer Company, Microline Corporation
Vol. 0120
Computerized Automative Reporting Service, Inc., Data Documents, Inc.
Vol. 0121
Vol. 0122-0128
Reports of Special Masters
Vol. 0129-0132
Transcripts of Pre-trial Hearings: 4 November 1970; 23 February 1972; 16-17 and 31 March 1972; 14 April 1972; 4, 10, 12, and 17 May 1972; 29 June 1972; 12 and
26 September 1972; 5, 11, 16 and 30 October 1972; 23 April 1974
Vol. 0133-0153
Vol. 0154-0166
Vol. 0167-0168
Vol. 0169
Omnus Computer Corporation, Hetra Computer and Communications Industries, Inc.
Vol. 0170
Vol. 0171-0172
C3, Comress, Cubic Corporation, Legicon, Inc.
Vol. 0173
Commercial Computers, Inc., Hughes Aircraft Company, Computer Design Corporation
Vol. 0174
C. J. Kennedy Company
Vol. 0175
Volt Technical Information Sciences, Tennecomp Systems, Inc.
Vol. 0176
Systems, Science & Software, Information International, Inc.
Vol. 0177
Vol. 0178
National Data Corporation, Datum Inc.
Vol. 0179
Vol. 0180-0181
Vol. 0182
First National Bank of Miami and Southeast Data Processing, Inc., Systems Engineering Laboratories, Datacraft Corporation
Vol. 0183
United Computing Systems, Inc., Astrodata, Inc., Unite, Inc., North Electric Company
Vol. 0184
Linkabit Corporation, Vector General, Inc.
Vol. 0185
Vol. 0186
Industrial Nucleonics Corporation. Trivex. Inc., Image Systems, Inc.
Vol. 0187
Comtec Data Systems, Inc., Data Disc, Inc., Data Systems Design, Inc.
Vol. 0188
Digital Resources Corporation
Vol. 0189
Eldorado Electrodata Corporation, Tech-Sym Corporation
Vol. 0190
Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, Planning Research Corporation
Vol. 0191
Rockwell International, Microdata, Corporation
Vol. 0192
Rolm Corporation, J. C. Systems, Inc.
Vol. 0193
X10X International, Inc., Eastern Air Lines, Inc., Modular Computer Systems, Inc.
Vol. 0194
Computer Products, Inc., Interstate Electronic, Business Systems Technology, Inc.
Vol. 0195
Computer Corporations, Inc., Digi-Data Corporation, Fairchild Industries, Inc.
Vol. 0196
SCS Corporation
Vol. 0197
Vol. 0198
Vol. 0199
Computer Dimensions, LTV-Aerospace
Vol. 0200
E-Systems, Inc., Graham Magnetics, Inc.
Vol. 0201
Action Communication Systems, Inc., Medical Computer Systems, Inc.
Vol. 0202
Vol. 0203
Adata Company, Shugart Associates, Battelle Memorial Institute
Vol. 0204
Computer Equipment Corporation, Beckman Instruments
Vol. 0205
Intellectron International, Analysis and Programming, Tab Data Systems, Inc.
Vol. 0206
Basic Timesharing, Optimum Systems, Inc., Tri Data Corporation
Vol. 0207
Intel Corporation, Pacific International Computing Corporation, Quantor Corporation, Remote Computing Corporation
Vol. 0208
System Industries, Inc., Systems Analysis, Inc., Wangco, Inc.
Vol. 0209
Vol. 0210
Vol. 0211
Republic Service Bureau, Inc., Novation, Inc., Cooper Data Systems, Inc., General Research Corporation
Vol. 0212
Vol. 0213-0217
Computer Congenerics Corporation, Harris Corporation, Statistical Computing Center, Inc.
Vol. 0218
Computing and Information Sciences Corporation, Hoffman Electronics Corporation, Metro Systems, Inc.
Vol. 0219
Computer Sciences Corporation, Quandri Corporation
Vol. 0220
Electronic Memories & Magnetics Corporation, Lykes Computing Corporation
Vol. 0221
Computer Wholesale Corporation, Northrop Corporation
Vol. 0222
Vol. 0223
International Memory Systems
Vol. 0224
Vol. 0225
Computer Machinery Corporation, First Oklahoma Bancorporation, Santa Barbara Data Center, Inc., Sci Systems, Inc., Tel Data
Vol. 0226
Transcript of Pre-trial Hearings: 30 May 1974
Vol. 0227-0228
Butler National Corporation, EG and G Corporation, GRC, Inc.
Vol. 0229
Alpha Data, Inc., Computer Management Corporation
Vol. 0230
Transcripts of Pre-trial Hearings: 8, 18 January 1974: 15 March 1974
Vol. 0231-0233
Vol. 0234-0239
Vol. 0240-0245
Boeing Company, Data Processors, Inc., First National Bank of Denver
Vol. 0246
Compata, Inc., Data Tech Corporation, Proprietary Computer Systems, Inc., Unionamerica Computer Corporation
Vol. 0247
Automation, Inc., CMS Industries, Inc., Eastman Kodak Company, Omaha National Bank
Vol. 0248
Vol. 0249
Apex Data Processing Corporation, Datamatic, Inc., General Computer Services, Inc., Kratos
Vol. 0250
Vol. 0251
Applications Software, Inc., Computer Micrographics, Datametrics Corporation
Vol. 0252
Vol. 0253
Applied Data Services, Data Processing Center, Inc., Rio Grande Industries, Inc. and its subsidiary Computer Sharing Services,
Inc., Times Mirror Press
Vol. 0254
Cook Electric, Dicom Industries, Four-Phase Systems, Inc., Xynetics, Inc.
Vol. 0255
Ampex, Indecon, Inc., Manpower, Inc., Micrographics, Inc., Midland National Bank
Vol. 0256
Bell and Howell Company, Data 100 Corporation, Data Systems, Inc., Statistical Tabulating Corporation
Vol. 0257
Cincinnati Milacron, Inc. and its affiliates and subsidiaries, Comstar Corporation, Security Pacific National Bank
Vol. 0258
Datapoint Corporation, Informatics, Inc.
Vol. 0259
3M Company, United Computing Corporation
Vol. 0260
U. S. Navy-ADPE Selection Office
Vol. 0261
Vol. 0262
Vol. 0263
U. S. Army-Management Systems Directorate
Vol. 0264
Vol. 0265
Vol. 0266
Vol. 0267
Vol. 0268
Datatron, Inc., Lencor International
Vol. 0269
Boise Cascade Corporation, Computer Image Corporation, Trico Computer Corporation
Vol. 0270
Vol. 0271
Analysts International Corporation, Data Input, Dietzgen Corporation, International Timesharing Corporation, National Computer
Systems, Inc., Research, Inc., Time Sharing Systems, Inc.
