Print 49 comment(s) - last by CommodoreVic20.. on Nov 9 at 6:22 PM

A former Intel employee who quit to work for AMD has been indicted in trade secrets theft

A federal grand jury has indicted a former Intel employee whom the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has accused of stealing trade secrets from the company.

Biswamohan Pani, 33, allegedly was found with more than 100 pages of Intel documents, with 13 "top secret" file also discovered inside his residence.  Intel put more than $1 billion of research and development money into the documents Pani stole, which includes future CPU designs.

"The indictment was not a surprise," said Bradford Bailey, Pani's attorney.  "We knew it was coming.  We will enter a plea of not guilty when an arraignment date is set, and he will vigorously contest the charges because he is innocent."

Pani submitted his resignation at Intel in May 2008, and planned on working until June 11, but began working for Advanced Micro Devices on June 2.  When he started his job at AMD, he still had an Intel laptop and access to the internal Intel network.

During a search of his home in early July, the FBI found eight different documents that were classified as "secret," "top secret" and "confidential."  AMD did not request he steal the information or knew anything about his actions, the federal government believes.

"AMD has not been accused of wrongdoing, and the FBI has stated that there is no evidence that AMD had any involvement in or awareness of Mr. Pani's alleged actions," AMD said in a statement published by the Associated Press.

According to Pani, he took the files to help his wife work on a project, who is currently employed by Intel.  Intel quickly pointed out the files would have served no use for his wife.

Pani now faces four counts of wire fraud and one count of theft of trade secrets.  He faces up to 10 years on the single count of theft of trade secrets and up to 20 years for each count of wire fraud.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Let me get this straight...
By cete on 11/7/2008 4:02:12 AM , Rating: 2
I disagree with you.

Your experience is what remains inside your head.
All documents you've ever produced while being hired to do so are the property of your employer, who paid you to make them.
My contracts with every company I've worked for make this issue crystal clear, and I never feel the need to take home any of my productions.
If I ever need, I can reproduce the work anyway, or even make it better.

RE: Let me get this straight...
By cunning plan on 11/7/2008 4:36:23 AM , Rating: 3
Theres a grey area here though dependant on profession.

Look at designers and the creative industry, you would be stupid not to build a portfolio of previous work. This requires taking the ideas you have done for say 'Adidas' and showing it to 'Nike' when pitching for a job or a breif.

However, I think the line is drawn at sensitive company information such as prototype products and figures etc. It is obvious that your present employer will not want that information to leave the building, let alone end up with a competitor.

RE: Let me get this straight...
By Solandri on 11/7/2008 7:14:04 AM , Rating: 2
The creative industry is based on a concept called work for hire.

In exchange for wages (or commission), copyright and ownership of your creative work belongs to the hiring person/company, not you the creator. If Adidas declined to let you include in your portfolio the work you did for them, then you would have no right to show it to Nike.

RE: Let me get this straight...
By tmouse on 11/7/2008 7:45:36 AM , Rating: 2
Your absolutely correct in the work for hire concept in principle but in practice portfolios are an exclusion. The idea is certainly theirs and you cannot make money directly off the concept (i.e. apply the exact same marketing visuals in your new project), however any part that is publically published such as the ad; you most certainly can show the copy and take credit for it. Its moot since no company would ever ban someone from using a publically published work for hire as part of their portfolio this would effectively limit your ability to gain future employment. Although many companies have clauses that, in theory, could be used to do this; even in California courts have almost always struck down these clauses when challenged). Now they could not use it in a public exhibition for profit.

“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki