"The price of justice is eternal publicity." Arnold Bennett

Is Intel Lawless or Above the Law? Does Intel Have License to Cheat?

 

Did Intel steal trade secrets? Is Intel involved
Intel and drug cartels Patent Infringement Lawsuit
Libel And Slander Suit Against Intel Intel Cheated To Gain Patent
Is Intel Above The Law Moore's Lawlessness

Chip titans settle lawsuit 


Motorola, Intel settle suit over alleged stealing of secrets. 


NEW YORK (CNNfn) - Intel Corp. and Motorola Inc. said Friday they have settled a lawsuit alleging Intel misappropriated trade secrets by hiring more than a dozen of ex-Motorola employees.  Terms of the settlement were not disclosed. 

The suit focused on the hiring of 15 former Motorola engineers for Intel's microprocessor development center, geared toward the design of chips for use in personal computers, located in Austin, Texas. 

Motorola believed Intel expressly set up the new facility to lure away Motorola employees.  Motorola's suit was built around an arcane area of business law that says that employees hired by a competing firm would inevitably turn over trade secrets - willfully or not. 

"We really believe it accomplished our objective and clearly addresses Motorola's concerns," said Motorola spokeswoman Nan McRaven.

The million dollar question is this: If Intel was not guilty of the crime as charged, why it had to pay to Motorola to drop the charges of stealing trade secrets from Motorola?

Top.jpg (1141 bytes)


Is Intel Involved?

By: tomshardwar.com

So what is the real reason why there were only a handful of motherboard makers at the  platform launch-event in Taipei last week? Well, as you might have guessed already, there's a very strong rumor that the one company that hates and detests AMD's Athlon really badly is throwing its whole weight in to threaten the entire Taiwanese motherboard industry. We heard rumors of an artificial 'BX-chipset shortage' and other unpleasant threats that put a motherboard maker into a tough position. No motherboard manufacturer is particularly keen on making Intel upset. In the past such behavior resulted in lagging shipments of Intel-chipsets, chipset- shipments of only small quantity or in the worst case even in a complete cancellation of the 'cooperation' between Intel and the motherboard maker. This is a serious thing, because so far the vast majority of systems used Intel-processors and Intel chipsets. The motto used to be "stick with Intel, and you'll make money", and thus all motherboard makers stuck to it nicely. 

The current situation doesn't make things easier. Athlon may be a great product, but will it ship in quantity? If it should, Intel could be left sitting on its chipset until kingdom come, but who can assure that? If Athlon should not ship in decent amounts, the majority of users will have to stick to Intel-systems and thus the big money is still made
with Intel-systems, including motherboards with Intel chipsets. So the motherboard makers don't know. Shall they take the risk and upset Intel, or should they turn their backs on AMD to score some points with Intel? 

The Sad Situation:

Let's pick three examples, Abit, Asus and FIC. Abit already announced that they won't do Athlon-motherboards. Does that surprise anyone? Abit never made any Super7-boards as well. It doesn't seem too unlikely that Abit wants to stay on good terms with Intel. Asus is the next and saddest example. I know for a fact that Asus has designed a highly excellent Athlon-motherboard.

However, who expected Asus at the launch-event in Taiwan last week waited in vain. Asus is chicken, they could easily supply Athlon-boards, but they are afraid of Intel's reaction. Well, well. Example number three is FIC. FIC has got a relationship with Intel too, they are actually a significantly big customer for Intel chipsets. However, FIC belongs just as VIA to the Formosa Plastic empire, and thus FIC used to be one of the first to supply motherboards with VIA and thus non-Intel chipsets. FIC doesn't have the slightest problem with launching their Athlon-motherboard. They weren't afraid of Intel in the past and they're not afraid of them now as well. That's the spirit, dear readers! Asus is one of the very best motherboard makers in the world, but being afraid of Intel doesn't score them any points with me. 

Praise the Three Musketeers! 

This motherboard review includes the Athlon boards from Gigabyte, FIC and Microstar International (MSI). Let's commend them for their courage and let's hope that others will follow. I will not rest until I either find out that Intel never threatened anyone, or until I found some hard evidence to once and for all stop this ridiculous behavior. I will fly over to Taiwan and talk to key people in the motherboard business. Intel is either free of sin or it should better stop threatening businesses as long as there's time. The FTC is waiting and so am I. 

http://www.tomshardware.com/mainboard/99q3/990818/athlon_boards-02.html

Top.jpg (1141 bytes)


Q.  What do Intel and the drug cartel's have in common?

A.  They both set-up front companies in the Cayman Islands to hide their illegal and un-ethical activities.

Don't believe me?

Well on Jan 19, 1999 Intel -- using a front company called Melean Company Ltd. registerted in the Cayman Islands --  tried to obtain important patents from a bankrupt start-up company called International Meta Systems, in the Austin Courtroom of the Honorable Frank R. Monroe.

The motion filed the the Trustee of the bankruptcy was filed by a Mr. Osherow the Trustee on behalf of the Intel front company.  The full motion is posted at: www.ildf.com/ch7_osherwo_jan19_99.html

An except below.

While reading it, ask yourself the following questions.

1- How did Intel (Maelen) get so close to the Trustee of the bankruptcy?

2- Did Mr. Osherow know that Melean was a front for Intel? If he didn't how was he      deceived? If he did, what was occurring in the back door?

3- Read item #7 of the motion VERY carefully.

4- Remember that during Jan. 1999, Intel was preparing for the FTC investigation. Where the chief complaint was that Intel extorts patents from it customer, and partners like Digital, Compaq, Intergraph, Micron, SST, Via, etc. ... begin motion excerpt --------------

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

In re

INTERNATIONAL META SYSTEMS, INC.,

Case No. 98-10792-FM (Chapter 7)

Debtor.

MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT REGARDING PROSECUTION OF AVOIDANCE ACTION AND AUCTION OF PATENTS

To the Honorable Frank R. Monroe, United States Bankruptcy Judge Randolph N. Osherow, Chapter 7 Trustee for International Meta Systems, Inc. (the "Trustee") and Maelen Company, Ltd. ("Maelen") file this motion requesting approval of an agreement reached between the Trustee and Maelen regarding the prosecution of certain avoidance actions belonging to this chapter 7 estate and an auction of patents that may be recovered by the estate.

4. Maelen wants to acquire the Patents from the Trustee. Accordingly, Maelen and the Trustee have reached an agreement (the "Agreement") with respect to the prosecution of the avoidance action and a subsequent auction on the Patents if they are recovered for the benefit of the estate. A copy of the Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

5. The Trustee and Maelen seek Court approval of the Agreement to enable the Trustee to prosecute the avoidance action and maximize the value of the recovered Patents for the benefit of this estate.

6. With respect to the prosecution of the avoidance action against TechSearch, the Agreement provides that Maelen's counsel - - Kirkendall, Isgur & Foltz, L.L.P.-- will serve as special counsel to the Trustee and prosecute the avoidance action upon Court approval of the Agreement and the firm's retention as special counsel.

7. Pursuant to Local Bankruptcy Rule 2014, the Trustee requests that this Court approve his retention of  Maelen's counsel - the Houston, Texas law firm of Kirkendall Isgur & Foltz, L.L.P. "KIF,") - in connection with the approval of the Agreement. To the best of the Trustee's knowledge, KIF does not hold or represent any interest adverse to the estate with respect to the avoidance action as required by section 327 of the bankruptcy Code. An Affidavit of Thomas Kirkendall Under Bankruptcy Rules 2014(a) and 2016(b), is being filed contemporaneous with this motion.

8. Under the Agreement, Maelen has agreed to pay the litigation costs of the avoidance action, including the reasonable costs and attorneys' fees incurred in the prosecution of the avoidance action. Neither the Trustee nor this estate will be liable for payment of any such costs and fees unless the Patents are sold at auction to a some other party than Maelen for a price greater than Maelen's minimum bid. 

Exhibit A:

U.S.  Patent Number 5,574,927  "Risc Architecture Computer Configured for Emulation of the Instruction Set of a Target Computer,"  issued November 12, 1996, and any and all corresponding foreign patents or patent applications owned or held by Assignor, including all of the files and original documents (including Letters Patents) relating to the above-described Patent including all prosecution files for pending patent applications included in the Patent, and Assignor's own files relating to the Patent.

end motion excerpt ------

As a former Intel employee, I was disgusted with how Intel treats its' employees, its' customer, its' supplier, and its' partners. I think the FTC investigation of Intel should be reopened and the Maelen case should be looked at very carefully by the U.S. Justice Department for criminal wrong doing on the part of Intel.

To Quote item #7 again "To the best of the Trustee's knowledge, KIF does not hold or represent any interest adverse to the estate with respect to the avoidance action as required by section 327 of the bankruptcy Code. An Affidavit of Thomas Kirkendall Under Bankruptcy Rules 2014(a) and 2016(b), is being filed contemporaneous with this motion."

Anonymous former employee.

Top.jpg (1141 bytes)


Patent Infringement Lawsuit

ILDF, Inc.                                    
International Meta Systems' 
Shareholder and Creditor
Advocacy Group
ILDF, INC. OUTLINES STORY BEHIND PENDING INTEL
CORPORATION VS. TECHSEARCH LLC
PATENT INFRINGEMENT LAWSUIT

ILDF Continues to Fight for Shareholders of International Meta Systems, Inc. Canton, Ohio. April 30, 1999 The $500 million lawsuit filed by the Northbrook, Ill., law firmed TechSearch LLC against the semiconductor giant Intel, Corp. (Nasdaq- Symbol INTC) has created tremendous interest from both financial and industry experts.  This story has left many unanswered questions regarding ethics and the origination of the fundamental technology that supports today's high-speed microprocessors.  The members of ILDF, the International Meta System's   (OTCBB-Symbol IMESQ) shareholder and creditor advocacy group, have worked relentlessly to archive factual information material to the genesis of this unfolding story. 

An April 16, 1999 Wall Street Journal Article detailed the aggressive tactics Intel employed to undermine the pending patent-infringement suit in San Francisco, California Federal Court.  By the use of a fallacious Cayman Island shell company, Intel attempted to challenge TechSearch's ownership of the patent in question at a separate IMS bankruptcy case in Austin, Texas were Judge Frank R. Monroe, who is overseeing the proceedings, "Concluded that Intel and the Cayman company had portrayed themselves as trying to help the bankrupt debtor when the were in fact really out to undermine the patent case."  The significance of the Patent in question is the probability that the technology it covers is currently being used by the computing industry without license and possibly represents an essential component of the Pentiumtm technology. 

ILDF also questions the ownership of the patent originally developed by IMS as evidenced by supporting documentation they have compiled at http://www.ildf.com, that includes legal filings asserting fraudulent asset transfer and the qualification of the patent as a preference item by the bankruptcy court.  Additional information including declarations by key executives and directors are also available and raise many unanswered questions as to the course of events that led to the bankruptcy of  IMS and the ownership of a technology patent that has gained the attention of the most influential players in the high tech industry.

ILDF, Inc. was formed as a benevolent association in support of the fair and just treatment of the creditors and shareholders of International Meta Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("IMS').

 

For Further Information
At ILDF, Inc. Website containing archived information  www.ildf.com 
Valery Scott, Director 
Thomas Childs, Director 

Top.jpg (1141 bytes)


Intel to face assault, libel and slander suit


The following article was posted in "The Register" on 4-22-99:

An aggrieved US company has filed an assault, libel and slander suit against chip giant Intel.

