Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. It is further stated that on 09.05.2018, at the initiative of the Informant, the representatives of the Informant and the OP met in the presence of an official of Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) wherein the Informant re-iterated its requirement for access to the reference design files. No concrete response was received from the OP's representative and to avoid any further delay, it was discussed that the Informant would continue its efforts to design its own Server-Boards without seeking any further files or support from the OP and the OP would have No-Objection to the same. Accordingly, on 09.05.2018, the Informant sent an e-mail to the OP seeking confirmation regards the same. However, till 16.05.2018, the OP only deferred the issuance of any response; thus, keeping the Informant in lurch. The OP also did not provide the demanded No-Objection to the Informant.

52. In view of the categorical submission of the Informant that it is not asking for any 'support' in the form of engineers from the OP at this stage which would lead to incurring of costs and risks by the OP, there seems to be no reason as to why the OP will not co-operate with the Informant so that the Informant is able to design and develop a cost effective Server- Board for the Indian market.

53. Additionally, the OP has asserted that the Informant has itself admitted in its in its e-mail dated 09.05.2018 annexed with the information written pursuant to the MEITY meeting that it is capable of designing its Server-Boards with the material it has without any further assistance from the OP. However, the Informant has submitted in regards to this e-mail that even if the Informant could create the requisite data to ensure integration/ interfacing between the OP's Processors and the Informant's Server-Boards by having recourse to reverse engineering decoding, apart from the cost and time involved in adopting a trial and error approach, there is no certainty that the desired result can be achieved at all. The Informant would run a risk of significant financial and other liabilities. The Commission notes from the said e-mail that all that the Informant stated in the same was that till the time the issue is resolved, the Informant be given a No-Objection to "continue our efforts to design our server boards without seeking any further files or support from Intel". The same does not imply that no reference design files were required by the Informant anymore to help it design Server- Boards compatible with the OP's Micro-Processors. Further, as stated above, when the files are being provided to the other ODMs/ OEMs, there is no reason for the OP not to provide the same to the Informant as well.

54. Also, with regard to the Informant's contention that the OP has even failed to provide to it the No-Objection sought though it had agreed to give the same in the MEITY meeting, the OP has argued that the e-mails written by it to the Informant post the MEITY meeting were in the context that as the OP has also provided access to the Informant to information under the Manufacturing Enablement Agreement, it had to ensure that there was no confusion between these two separate issues. However, in reply thereto, rather than providing such clarifications, the Informant reiterated its earlier demands made in the letter dated 20.03.2018, which was a complete reversal from what it had stated in the MEITY meeting. Even the Ministry has not found any fault with the OP's conduct. From the consequent e-mail trail post the MEITY meeting, the Commission notes that such contention of the OP is not acceptable as though the Informant requested at least twice for the No-Objection, the OP failed to provide the same but rather only deferred the matter.