Vol. 0272
U. S. Defense Department, Advanced Research Project Agency, National Bureau of Standards, U. S. Army-Computer Systems Command,
U. S. Army-Material Command
Vol. 0273
Vol. 0274
Bonneville Power Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U. S. Navy-Pacific Missle Range
Vol. 0275
General Services Administration, National Science Foundation
Vol. 0276
Vol. 0277
Vol. 0278
NASA, U. S. Army-White Sands Missle Range
Vol. 0279
Vol. 0280-0281
Vol. 0282
Staff, Unitech, Inc.
Vol. 0283
Information Systems Design, Measurex Corporation, Systron-Donner Corporation
Vol. 0284
Central Bank Computer Bureau as successor to Shefco Systems, Computer Automation, Inc.
Vol. 0285
Systems Control, Inc., American Information Development, Inc., Calma Company, Diversified Computer Applications, Standard
Vol. 0286
Boole and Babbage, Inc., Electronic Computing and Technical Service, International Video Corporation, LCS Data Processing
Inc., Zytron Corporation
Vol. 0287
Auto-trol Corporation, Computer Trade Corporation, Data Products Corporation, Dest Data Corporation, Storage Technology Corporation
Vol. 0288
Columbia Scientific Industries, Electronic Laboratories, Inc., Information Processing Corporation
Vol. 0289
Vol. 0290-0291
Transcrips of Pre-trial Hearings: 8-9 July 1974
Vol. 0292-0293
Vol. 0294-0295
Transcrips of Pre-trial Hearings: 25 July 1974: 6 August 1974; 1 August 1974
Vol. 0296-0297
Vol. 0298-0300
Vol. 0301-0304
Computab, Inc., Pertec Corporation
Vol. 0305
Digicon, Inc., Kirby Industries, Inc., Prentice Electronic Corporation
Vol. 0306
Harris-Intertype Corporation, Idanta Partners
Vol. 0307
Beehive Medical Electronics, Inc., BMA Data Processing, Inc., Harris-Intertype Corporation, Harris-Intertype Corporation
Vol. 0308
Milco Electronic Corporation, Tally Corporation, TCC, Inc.
Vol. 0309
Vol. 0310-0313
Vol. 0314-0316
Vol. 0317-0324
Boothe Computer Corporation, Commercial Computer Systems, Inc., a subsidiary of ACS Investors, Inc., Evans & Sutherland Computer
Corporation, Western Data Centers, Inc.
Vol. 0325
Arkansas Best Corporation, International Computer Products, Inc., Tradacomp, Inc.
Vol. 0345
American Biomedical Corporation, Carterfone Communications Corporation, Construction Data Systems, Inc., National Bank of
Vol. 0346
Transcript of Pre-trial Hearings: 16 August 1974
Vol. 0347
Vol. 0348
Vol. 0349-0350
Vol. 0351-0355
Vol. 0356-0370
Vol. 0371-0372
Aspen Systems Corporation, Central Processing Center of San Antonio, Comptek Research, Inc., Johnson Computing, Inc., Touchette
Vol. 0373
Automated Systems Corporation, Computone Systems, Inc., Publishing Computer Service, TLW Computer Industries, Inc.
Vol. 0374
Abacus Programming Corporation, Medical Scientific International Corporation, Petty-Ray Geophysical, Inc., Root Company
Vol. 0375
City National Bank of Miami, Kaman Sciences Corporation, Telefile Computer Corporation, Electronic Laboratories, Inc.
Vol. 0376
American National Bank of Jacksonville, Autocomp, Inc., Ed-Tech, Inc., Shared Medical Systems, Inc.
Vol. 0377
Information Processing Corporation, Bergen-Brunswig Corporation, Data Processing Consultants, Inc., Sundstrand Corporation,
Vol. 0378
Allied Data, Bausch & Lomb, Computer Systems Engineering, Data Graphics Corporation, Eastman Kodak Company
Vol. 0379
Condec Corporation, Electronic Data Systems, Greyhound Computer Corporation, Pulse Communications, Inc.
Vol. 0380
Data Industries, Inc., Information Associates, Inc., Uniroyal, Inc.
Vol. 0381
Business Computer Service, Inc., State National Bank of Connecticut, Systematics, Inc.
Vol. 0382
Analysis and Programming Corporation
Vol. 0383
Electronic Modules Corporation, Inc., Safeguard Industries, Management and Computer Services, Inc., Wingate Corporation
Vol. 0384
CDI Corporation, Jacquard Systems, Ltd., GRC, Inc., Krall Management, Inc., Users, Inc.
Vol. 0385
Vol. 0386-0387
Spatial Data Systems, Inc., Tab Products Company
Vol. 0388
Information Magnetics Corporation, Ramtek Corporation
Vol. 0389
Vol. 0390-0391
Vol. 0392-0394
Vol. 0395-0398
Pretrial Brief for the United States, docket # 1689, filed 21 October 1974
Vol. 0399-0405
Vol. 0406-0426
Vol. 0427
Vol. 0428-0430
Vol. 0431-0435
Castle and Cooke, Inc., Electronic Arrays, Inc., Electronic Memories & Magnetics Corporation, RPG Data Systems
Vol. 0436
Vol. 0437
Vol. 0438-0439
Vol. 0440-0441
Vol. 0442-0443
Vol. 0444-0453
Not Available in photocopy or microform.
Vol. 0454-0456
Qantel Corporation
Vol. 0457-0459
Vol. 0460-0461
Transcripts of Pre-trial Hearings: 30 September 1974; 4, 16-17 October 1974; 21 November 1974
Vol. 0462-0466
Vol. 0467-0469
Vol. 0470-0471
Vol. 0472-0473
Vol. 0474-0475
Citizens Financial Corporation, Dynalectron Corporation, NCR Corporation
Vol. 0476
Data Pathing, Inc.
Vol. 0477
Vol. 0478-0479
U. S. Air Force, Eastern Test Range
Vol. 0480-0483
Vol. 0484-0496
Vol. 0497-0503
Vol. 0504
Vol. 0505
Vol. 0506-0509
Donald E. Grampler Realty, Inc., Honeywell Information Systems, Inc., Maryland National Corporation
Vol. 0510
Accelerated Business Services, Decimus Corporation, DPS, Inc., ITT Research Institute, Medidentic, Inc.
Vol. 0511
Plaintiff's “An Economic Analysis of the Market for General Purpose Electronic Digital Computer Systems,” docket # 1941, filed
Vol. 0512
Vol. 0513-0517
Vol. 0518-0520
Computer Services, Inc., Inter-Continental Computing, Inc., Technitrol, Inc.
Vol. 0521
Advanced Memory Systems, Inc.
Vol. 0522-0526
A. O. Smith Corporation, Technology, Inc.
Vol. 0527
Vol. 0528
Vol. 0529-0530
Data Retrieval Corporation, Parish Systems, Inc., Old National Bank, Wabash Magnetics, Inc.
Vol. 0531
Vol. 0532
Marquette Electronics, Inc., Burroughs Corporation (only on microfiche)
Vol. 0533
Government's Answers to IBM's Requests for Admissions
Vol. 0534
Vol. 0535-0537
Data Inc., Network Data Processing Corporation, Scientific Time Sharing Corporation
Vol. 0538
Cott Data Processing Company, Neoterics Incorporated, Sperry Rand Corporation
Vol. 0539
Vol. 0545
U.S. Air Force Data Automation Agency
Vol. 0547-0551
American Management Systems, Inc., Digital Graphics, Inc.
Vol. 0552
Vol. 0553-0563
Vol. 0564-0596
Vol. 0597-0618
Vol. 0619-0621
Transcripts of Pre-trial Hearings; 5, 19 December 1974; 3, 15-16 January 1975; 5, 7, 11, 20 February 1975; 4 March 1975
Vol. 0622-0630
Vol. 0631
Vol. 0632-0664
Vol. 0665-0677
Vol. 0678-0679
Vol. 0680
Vol. 0681-0683
Vol. 0684-0686
Vol. 0687-0703
Vol. 0704-0706
Vol. 0707-0745
Vol. 0746-0763
Vol. 0764
Vol. 0765-0787
Vol. 0788-0794
Transcripts of Pre-trial Hearings: 12 May 1975: 19-23 May 1975: 3 June 1975
Vol. 0795-0809
Vol. 0810-0819
Nuclear Data, Inc.
Vol. 0820-0826
Nuclear Data, Inc. (continued)
Vol. 0827-0834
Vol. 0835-0849
Vol. 0850-0861
Vol. 0862-0866
Transcripts of Pre-trial Hearings: 4, 6, 9-12 June 1975
Vol. 0867-0881
Vol. 0882-0904
Vol. 0905-0906
Bessemer Securities Corporation, CIT Leasing Corporation, National Aviation Corporation, New York Banking Group, Hale Brothers
Vol. 0907
United Data Centers
Vol. 0908
Vol. 0909-0910
Vol. 0911
U. S. Bureau of Census, Venrock Associates
Vol. 0912
General Electric Credit Corporation, RCA Corporation
Vol. 0913
Alanthus Corporation, Confidential Information Systems, Inc.
Vol. 0914
Vol. 0915-0916
Bendix Corporation, C. E. Unterberg Towbin Company
Vol. 0917
Cambridge Memories, Inc., General Electric Company
Vol. 0918
Cincom Systems, Inc., General Electric Credit Corporation
Vol. 0919
Vol. 0920-0923
Vol. 0924-0926
Vol. 0927-0928
Vol. 0929-0934
Vol. 0935-0940
Vol. 0941-0942
Vol. 0943-0944
Vol. 0945-0949
Vol. 0950-0962
Vol. 0963-0970
Plaintiff Exhibits, IBM Quarterly Assessment of the Product Line, May 1969
Vol. 0971-0974
Plaintiff Exhibits, IBM Quarterly Assessment of the Product Line, April 1970
Vol. 0975-0978
Plaintiff Exhibits, IBM Quarterly Assessment of the Product Line, 3rd quarter 1970
Vol. 0979-0982
F. Eberstadt and Company
Vol. 0983-0984
Cincom Systems, Inc., Quantum Science Corporation
Vol. 0985
J. C. Whitney and Company
Vol. 0986-0987
Vol. 0988-0989
Vol. 0990-0993
Vol. 0994-0996
Vol. 0997-0998
Plaintiff Exhibits, IBM Quarterly Assessment of the Product Line, August 1970
Vol. 0999-1002
Plaintiff Exhibits, IBM Quarterly Assessment of the Product Line, 4th quarter 1970
Vol. 1003-1006
Plaintiff Exhibits, IBM Quarterly Assessment of the Product Line, August 1971
Vol. 1007-1009
Plaintiff Exhibits, IBM Quarterly Assessment of the Product Line, January 1972
Vol. 1010-1012
Vol. 1013-1014
Vol. 1015-1024
Vol. 1025-1030
Vol. 1030-1041
Vol. 1042-1051
Vol. 1052-1064
Vol. 1065-1076
Vol. 1077-1080
IBM Corporation (continued) [CBI]
Vol. 1081-1088
Vol. 1089
Vol. 1090-1097
Pre-trial motions, stipulations, etc. [CBI]
Vol. 1098-1103
IBM Corporation [CBI]
Vol. 1104-1126
Vol. 1127-1131
Plaintiff Exhibits [CBI]
Vol. 1132-1134
Vol. 1135-1143
Vol. 1144-1156
Vol. 1157-1160
Vol. 1161-1165
Missing Defense Exhibits
Vol. 1166
Vol. 1167-1169
Vol. 1170-1171
Vol. 1172-1183
Vol. 1144-1160
Vol. 1184-1188
Vol. 1189-1190
Vol. 1191-1201
Vol. 1202-1254
Vol. 1255-1263
Vol. 1264-1268
Vol. 1269
Vol. 1270-1271
Vol. 1272-1273
Vol. 1274-1285
Vol. 1286
Vol. 1287-1315
Vol. 1316-1318
Vol. 1319-1330
Vol. 1331-1332
MRI Systems Corporation, NCR Corporation [CBI]
Vol. 1333
Missing [CBI]
Vol. 1334-1347
Vol. 1348-1357
Vol. 1358-1363
Vol. 1364
Vol. 1365-1368
Vol. 1369-1370
Vol. 1371-1375
Vol. 1376-1386
Vol. 1387
Vol. 1388-1403
Vol. 1404-1417
Vol. 1418-1419
Vol. 1420-1423
Vol. 1424-1430
Vol. 1431-1436
Vol. 1437-1441
Vol. 1442-1443
Oppenheimer Corporation
Vol. 1444-1447
Vol. 1448-1454
Oppenheimer Corporation [CBI]
Vol. 1455-1457
Vol. 1458
Vol. 1459-1468
Vol. 1469-1471
Columbia Broadcasting System [CBI]
Vol. 1472-1474
Vol. 1475-1476
Vol. 1477-1479
Vol. 1480-1501
Vol. 1502-1503
Vol. 1504-1537
Vol. 1538-1540
Vol. 1541-1553
Vol. 1553
Vol. 1554-1561
Vol. 1562-1566
Itel Corporation [CBI]
Vol. 1567-1570
Vol. 1571-1590
U. S. Air Force-Eastern Test Range
Vol. 1591-1593
U. S. Air Force-Eastern Test Range (cont.) [CBI]
Vol. 1594-1599
Vol. 1600-1603
NASA [CBI]
Vol. 1604
Harvard University [CBI]
Vol. 1605-1608
Vol. 1609-1620
Vol. 1621-1996
Vol. 1997-2005
Vol. 2006-2008
Vol. 2010-2011
Vol. 2014-2015
Vol. 2017-2018
Vol. 2019-2020
Vol. 2021-2025
Vol. 2027
Vol. 2028
Vol. 2029
Vol. 2030-2032
Vol. 2033
Vol. 2034-2036
