vault backup: 2026-10-16 01:25:00

20 - ORGANIZATIONS/PRIVATE/IBM.md

@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ tags:
   - USA
 summary: "IBM is a computer company whose German subsidiary, by Edwin Black's account, supplied punch cards to Nazi Germany; it also built SAGE and NSA computers and was sued over South African identity records."
 created: 2024-05-11
-updated: 2026-10-07
+updated: 2026-10-15
 relations:
   - type: head_of
     with: "[[Thomas J. Watson Sr.]]"
@@ -83,6 +83,11 @@ relations:
     role: "joined IBM after serving as deputy secretary of state"
     start: 1985-06-14
     fn: 13
+  - type: participant_in
+    with: "[[United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit]]"
+    start: 1982-08-13
+    role: "petitioner in In re International Business Machines Corp., 687 F.2d 591, writ of mandamus to Judge Edelstein"
+    fn: 17
   - type: employed_by
     with: "[[Richard L. Garwin]]"
     reverse: true
@@ -139,11 +144,11 @@ The bankruptcy court that heard the case of [[INSLAW]] found that earlier versio
 
 ### Antitrust case, 1969 to 1982
 
-The Justice Department filed a complaint on January 17, 1969 alleging that IBM had monopolized the market for general purpose electronic digital computer systems in violation of section 2 of the Sherman Act.[^17] In 1974 Chief Judge [[David N. Edelstein]] of the [[Southern District of New York]] ruled on the privilege claims over documents generated by the so-called Cravath, Swaine & Moore task forces and IBM's Office of Business Practices, holding most of them privileged as work product or attorney-client communications unless their content showed otherwise.[^18]
+The Justice Department filed a complaint on January 17, 1969 alleging that IBM had monopolized the market for general purpose electronic digital computer systems in violation of section 2 of the Sherman Act.[^17] In 1974 Chief Judge [[David N. Edelstein]] of the [[U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York|Southern District of New York]] ruled on the privilege claims over documents generated by the so-called Cravath, Swaine & Moore task forces and IBM's Office of Business Practices, holding most of them privileged as work product or attorney-client communications unless their content showed otherwise.[^18]
 
 The case had been pending for thirteen years, at a cost of between $1 million and $2 million a year, when [[William Baxter]], assistant attorney general for antitrust, ended it in January 1982.[^19] Some career trial staff had wanted the case continued. Baxter argued that under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, IBM could not be sued simply because it held a monopoly, and that the monopoly must have been obtained illegally. He said the government probably would lose the case, and that for it to stretch on another twenty years would be "the ultimate horror."[^19] The stipulation of dismissal, signed by Baxter and IBM's counsel and filed on January 8, 1982, recites that the Antitrust Division began a review of the case in June 1981 and concluded that the case was "without merit." Baxter's memorandum stated that continued litigation offered "little prospect of victory or meaningful recovery."[^17]
 
-Edelstein criticized the dismissal in a [[Wall Street Journal]] article of January 26, 1982, and at a hearing on March 2, 1982 placed in the record letters indicating that Baxter had served as a consultant to IBM during the early stages of the private antitrust suit brought by [[Memorex]]. On August 13, 1982 the [[Second Circuit]] issued a writ of mandamus in the matter.[^17]
+Edelstein criticized the dismissal in a [[Wall Street Journal]] article of January 26, 1982, and at a hearing on March 2, 1982 placed in the record letters indicating that Baxter had served as a consultant to IBM during the early stages of the private antitrust suit brought by [[Memorex]]. On August 13, 1982 the [[Second Circuit]] issued a writ of mandamus in the matter. The panel of Judges [[Thomas J. Meskill]], [[Jon O. Newman]] and [[Amalya L. Kearse]] held that "a writ of mandamus shall issue directing Judge Edelstein to cease any further inquiry with respect to the conflict of interest claim," and stated that "[w]e express no view as to the merits of that claim." The panel did not expedite its review of whether mandamus should also issue on the [[Tunney Act]] question, because no urgency attended that aspect of the petition.[^17]
 
 ### South African computer systems and apartheid litigation
 
@@ -183,7 +188,7 @@ In November 1994 the [[National Security Council]] approved a supercomputer sale
 [^14]: Ari Ben-Menashe, *Profits of War: Inside the Secret U.S.-Israeli Arms Network* (Sheridan Square Press, 1992; TrineDay reprint, 2015).
 [^15]: *In re Inslaw, Inc.*, 83 B.R. 89 (Bankr. D.D.C. Jan. 25, 1988), findings of fact 34 (PROMIS versions on PDP 11/70, IBM, Wang, Honeywell and Burroughs computers) and 192 and 202 (IBM request for the Department of Justice letter; co-marketing agreement). https://static.case.law/br/83/cases/0089-01.json
 [^16]: U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, *The INSLAW Affair: Investigative Report*, H. Rept. 102-857 (September 10, 1992): LEAA versions, p. 47; Riconosciuto's allegation on the Canadian agencies, p. 52; appeal of May 7, 1991, pp. 39-40. https://archive.org/details/InslawAffairInvestigativeReport.
-[^17]: *In re International Business Machines Corp.*, 687 F.2d 591 (2d Cir. Aug. 13, 1982), Background section (docket *United States v. International Business Machines Corp.*, 69 Civ. 200, S.D.N.Y., filed January 17, 1969). https://static.case.law/f2d/687/cases/0591-01.json
+[^17]: *In re International Business Machines Corp.*, 687 F.2d 591 (2d Cir. Aug. 13, 1982), Background section (docket *United States v. International Business Machines Corp.*, 69 Civ. 200, S.D.N.Y., filed January 17, 1969). https://static.case.law/f2d/687/cases/0591-01.json Discussion and conclusion (Meskill, Newman, Kearse, JJ.): "we conclude that a writ of mandamus shall issue directing Judge Edelstein to cease any further inquiry with respect to the conflict of interest claim"; "We express no view as to the merits of that claim"; Tunney Act aspect not expedited.
 [^18]: *United States v. International Business Machines Corp.*, 66 F.R.D. 154 (S.D.N.Y. June 27, 1974), No. 69 Civ. 200 (DNE). https://static.case.law/frd/66/cases/0154-01.json
 [^19]: "Impact of AT&T, IBM decisions," *Christian Science Monitor*, January 11, 1982. https://www.csmonitor.com/1982/0111/011144.html
 [^20]: Thomas Conrad, "U.S. Data Processing Corporations Are Supplying South Africa with the Brains of Its Military and Police Services," *Multinational Monitor* 3, no. 4 (April 1982). https://www.multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1982/04/conrad.html.