Civil No. 975972, 8 Mass. L. Rptr. 21 (Mass. Super. Ct. Dec. 15, 1997), this court (Kottmyer, J.) held that two companies engaged in the computer data storage industry were in direct competition because both entities were attempting to “fulfill the same need in the same marketplace.” Following the holding in the above cases, this court concludes that Cereva and Pirus are engaged in the storage networking industry and both market to the same customer base. Accordingly, Cereva and Pirus do compete with each other directly. With respect to the issue of the difference in price between the two products, entities can be in direct competition with each other despite the difference in price between the products that they offer. See Lumex, Inc. v. Highsmith, 919 F.Sup. 624, 631 (E.D.N.Y. 1996) (<HOLDING>). B. Covenants Not to Compete Employee
holding that products dissimilar in price can have similar features so as to compete with each other holding that when a plaintiff can establish that she was in the vicinity in which asbestos dust from defendants products was inhaled a jury can reasonably infer that plaintiff was injured by defendants products holding that assertions of privilege must normally be raised as to each record sought and each question asked so that  the court can rule with specificity recognizing products liability and products actions based on negligence as part of the general maritime law holding that parties to an arbitration agreement need not equally bind each other with respect to an arbitration agreement if they have provided each other with consideration beyond the promise to arbitrate