Originally Posted by Tempey SourceLink to the court case
Looks like AMD know exactly what was taken and from where. These ex employees are in a lot of trouble.
I'm reading the court case now, you'd think they would've blacked out the defendant's addresses before posting these docs to the web.
Anyway, looks like AMD has a STRONG case against these 4 individuals. But more importantly for AMD with this trial is to find out NVIDIA's involvement, and whether they did in fact receive any of these files.
9. All four defendants used to work for AMD but now work for--or, in the case of Defendant Kociuk, will soon be working for-NVIDIA.
10. NVIDIA and AMD are direct competitors.
11. All four defendants had access to AMD's trade secrets and confidential information.
12. All four defendants signed agreements promising to protect such information and to return such information to AMD at the end of their employment. 1
13. AMD goes to great lengths to protect its confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information.
14. The last day Mr. Feldstein used his AMD computer before leaving for NVIDIA, two external storage devices were connected to his computer.
15. Onto those storage devices, three highly confidential tiles-two licensing agreements with significant customers, and a document outlining proposed strategies to AMD's strategic licensing-were transferred.
16. Mr. Feldstein's Outlook emails, which almost certainly contain a wide array of confidential information, were also, apparently, transferred to one of the storage devices.
17. All of this confidential information would provide an unfair advantage if improperly used for or disclosed to a competitor, like NVIDIA, or if used by an NVIDIA employee in furtherance of NVIDIA's competitive interest.
18. After Defendant Desai decided to work for NVIDIA, she and Defendant Kociuk e- mailed about how Ms. Desai could manipulate and eliminate certain data on her AMD computer.
19. The day before Ms. Desai's last day at AMD, an external storage device was attached to her AMD computer.
20. A folder called "Perforce"-which is the name of an AMD internal database containing the confidential technological work and development of AMD process and product- was created on the external device.
21. AMD has confirmed that a folder on Ms. Desai's desktop, also called "Perforce," contains more than 200 files, many of which bear confidentiality designations on their face.
22. A review of documents in this folder confirm that they contain highly confidential technical information relating to the latest generation of product and process being developed by AMD, information that would provide an unfair advantage if disclosed to competitors.
23. In the days leading to Ms. Desai's departure, and the following week, Defendant Kociuk ran several internet searches about how to copy and/or delete large numbers of documents.
24. Approximately two weeks before Mr. Kociuk turned in his resignation to AMD, more than 150,000 files-believed to be full copies of AMD laptop and desktop computers were transferred from his AMD computer to an external hard drive.
25. Given the nature of Mr. Kociuk's work for AMD, his computer necessarily contains AMD confidential information that would provide an unfair advantage if disclosed to a competitor, or used by a competitor's employee in furtherance of that competitor's interests.
26. The conduct of Defendants Feldstein, Desai, and Kociuk, described above, violates their contractual, common-law, and statutory obligations to AMD.
27. All four defendants also signed agreements promising not to solicit AMD employees during their employment and for a limited time thereafter.
28. In addition to misappropriating AMD's confidential information, Defendants Feldstein and Desai also violated these non-solicitation agreements, Mr. Feldstein by soliciting Ms. Desai, and Ms. Desai by soliciting Mr. Kociuk (and potentially others).
29. Defendant Hagen violated his non-solicitation agreement as well by soliciting Ms. Desai.
30. The loss of talent-enabled by Defendants Feldstein's, Desai's, and Hagen's violations of their non-solicitation agreements-has harmed and will continue to harm AMD in ways that are both intangible and difficult to quantify, as well as tangible.