Techsearch LLC filed suit against Intel earlier this week. The case is connected to allegations that Intel, under the guise of a shell company set up in the Cayman Islands, blocked the acquisition of a patent Techsearch was attempting to acquire.

See our story last week: Intel bang to rights on questionable business ethics

We spoke to a representative of Techsearch LLC today and he confirmed his
company had started a defamation suit against Intel. He said: "That suit is based on
remarks made by an Intel representative in the Wall Street Journal article."

The original patent suit against Intel was filed in June 1998, he added.

An Intel UK representative confirmed the details of the litigation.

He said: "Clearly there is a litigation case and Intel will defend it vigorously. We
strongly disagree with aspersions that our business has been conducted unethically in
any way whatsoever."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/990422-000011.html

Top.jpg (1141 bytes)


Intel bang to rights on questionable business ethics

The following article was posted in "The Register" 4-16-99:

Sometimes, we think that local New York paper The Wall Street Journal is too worthy by half. But, on occasions they write really good stuff. Credit where credit's due.

The newspaper has just published a fab story showing that Intel set up a shell Cayman Island company in order to get hold of some patents it wanted.

In the course of so doing, it really cheesed off a Texan judge trying to wind up the affairs of a company called International Meta.

According to the WSJ, Intel created the shell company, called Maelen, to move a motion that patents it wanted should not be sold to a firm of lawyers called TechSearch.

TechSearch got wind of the fact that Maelen was a front organisation for Intel. Judge Frank Monroe said Intel's tactics were "wholly inappropriate".

Oh Chipzilla, when will you ever learn to tread lightly?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/990416-000003.html

Top.jpg (1141 bytes)


Criminal Charges against Intel for computer fraud

Is Intel licensed to cheat?

This is another proof that Intel is unethical, intimidates, cheats, deceives, is lawless, and thinks, talks, and acts as it is above the law.  

It is ironic that Intel premeditatedly, deliberately, and wrongfully accesses and monitors SPCA's (Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) "private e-mail system" and callously breaches their trust.  After SPCA discovers Intel's invasion of their proprietary computer system, it confronts Intel and formally requests that Intel changes the password and stay out of their "private e-mail system".  But Intel lawlessly and as it is their legitimate right to trespass SPCA's "private e-mail system" continue invasion of SPCA's privacy and on an ongoing basis it trespasses SPCA's proprietary computer system.

This unlawful act of Intel in violation of SPCA's "private e-mail system" is clearly and without a doubt called Trespass Of SPCA's Proprietary Computer System.  Yet Intel shamelessly is claiming innocence.  On the other hand, when Ken Hamidi sent e-mail messages through Internet, which is a public medium, to Intel' employees, Intel filed a lawsuit against Ken Hamidi and falsely claimed that Ken Hamidi has trespassed Intel's Proprietary Computer System.

By these contradicting and self-serving actions Intel is obviously implying that it is Almighty's lawful right to step over all boundaries and violate everyone's right only because it is too powerful and can be above the law.

 

MARK LARSON / STAFF WRITER (The Sacramento Business Journal, April 2, 1999 Volume 16, No. 3)

Intel Corp. in Folsom has been bitten on the hand after trying to feed a new computer system to the Placer County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

Two years ago, Intel offered to help the Placer SPCA set up a Web page and a new network for managing a Roseville animal shelter. The company was trying to do the right thing while generating a little community good will.

Now, the SPCA has sued Intel.

The animal-adoption group claims that the computer system was never set up, and that the Intel employee who was assigned to the job wound up spreading defamatory information about how the SPCA puts animals to sleep.

The SPCA's suit, filed March 17 in Sacramento

INTEL Biting the hand that tried to feed,

County Superior Court, charges Intel and Folsom employee Deborah Budzinski Findley with a mouthful of improprieties.

Intel was served with the suit at corporate headquarters in Santa Clara on Wednesday, said Joan Jernegan, attorney for the animal shelter.

Intel spokeswoman Arie Cross said the company hadn't seen the suit and couldn't comment. Findley could not be reached for comment.

The suit claims that Findley could face criminal charges of computer fraud for wrongful access and use of the SPCA!s private e-mail.

In March 1997, the suit alleges, Intel contacted the Placer County SPCA to "determine how Intel could provide assistance." Intel volunteers, including Findley, participated in an SPCA"Adoptathon" in May 1997.

A month later, Findley proposed that Intel computerize the SPCA in two phases.

First would come a Web page offering animals for adoption. Intel would kick in computer gear and a digital camera to photograph the animals.

In exchange, the SPCA agreed to let Intel advertise the contribution on the company's own Web page.

The second part of the project was to involve setting up a computer network for the SPCA animal shelter so that animals coming in and out of the shelter could be carefully cared for and tracked.

In August 1997, Findley allegedly presented the two-phase plan to the SPCA's board of directors. But there were problems. The SPCA claims that no implementation plan was drawn up and there was inadequate training.

On Sept. 1 1997, the suit claims, Findley asked an SPCA official if she could keep the SPCA computer equipment at her home instead of at the SPCA. She was turned down.

The Web page was created that month to advertise the SPCA!s mission to a "worldwide audience, and to identify specific animals for adoption." That same month, an Internet e-mail address was set up for the shelter.

The suit alleges attorney that between then and February of this year, Intel - without the SPCNs consent - put a "forwarding command". on all SPCA e-mail. "All copies of SPCA e-mail" were sent to Findley, the suit alleges.

Barking noises: The Placer SPCA says that in the autumn of 1997 it started getting bashed by angry letters, "unflattering news stories," and speeches made before the animal shelter's board.

"Demands were made for an independent accounting of the SPCA's books and records, for independent legal review of the SPCAI s operations and for the replacement of members of the board of directors," the suit says.

The SPCA didn't know where the criticism was coming from. But the lawsuit claims that later, SPCA officials discovered they'd been targeted by a campaign to stop the shelter's policy of euthanizing animals.

In December 1997, SPCA executive director Veronica Blake allegedly became aware that Findley was reading the non-profit's e-mail. Blake asked her to stop, and asked someone at Intel to change the password. The suit claims she didn't discover until this February that the password was never changed.

In December 1997, meanwhile, Intel spent an entire day at the SPCA facilities in Roseville, "taking photographs for its SPCA Success Story Case Study advertisement," the suit says. Intel later used its Web page to advertise its efforts to automate the SPCA.

The suit claims it was false advertising when Intel said its technology "enhanced PC SPCA`s image."

Findley was taken off the SPCA Web page in March last year, according to the suit. Intel allegedly refused to meet with SPCA officials over concerns about the project. The second part of the project to network the animal shelter's computers "was never commenced," the suit says.

Angry voices The suit alleges that Findley was behind efforts to stop the shelter from euthanizing animals.

In February last year, Findley allegedly altered the SPCA's Web page, "falsely stating that the mission of the SPCA was to 'cause suffering among animals,' and next to the identifications of animals available for adoption, inserted inflammatory references reading 'Please save her life,' and 'Please save her from death!'"

'Me alleged changes weren't discovered until a month later.

'Me SPCA says it was exposed to "hatred, contempt, ridicule." It claims that a local donor who had donated $250,000 to the SPCA and had planned to leave "millions" more after her death, had "withdrawn further financial support for the agency."

Intel, meanwhile, canceled the participation of 50 of its employee volunteers who were scheduled to help in another Adoptathon. An Intel manager allegedly explained that she had learned from undisclosed sources of "abuses" going on at the SPCA.

That same month, Intel was to present an award to the SPCA, but it was allegedly canceled without explanation.

"Invasion of the SPCA!s e-mail is not just an invasion of privacy but an abuse of the whole computer system," SPCA attorney Jernegan said.