Vol. 2037
Vol. 2038-2041
Vol. 2042-2043
Vol. 2044
Vol. 2045-2060
Joint and Court Exhibits
Vol. 2061
Vol. 2062-2066
Vol. 2067-2068
Vol. 2069-2074
Vol. 2075-2076
Vol. 2077-2078
Vol. 2079
Vol. 2080-2083
Vol. 2084-2097
Vol. 2098
Vol. 2100
Vol. 2101-2106
Vol. 2107
Vol. 2108-2109
Vol. 2110
Vol. 2111-2114
Vol. 2115
Vol. 2116
Vol. 2117-2121
Vol. 2122
Vol. 2123-2126
Vol. 2127-2130
Vol. 2131
Vol. 2132-2133
Vol. 2134-2143
Vol. 2144
Vol. 2145-2146
Vol. 2147
Vol. 2148
Vol. 2149
Vol. 2150
Vol. 2151-2152
Vol. 2153
Vol. 2154-2156
Vol. 2157-2160
Vol. 2161-2162
Vol. 2163-2165
Vol. 2166-2171
Vol. 2172
Vol. 2173-2178
Vol. 2179
Vol. 2180-2182
Vol. 2183
Vol. 2184-2185
Vol. 2186-2201
Vol. 2202
Vol. 2203
Vol. 2204-2220
Vol. 2221
Vol. 2222-2257
Vol. 2258-2261
Vol. 2262-2271
Plaintiff and Defense exhibits without CCIA assigned numbers.
PX 2082 IBM Company Capability Series Study, 1967
Computer Leasing Industry
PX 3485 IBM Study, 1969
PX 3463 IBM Company Capability Series Study, 1965
PX 3453 IBM Company Capability Series Study, 1967
PX 353 Advanced Product Line Master Plan, 1 January 1970
PX 3448 IBM Company Capability Series Study, 1967
PX 3222 IBM Company Capability Series Study, 1968
PX 322 Information Systems Group Alternative Business Strategies, 15 April 1969
PX 371A Ventures Task Force, Preliminary Report on Computer Business, 2 February 1970
PX 331A Ventures Task Force, Presentation to Board of Directors, 24 April 1970
PX 382 Estimate of Combined Operations, (bound with PX 331A)
1970 Honeywell
PX 3454 IBM Company Capability Series Study, 1967
PX 1985 System Strategy Task Force, report, 1967
PX 3459 IBM Company Capability Series Study, 1967
PX 2050 IBM Company Capability Series Study, 1967
PX 3483 IBM Company Capability Series Study, 1968
Potter Instruments
PX 3482 IBM Company Company Capability Series Study, 1968
PX 182 Data Processing Division, Marketing Plan, 1971
PX 247 Information Systems Division, 1970 Business Plan Review, 1969
PX 177 Long Range Plan Development, NTS Business Plan, NTS Forecast Presentation, 1971
PX 133 NPL Market Study, 1969
DX 873 Returns Presentation, 1971
PX 3484 IBM Company Capability Series Study, 1968
PX 2103 IBM Company Capability Series Study, 1967
PX 3461 IBM Study - Semiconductor Manufacturing in the 1970s, 1970
PX 3475 IBM Company Capability Series Study, 1966
PX 439 Applications Services Annual Report, 1973
PX 391 Business Area Update, n.d.
PX 442 Report of the Computer Strategy Task Force, vol. 1, Summary and Recommendations, n.d.
PX 440 Software/Applications Services Department, Annual Report, 1974
DX 997 Software/Applications Services Department, Marketing Guide, n.d.
Incomplete or unnumbered Dockets/CCIA volumes
Hearings before Special Masters, 24, 26, 31 October 1973
Executive Summary [of Binger and Spangle Trial Testimony], exerpts from transcript, 23-25, 29 September 1975
Venrock Associates; MDB Systems, Inc.: Cambridge Memories; Quantum; NRG, Inc.; GE Credit; R. J. Robelen, consultant
Bank of America; Control Data Corp.; Shugart Associates; University of Wisconsin
Motion to Compel Defendant's Compliance with Pretrial Order no. 1, docket 172-[Plaintiff's] Notice of Motion and Motion, docket 198-Transcript of Hearing [on Motion], 26 January 1973; Pretrial Brief for Defendant, docket 2078 (pp. 31-32, 143-144), 16 January 1975
Subpoena of Felix Kaufman, dockets 2786-2788 Notice of Motion to Quash and Vacate Subpoena, affidavit of service and memorandum
in support..., docket 2792 Memorandum in Opposition to motion..., dockets 2926-2927 Notice of Motion [to Quash and Vacate Subpoenal, Memorandum in support of motion...for a protective order,
Notice to take deposition, Subpoena, dockets 2936-2937, 2940, 2942 Statement in Connection with Motion Pursuant to Rules 26 and 45(b) and (d), Affidavit pursuant
to general rule 9(f) to rules 26 and 45(b) and (d), Memorandum in response to the Motion of Felix Kaufman... to Quash... Subpoena...,
Statement pursuant to trial order no. 3, dockets 2963-2964, Memorandum [of the Court denying Motion to Quash and Vacate Subpoena], Letter re: docket 2786, dockets 2976-2978, Memorandum in Support of Motion for Certification of an Immediate Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b),
Statement Pursuant to Trial Order No. 3, Notice of Motion, docket 2988 DOJ Letter to Court, docket 2990 Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion of Felix Kaufman and Coopers & Lybrand for Certification of
an Immediate Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), 5 September 1975; Supoena of Frederic G. Withington, dockets 2912-2915 Notice of Motion to Quash and Vacate Subpoena, Rule 9(f) Statement, Objection
to Inspection and Copying, Memorandum... in Support..., dockets 2935, 2941 Statement Pursuant to Trial Order No. 3. [IBM's] Memorandum in Response to the Motion... [UNK] Quash...
Subpoena, docket 2962 Memorandum [of the Court denying Motion to Quash and Vacate Subpoena], dockets 2979-2980 Notice of Motion, Statement Pursuant to Trial Order No. 3, Memorandum in Support of Motion for Certification
of an Immediate Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), docket 2989 Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion of Frederic G. Withington and Arthur D. Little, Inc. for Certification
of an Immediate Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), 11 November 1975; Subpoenae of Withington and Kaufman, docket 2993 Memorandum [of the Court denying motions of Kaufman and Withington for immediate
appeal], 30 December 1975
IBM's Motion to vacate Pretrial Order no. 4, (Gag Order), Subpoena of CIA; dockets 2874-2875 Affidavits of Thomas D. Barr
with appendices and Nicholas deB. Katzenbach with exhibits; docket 2878 Memorandum in support...; docket 2883 Supplemental
affidavit of Thos. D. Barr..., 21 October 1975
Pretrial Order no. 4 (Gag Order), docket 2949 Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Memoranda Affidavits of Lewis Bernstein, Raymond M. Carlson, and C. Jack Pearce, docket 2956 Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Memorandum Dated October 14 and November 12, 1975, Protective Order for CIA, dockets 2916-2921 Notice of Motion and Memorandum in Support...[of] a Protective Order: IBM's memorandum
in opposition..., [Defendant's] Affidavit of Robert F. Mullen [in response], [Defendant's] Statement pursuant to trial order
no. 3, certificate of service, [Plaintiff's] Affidavit of Terry G. Mahn, Affidavit of C. Jack Pearce, docket 2924 [Proposed] Protective Order, Statement pursuant to Trial Order No. 3, 14 November 1975; Modification of Protective Order, docket 2983, Notice of Motion and Motion, Memorandum in support of motion.... Statement
pursuant to Trial Order No. 3, [Proposed] Protective Order, dockets 2986-2987 IBM's Memorandum in Opposition to CIA's Motion for “Examination of and Determination of Privilege Attaching
to Certain Documents, Modification of a Subpoena Issued Under Authority of this Court, and in the Alternative, A Protective
Order,” Statement pursuant to Trial Order No. 3, Affidavit of Terry E. Fenzl..., (10) docket 3069 Order no. 43898 of the Court [denying CIA's motions for a protective order regarding documents and for a modification
of the IBM subpoena], December 1975: Response to Requests for Admissions, docket 2933 Affidavits of Lewis Bernstein, Charles R. Esherick [in support of plaintiff's
opposition to defendant's motion to compel a full and complete response to its requests for admissions (set II)], 20 November 1975
Seal of the Public Record, docket 2934, [Plaintiff's] Motion to Seal Pending Evidentiary Hearing, Memorandum in support...,
Production of Privileged Documents, docket 3141 Opinion 44409 [re: Special Master Order No. 1], 14 May 1976
Production of Documents from John Deibold, docket 3975 Notice of Motion, Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for an
Order to Compel Production of Certain Documents from Files Under the Custody and Control of John Deibold, Affidavit in Support...
with 4 exhibits, Certificate of Service, Statement of Compliance with the Rules Governing Serive, docket 3975B Memorandum on Behalf of John Diebold in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents, docket 3977D Stipulation and Order [adjourning return date], 15 January 1979; IBM's Motion for a Mistrial, dockets 3608-3611 Notice of Motion, Statement pursuant to trial order no. 3, Affidavit of Thomas
D. Barr, IBM's Memorandum in Support of its: (1) Objection to Plaintiff's New Evidence and Claim of Market Definition, and
(2) Motion for a Mistrial), docket 3611A, Errata, 21 December 1977; Recusal of Chief Judge Edelstein, Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Affidavit Seeking to Recuse Chief Judge Edelstein, Opinion on the Petition of IBM for a writ of mandamus Compelling Chief Judge Edelstein to Recuse Himself, 9 August 1979; Treatment of Witnesses by Chief Judge Edelstein, 2 vol. of affidavits attesting to harrassment of witnesses by the Court,
16-19 July 1979
DoJ Press Release for Dismissal of IBM antitrust suit, 8 January 1982
Philip M. Stern's application as Amici Curiae, Notice of Motion and Motion of Philip M. Stern for Leave to Appear as Amici Curiae and for Order to Show Cause, Memorandum of Points and Authorities, [Proposed] Order, [Proposed] Order to Show Cause, Affidavit...
in Support..., March 1982
Plaintiff's Exhibits 4982, 5068, 5106-5108
Defendant's Exhibits 5443, 5445, 5654
Excerpts from IBM Management Committee and Management Review Committee RE: Standards Policy
Selected Trial Exhibits, U.S. v. IBM, IBM Standards Policy
FBI Interviews in U.S. v. IBM Related Transcripts and Opinion
Frederic G. Withington, testimony and trial exhibits from direct examination (3 vols., A, Box 12 and exhibits elsewhere in
Series I, subseries B).
Plaintiff exhibits (2 vols., duplicates exhibits found elsewhere in Series I., subseries B).
The Advanced Function Information Package
The Memory Information Package
The Satellite Communications Information Package
IBM Authorized ADP Schedule Price List
1977, IBM, Quarterly Product Line Assessment, Special Products Package, Includes the following volumes: Communications Minicomputers: Programming Systems: Small Systems; Data Base/Data Communications; and Data Entry.
(1968-1971); U.S. General Accounting Office, “The Federal Information Processing Standards Program: Many Potential Benefits, Little Progress,
and Many Problems,” draft, n.d.,
(97 pp.)
National Bureau of Standards, “Voluntary Standards and Testing Laboratory Accreditation: An analysis of problems, issues and
alternatives for Federal Action,” July 1977
U.S. v. IBM microfiche of trial transcripts and CCIA vols. 0001 through 0552.
Telex v. IBM microfiche of trial transcripts, and exhibits, See listing in Appendix B.
C. Documents Created by/for CCIA
Contents pages of CCIA volumes 0001 - 2270.
Exhibit Index, CCIA nos. 1015-2033
1976, Exhibit Index, CCIA nos. 2034-2130
1977, Exhibit Log, Witness and Exhibit indices from transcript, May - October 1975.