'The suit, which seeks unspecified damages, charges breach of oral contract, breach of good faith and fair dealing, interference with prospective economic advantage, misappropriation of trade secrets, negligence, unfair competition and violation of the Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act.  

Top.jpg (1141 bytes)


Moore's Lawlessness

By:   Jeffrey Kegler

John Steinbeck:

"Let me tell you a story. When _The Grapes of Wrath_ got loose, a lot of people were pretty mad at me. The under sheriff of Santa Clara County was a friend of mine and he told me as follows 'Don't you go into any hotel room alone. Keep records of every minute and when you are off the ranch travel with one or two friends but particularly, don't stay in a hotel alone.' 'Why?' I asked. He said, 'Maybe I'm sticking my neck out but the boys got a rape case set up for you. You get alone in a hotel and a dame will come in,tear off her clothes, scratch her face and scream, and you try to talk yourself out of that one. They won't touch your book but there's easier ways.   "It's a horrible feeling, Chase, particular because it works.  No one would ever have believed my book again. And until the heat was off I never went any place alone." [1]

From Tim Jackson's new book, _Inside Intel_

"As details of the operation unfolded, new Intel Security hire Robert Westervelt could hardly believe his ears. He understood that Intel had set up an arrangement with an employee who had recently been fired for theft. The plant security manager would give the employee a package of Intel chips, and the former employee would act as a fence He would contact potential buyers for the chips, explain that they had been stolen from the assembly plant, and then sell them.  An Intel employee would then sign a sworn statement 'confirming' that the goods had been stolen from the company. The buyer would be arrested by the local police, and the 'seller' would be paid by the company for his help in getting the buyers behind bars. [ ... ]"

"'The way you explained this in the meeting,' replied Westervelt, 'there's definitely been a crime committed.  But not by the twenty-odd guys who bought the chips. The crime has been committed by you guys. You fabricated evidence, which is a felony in Malaysia and any other part of the world.'" (257-258) [2]

Also from Jackson's book, Vinod Dham, then Intel Vice-President and chief of the Pentium project, speaks to Albert Yu, an engineer he has discovered planning to form his own start-up "Intel can put you in jail just like that." (338).

_Inside Intel_, though recent, was the first book about Intel.   The absence of titles on such a powerful corporation is unusual -- consider the steady flow of books about Apple and Microsoft.  But apparently Intel made it clear that they would not cooperate with such ventures and this dissuaded everyone until Jackson (403-407).

Misdeeds of Intel security described by Jackson include attempting break-ins to employees' desks and cars (262); absconding with the garbage outside an employee's home and reading its contents (238); unauthorized wire-tapping of conversation with an employee (262,263); bribing a motel employee to search an employee's room and attempting to bug it (263); unauthorized criminal record checks (264); unauthorized license plate checks (264); unauthorized financial checks on persons (264); tackling a employee's husband in their own home, while doing protective surveillance (323-324) [4]; taking employee's typewriter ribbons (265-266); and using the threat of arrest and imprisonment to search employees' homes (338) [4].

Westervelt, the Intel Security operative who brought the Malaysia chip setup to the attention of Intel management, wound up out of a job for this service.   Indeed, he charged that Intel attempted to have him arrested on drug charges on his way back from Malaysia. Intel paid Westervelt an unrevealed amount to settle his lawsuit under non-disclosure (255-261).  Westervelt was not the only one to wind up out of Intel security as a result of failure to condone or commit crimes.  So did Terry Hudock (264-266).

Lest it appear that Intel's security staff does all the dirty work, we already saw Vinod Dham having employees' homes searched under threat.  We also have the destruction of a report on fire hazards in Penang after a fire and insurance claim there (139); lying to an insurance investigator (142); opening, reading and deliberately using a mistakenly delivered Fed Ex (310-311); preparation of witnesses at a criminal trial (293); alteration of evidence in civil suits (322, 330); and the senior executive who threw a dictionary at a secretary who corrected his spelling (65).