Numerical Index for U.S. v. IBM Antitrust Case. Principally covers docket numbers 1-3069, filed between 17 January 1969 and 18 February 1976. [2 editions
of the index, not exact duplicates]
Alpha-Index of Key Names & Categories for U.S. v. IBM cummulative update, refers to dockets. [2 editions of the index, not exact duplicates]
September-December 1975 Box 3
nos. 1 - 100, 6 June 1975 - 3 March 1976.
v. 1 no. 18, (on McCollister testimony)
December 1975 v. 2 nos. 22, 24-27, July-August 1976.
v. 5 no. 7, October 1979
v. 1 nos. 66-68, 16-18 (on McCollister testimony)
December 1975 v. 2 nos. 9-11, 19-21 (on McCollister testimony)
January 1975 v. 2 nos. 92-94, 96-98,103, July-August 1976.
v. 5 nos. 49-51, October 1979
v. 6 nos. 5-13, 15-28, 30, 32, 34, January-August 1980
Pre-trial Progress of U.S. v. IBM n.d.
U.S. v. IBM Overall Summary, December 31, 1977
U.S. v. IBM An Interim Analysis, draft and final form, 1977
U.S. v. IBM Half-way Point Materials, February 1978
U.S. v. IBM A Second Interim Analysis, [covers 1978 Clipping Compendium, A Chronology of U.S. v. IBM as reported by the Press, Articles from Computerworld, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post, 1972-1978.
Materials Relating to IBM's “Intent” Documents
Fact Sheets, 4 April 1977 and 3 January 1978
U.S. v. IBM, A Second Interim Analysis, Supplement, [covers 1 July 1978 The First Nine Months A Compendium of Published Stories and Articles Covering the Period July 1972 thru March 1973
Miscellaneous Clippings, or from unidentified sources
1973-1975 and n.d. Miscellaneous CCIA Files
CCIA correspondence and reports
Freedom of Information Act Request, November-December 1975
Subpoena of CCIA - Schedule of Documents, Docket 2807 Trial Order No. 3, 23 Affidavit form, n.d.: Excerpts of Transcripts in which CCIA is the subject of inquiry
CCIA Correspondence and Documents re: Document Production, 1975-1976
Commentary on Antitrust litigation from CCIA, Bache Halsey Stuart, EDP Industry Report, Oppenheimer & Co., 1975-1979
List of Attorneys handling litigation against IBM (the Certificate of Service for “Further Comments of Sperry Rand Corp.”),
CCIA file on IBM's price increase, 20 December 1974
Second Wave of Depositions, miscellaneous notes and copies of court documents, probably from CCIA's attorney
List of court documents
CCIA Notes and Clippings RE: Gag Order (U.S. v. IBM Pretrial Order no. 4), 1975
Docket number listings for U.S. v. IBM in S.D.N.Y. and U.S. Court of Appeals
Copies of correspondence from MRI Systems Corp. re: DOJ treatment of witnesses, April-May 1976
Relief Proposals
Joint Position of Control Data Corp., Honeywell, the National Cash Register Co., Sperry Rand Corp. Re Relief Matters in U.S.
v. IBM: press release on position paper, 31 Oct. 1973
Early Relief: CCIA's Proposals for Early Relief and Consent Decrees, 1972-1977
Press Clippings on CCIA's proposals for Early Relief, February - October 1973
Interim Relief: CCIA Correspondence and Documents for Interim Relief Proposals, 1977-1978
Press Clippings on CCIA's proposals for Interim Relief, March 1978 - April 1979 and n.d.
ADAPSO Relief Proposals, April - May 1981
Miscellaneous CCIA Files
Telex v. IBM
CCIA Correspondence with Telex Corporation, 1973-1975
Summary of conference by CCIA's attorney, 20 February 1973
Requests to Make Public Certain Documents, 1973
Judgment on Decree, 17 September 1973
Testimony from computer industry in support of Telex's opposition to IBM's Motion for a stay of final injuctions pending appeal,
Selected Documents Re: Jack Kuehler
Lists of court documents and notes on market definition issue
IBM v. FCC (Civ. no. 77-4005) and CCIA v. FCC (Civ. no. 77-1024)
Letter from CCIA to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 17 January 1977
David Bunch v. IBM. Richard Callahan. David Bourget, William McGlynn, et al. (NDCa, C-74-2137-RFD)
Deposition of Albert C. Bender. 25 February 1976
U.S. v. American Telephone and Telegraph Company; Western Electric Company, Inc.; and Bell Telephone Laboratories. Inc.
Defendants' First Statement of Contentions and Proof, (D.C. 1974)
Reports and Statements to Congressional Committees:
Opinion Papers prepared by the staff for use by the Subcommittee on Communications, Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee,
U.S. House of Representative, 21 April 1977
U.S. Department of Justice, “Initial Comments of the United States Department of Justice before the Federal Communications
Commission in the Matter of Message Toll Telephone Service (MTS) and Wide Area Toll Telephone Service (WATS) Market Structure,”
U.S. Congress, House of Representative, Subcommittee on Monopolies and Commercial Law. Statement of Lewis Bernstein, 4 February 1982
A. Depositions and Court Documents
IBM Corporation - Hilary A. Faw, Jr., assistant treasurer and IBM director of Business Practices, 14-16, 22-25, 28-29 February and 2-3 March 1972.
IBM Corporation - Gerald J. Fassig, program administrator, 5-8 December 1972 and 4-5 January 1973.
Protective Order and Stipulation, 26 January 1970
Telex Final Document Request, 2 January 1973
Transcript of Hearing on Telex's Motion to Vacate the Order of Dismissal and to Compel Compliance with Pre-trial Order no.
12, 26 January 1973
Brief of the Telex Corporation and Telex Computer Products, Inc. in Support of their Motion with Respect to CDC's Data Base,
5 (?) February 1973
Order Denying Telex' Motion, 9 February 1973
p.175-363
p.364-578
p.579-779
p.780-957
p.958-1106
p.1107-1315
p.1483-1666
p.1667-1872A
p.1873-2068
p.2069-2196
p.2526-2711
p.2712-2857
p.2858-3025
p.3026-3207
p.3208-3367
p.3368-3480
p.3481-3692
p.3693-3928
p.3929-3957
Trial transcripts for Telex v. IBM are reproduced on microfiche nos. T202 - T294A.
Transcripts for post-trial hearings are available in photocopy form and are listed in Subseries B, below.
[T202-T204]. 16 April 1973
[T205-T207]. 17 April 1973
p.219-424
[T208-T210]. 18 April 1973
p.425-635
[T211-T213]. 19 April 1973
p.636-836
[T214-T215]. 20 April 1973
p.837-952
[T216-T218]. 23 April 1973
p.953-1163
[T219-T221]. 24 April 1973
p.1164-1364
[T222-T224]. 25 April 1973
p.1365-1573
[T225-T227]. 26 April 1973
p.1574-1793
[T228-T230]. 27 April 1973
p.1794-2008
[T231-T233]. 30 April 1973
p.2009-2223
[T234-T236]. 1 May 1973
p.2224-2442
[T237-T239]. 2 May 1973
p.2443-2672
[T240-T242]. 3 May 1973
p.2673-2882
[T243-T245]. 4 May 1973
p.2883-3124
[T246-T248]. 7 May 1973
p.3135-3376
[T249-T251]. 8 May 1973
p.3377-3629
[T252-T254]. 9 May 1973
p.3630-3846
[T255-T257]. 10 May 1973
p.3847-4094
[T258-T260]. 11 May 1973
p.4095-4365
[T261-T264]. 14 May 1973
p.4366-4668
[T265-T267]. 15 May 1973
p.4669-4888
[T268-T270]. 16 May 1973
p.4889-5130
[T271-T273]. 17 May 1973
p.5131-5343
[T274-T276]. 18 May 1973
p.5344-5598
[T277-T279]. 21 May 1973
p.5599-5854
[T280-T282]. 22 May 1973
p.5855-6077
[T283-T286]. 23 May 1973
p.6078-6299
[T287-T288]. 24 May 1973
p.6300-6564
[T289]. 25 May 1973
p.6565-6585
[T290-T292]. 18 June 1973
p.6586-6812
[T293-T294A]. 19 June 1973
p.6813-6993
B. Court Documents
List of Proceedings and Docket Items
Complaint, 21 January 1972
Notice of Complex and Multidistrict Litigation, 21 January 1972
Before Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation - Motion for Conditional Transfer Order, 21 January 1972
Amendment to Complaint, 1 February 1972
Protective Order and Stipulation, 17 April 1972
Amendment to Protective Order and Stipulation, 18 April 1972
Telex's Designation of Trial Witnesses, 15 January 1973
Master's Report no. 1 on Telex-IBM Challenges [re: production of documents for which parties claim privilege], 19 January 1973
Notice of [Plaintiffs'] Motion for Order Shortening Time within which to answer Interrogatories and to Compel Compliance with
Pretrial Order No. 12; Motion; Brief in Support of Plaintiff's Motion..., Affidavits of G. Harry Ashbridge, J. B. Bailey,
S. J. Jatras, Jerry D. Johnson, R. L. Martin, Ronald A. Skoller, and Floyd L. Walker, 12 February 1973
Plaintiffs' Second Set of Interrogatories to Defendant, 12 February 1973
Application to Permit Inspection and Reproduction of Documents, 20 February 1973:
IBM Memorandum in Opposition to Application of the Computer Industry Association and California Computer Products, Inc. to
Make Public Certain IBM Confidential Documents, 26 February 1973
Reply of Computer Industry Association to IBM Memorandum in Opposition to Application of the Computer Industry Association
and California Computer Products, Inc. for Reproduction of Certain Documents, 27 February 1973
Ruling on Application for Order Authorizing the Clerk to Reproduce Certain Documents and Make them Available to Computer Industry
Association, 6 March 1973
IBM Statement of the Issues, 21 March 1973
Stipulation of Background Facts Concerning Electronic Data Processing, the Products, the Industry, the Parties and the Issues;
Stipulation of Fact (No. 2); Stipulation of Fact (No. 3), March, April 1973
IBM's Report on the Status of the Trial Exhibits and Marking of Deposition Transcripts, 12 April 1973
IBM's Preliminary Memorandum of Law Regarding its General Objections to Telex's Trial Exhibits; Protective Order and Stipulation;
Agreement concerning material covered by a Protective Order and Stipulation entered in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Oklahoma, [sic]; Affidavit of Leighton C. Wood, April 17, 1972 13
Errata to IBM's Trial Brief, 16 April 1973
Brief of Telex in Response to IBM's General Objections to Telex's Trial Exhibits, 16 April 1973
Deposition of Gerard Fassig (6 vols.), [taken by plaintiff and also entered in CDC v. IBM]
23 April 1973 16
IBM Memorandum Supporting Dismissal under Rule 41 (b) for Failure to Define or Prove a Relevant Market, 1 May 1973
IBM's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law relating to Telex's Antitrust Claims, 29 May 1973
Findings of Fact; Conclusions of Law; Judgement and Decree (bound together), 17 September 1973
[Plaintiff's] Motion to Set-off Counterclaim Judgement against the Telex Antitrust Judgement; Brief in Support of Motion...,
[Plaintiff's] Motion to Fix Time for Completion of Foreign Discovery, to Fix Time for Filing a Final Pretrial Order; and,
to Set a Trial Date for Foreign Issues; Brief in Support of Motion..., 25 September 1973
Order Correcting Clerical Errors Pursuant to Rule 60(a) Federal Rules Civil Procedure, 26 September 1973
Attorney's Affirmation of Service (9r); IBM's Motion Pursuant to Rules 52(b), 59(a), 59(e) and 60(a) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure (5r); Attachment to IBM's Motion... (3r), 26 September 1973
Notice of Motion [for a Stay of Injunctive Relief] (8); Memorandum in Support of IBM's Motion..., 28 September 1973
Telex's Response to IBM's Motion for Stay of Final Injunctions Pending Appeal, 2 October 1973
Telex's Response to IBM's Motion to Amend the Judgment, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, 9 October 1973
Order [granting sua sponte defendant's motion to amend... or... a new trial on the issue of damages], 9 October 1973
IBM's Response to Telex's Motions to “Set-off” the IBM Judgment against the Telex Judgment, for Attorneys' Fees and for Setting
a Trial Date on the Foreign Issues, 11 October 1973
IBM's Reply Memorandum on its Motion for Stay of Injunctive Relief Pending Appeal, 11 October 1973
Notice of Motion [for reasonable attorneys' fees in connection with its copyright claims]; Memorandum in Support of IBM's
Motion...; Attorney's Affirmation of Service, 11 October 1973
Memorandum in Support of IBM's Motion Seeking a Certificate Pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1292(b), 12 October 1973
Application for Leave to Present Memorandum of the Computer Industry Association in Opposition to a Stay of Injunctive Relief
as Amicus Curiae; Memorandum of the Computer Industry Association in Opposition to the Stay of Injunctive Relief (with two exhibits), 12 October 1973
Telex's Memorandum Pursuant to the Court's October 10th Order, 15 October 1973
IBM's Reply Memorandum to the Telex Response Concerning IBM's Motion to Amend the Court's Findings; Attorney's Affirmation
of Service, 15 October 1973
IBM Notice of Motion to Prevent Telex from Frustrating the Court's Judgment and from Disseminating IBM Trade Secrets and Confidential
Information; Affidavit of Thomas D. Barr (with exhibits A-E), 15 October 1973
IBM's Response to “Application for Leave to Present Memorandum of the Computer Industry Association in Opposition to a Stay
of Injunctive Relief as Amicus Curiae”, 15 October 1973
Reporter's Daily Transcript of Proceedings Had on October 16, 1973. Hearing on Motions, vol. I
Notice of Motion [for an order regarding costs allowed to Telex]; Affidavit of Truman B. Rucker, 17 October 1973
Reporter's Daily Transcript of Proceedings Had on October 17, 1973. Hearing on Motions, vol. II
Notice of Motion [to Alter and/or Amend the Court's Order and Judgment of October 16, 1973]; Plaintiff's Motion...; Certificate
of Service; Telex's Memorandum in Support of Motion..., 18 October 1973
Reporter's Daily Transcript of Proceedings Had on October 18, 1973. Hearing on Motions, vol. III
IBM's Opposition to Telex's Motion to Amend the Counterclaim Findings and Conclusions, 19 October 1973
Petition of Transamerica Computer Company to be Heard as Amicus Curiae in Connection with Post-judgment Motions - Exhibit A - Transamerica Computer Company v. International Business Machines Corporation (U.S. Dist., N. Dist. of Calif., civ. 73-1832) Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial, 19 October 1973
Reporter's Daily Transcript of Proceedings Had on October 19, 1973. Hearing on Motions, vol. IV
Telex's Memorandum on Quantification of Telex's Competitive Advantage, 26 October 1973
Telex's Supplemental Memorandum [submitted as a supplement and extension of Telex's arguments in its “Memorandum Pursuant
to the Court's October 10th Order”], 26 October 1973
IBM's Memorandum in Response to the Court's Request; Attorney's Affirmation of Service, 29 October 1973
Petition of Electronic Memories & Magnetics Corporation to File Brief as Amicus Curiae in Connection with Post-judgment Motions, 29 October 1973
Motion for Leave to File Brief for Memorex Corporation as Amicus Curiae in Support of the Telex Corporation and Telex Computer Products, Inc.; Affidavit of Laurence L. Spitters in Support of Memorex
Corporation's Motion..., 29 October 1973
IBM's Response to “Motion for Leave to File Brief for Memorex Corporation as Amicus Curiae in Support of the Telex Corporation and Telex Computer Products, Inc.”, 30 October 1973
Notice of Appeal, 31 October 1973
Telex's Reply to IBM's Memorandum of October 29, 1973, 2 November 1973
Denial of Motion [of Electronic Memories & Magnetics Corp.] for Leave to File Brief as Amicus Curiae, 5 November 1973
Response to Telex Reply Memorandum of November 2, 1973, 7 November 1973
Amended Judgment and Decree; Amendments to Findings of Fact; Amendments to Conclusions of Law, 10 November 1973
Reporter's Transcript on Final Hearing in Salt Lake City, Utah, 10 November 1973
Order Denying Stay of Injunctions [prepared by plaintiff], unsigned, 20 November 1973
Amended Order Denying Stay of Injunctions, 29 November 1973
Notice of Motion [for Order Vacating or Modifying Pre-trial Order 9]; Affidavit of Thomas D. Barr; Affidavit of Service by
Mail, 11 December 1973
Amended and Supplemental Notice of Motion [re: Pre-trial Order No. 9]; Supplemental Affidavit of Thomas D. Barr; Affidavit
of Service by Mail, 26 December 1973
Telex's Application for Contempt Citation, 2 January 1974
Reporter's Daily Transcript of Proceedings Had on January 15, 1974. Hearing on Motions, vol. I
Reporter's Daily Transcript of Proceedings Had on January 16, 1974. Hearing on Motions, vol. II
Order [Modifying Pre-trial Order No. 9], 17 January 1974
Motion for Leave of Court to File Amended Supplemental Complaint of the Previously Severed Foreign Issues; and, for Transfer
to Northern District of California (MDL-163-RM) for Consolidated and Coordinated Discovery with Memorex Case, 22 August 1975
Memorandum Brief in Support of Telex's Motion for Permission to File Amended Complaint on Foreign Issues; and for Transfer
of Case for Multidistrictb Trial Preparation, 22 August 1975
Motion of Telex to Vacate Order Staying Discovery on Foreign Issues, 6 September 1975
Telex's Reply to IBM's Memorandum Concerning Foreign Issues; Floyd L. Walker's Affidavit, 18 September 1975
Addendum to Telex's Reply Memorandum Concerning Foreign Issues, 22 September 1975
Amended Supplemental Complaint as to Previously Separated
Indexes and Cross-References to Telex v. IBM Court Documents
Deposition Markings Index
Index to Volumes of Telex Trial Exhibits with topical cross-references,
List of Depositions Taken
Please see Index (box 1) for descriptions of these exhibits. All Plaintiff exhibits, P-1 through P712, are available on microfiche.
Those exhibits also available in photocopy form are listed below. Selected exhibits from Telex v. IBM were also entered in the appeal of the district court decision, IBM v. Telex. The record of the appeals case contains many of the defense exhibits which were not reproduced elsewhere. These documents
are available on microfiche cards TA 001 through TA 095 and in photocopy form as indicated below.
Index, Plaintiff's Exhibits: 90, 123 to 143E
Plaintiff's Exhibits: 144 - 212, 225 - 252, [253-254 sequestered by court, 255 not reproduced]
Plaintiff's Exhibits: 256-257E, 291, 303, 305, 313, 318, 323, 327, 342-343, 345, 353, 363, 364A, 366, 368, 372, 384A-001 to
384A-047, 386-001 to 386-073
Plaintiff's Exhibits: 387-001 to 391-052, 464-473, [474-476 sequestered by Court], 477-483A, 484-485F
Plaintiff's Exhibits: 486-495, 497-498, 500-530, 531-584, 587, 594-607, 609-621, 623-712
Plaintiff's Charts: P1-P7, P10-P13, P15-P18, P20-P27; Bonham charts 1, 3, 5, 7-13
Defendant's Exhibits: D3-D14, D999, D1149, D1353-D1354
Defendant's Charts: D1/1A, D2-D89, D128-D130, D152-D164, D167-D184, D188, D204-D207, D209
Unnumbered Charts and Exhibits
p.92-225
p.226-295
p.296-478
p.479-684
p.685-917
p.918-1143
p.1144-1387
p.1388-1641
p.1642-1834
p.1835-2047
p.2048-2309
p.2310-2474
p.2631-2799
p.2800-2943
p.2945-4130
p.4131-4345
p.4346-4546
p.4547-4711