Especially relevant to Randal Schwartz's case is Jackson's account of the criminal prosecution of George Hwang, founder of start-up ULSI, for theft of Intel's trade secrets. Hwang had discovered ULSI had unwittingly come into possession of Intel proprietary documents, and had contacted Intel. Hwang offered to open his laboratories to Intel lawyers. Intel did not respond to ULSI.  Instead the Santa Clara Police raided ULSI five days before Intel filed a civil suit (284-289). 

The leader of the police team that raided Intel, Nels Pearson, later did private consulting for Intel.  Intel was allowed to be present at the interrogation of witnesses, and to see seized ULSI technical documents (290,293).

The testimony of Intel expert witness John Crawford showed that the criminal prosecution was for Intel just a side show to its civil case.  Crawford, when asked if most of the information in the misappropriated documents was not already published, distanced himself from the article. An Intel attorney asked for a recess, and Crawford conferred with another Intel attorney about the implications of this for the civil case.  On his return to the stand, Crawford changed his testimony (292).

Intel's eagerness to accompany the police on searches and at interrogations should not be seen as a sign of exaggerated respect for officers of the law.  Intel policy is that the police not be called for bomb scares, in part because they are thought to be useless, in part because they are seen to waste the time of Intel employees on "dumb questions", and in part because they cannot be relied on not to talk to the local press (149-150).  And certainly the presence of law enforcement is unhelpful when you want to break into a car (263).

Other highlights from Jackson's chronicle of Intel's "strategy of legal harassment" (372, 8 and note on 387) Intel legal's quota of two law suits per quarter (214); the suit with AMD in which the judge was moved to condemn Intel's "cold-blooded bad faith" (283); another AMD suit Intel lost because it altered a document submitted in evidence (330); and Intel's withholding of documents from the prosecution in the Hwang case (293).


The Letters from Cybersalem are among the material at the "Intel v. Randal Schwartz" Web site:    http://www.rahul.net/jeffrey/ovs

The "Friends of Randal Schwartz Web" site archives the material on all sides of this issue, including the trial transcripts:   http://www.lightlink.com/fors

Of the many opportunities to do something, two head the list

1.) To sign a letter objecting to Intel's role in this sorry matter, see http://www.rahul.net/jeffrey/ovs/#todo

2.) To get an auto-reply giving Randal's own statement, and discussing how you can contribute to his Legal Defense Fund, send an empty message to fund@stonehenge.com

Permission is granted to freely copy the Cybersalem Letters in electronic form, or to print them for personal use.


Note 1:  Letter from John Steinbeck to Chase Horton, quoted in the after matter for _The Acts of King Arthur and His Noble Knights_, pages 301-302.

Note 2:  _Inside Intel_ by Tim Jackson. The book has a rather extensive website http//www.inside-intel.com

Note 3:  As recently as the early drafts of this letter, in fact, Jackson's was the only book about Intel. Since then some others, apparently with a positive spin, have seen the light of day. For example, Intel VP Albert Yu's _Creating the Digital Future_ has just appeared.

Some passages in Jackson put Intel in a very positive light.  Chapter 19, "Organization and Alpha Particles", pages 175-184, presents Intel as a very exciting place to work. Jackson's account of the Pentium floating point bug matter actually makes a better defense of Andrew Grove's conduct than his own account of the same matter (Chapter 1, _Only the Paranoid Survive_). In particular, Grove ignores the decision to remain silent about the the bug until the public discovered it, while Jackson points out that this is standard industry practice, so that Intel's fault in the matter amounts only to passing up an opportunity to set a new, higher ethical standard.

Note 4:  This incident is the context of the Dham quote.

Throughout this letter, where numbers appear in parentheses, they are page references to Jackson's book _Inside Intel_.

 

Home.jpg (1255 bytes)  Top.jpg (1141 bytes)  E-mail.jpg (1276 bytes)