SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Dave Budde who wrote (137362)6/13/2001 8:41:00 PM
From: Harvey Allen  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 186894
 
White House: Rove Had No Role in Intel Merger

By Pete Yost
Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, June 13, 2001; 5:34 PM

President Bush's top strategist, who owned more than $100,000 of Intel stock, met in March with the company's chief executive and two lobbyists as they pushed for federal approval of a corporate merger. The administration approved the deal less than two months later.

White House officials said senior adviser Karl Rove referred the computer chipmaker's executives to others in the administration and played no part in the approval. Rove does not recall raising the issue with the president, officials said.

"He offered no advice or counsel with regard to this decision," White House spokesman Dan Bartlett said. Rove, however, continued to be copied in on correspondence from Intel and its trade group until the decision was made in early May, documents obtained by The Associated Press show.

Rove sold all of his stocks last Thursday, unloading a diverse portfolio of holdings in defense, high-tech, energy and banking companies valued at between $1 million and $2.5 million.

Some legal experts said Rove should have removed himself from the discussion with Intel to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest under federal ethics laws.

"I think Karl Rove has a lot of explaining to do about how this appears," said Mike Gerhardt, a William & Mary law professor specializing in constitutional law issues relating to misconduct in the executive branch of government.

"If this were the Clinton administration and it was somebody who worked for Hillary or Bill, then Karl Rove himself would be denouncing it in the loudest terms possible," Gerhardt said.

Intel chief lobbyist Jim Jarrett said he, another lobbyist and CEO Craig Barrett met separately on March 12 with Rove and Vice President Dick Cheney at the White House. The meetings, requested by Intel, also covered Bush's energy, tax cut and education plans and were "quite useful" in the effort to win federal approval of the merger between one of Intel's U.S. suppliers and a Dutch company, Jarrett said.

The deal required government approval because it involved foreign ownership of a U.S. computer company whose sensitive technology is relied upon by the military.

"I don't know that you can say that any one meeting tips the balance, but certainly when the CEO comes to call and makes this one of his priorities, it demonstrates to him that we think it's important," Jarrett said.

Company executives were unaware Rove owned between $100,000 and $250,000 in Intel stock at the time.

"We don't concern ourselves with that quite often. The world is filled with hundreds of thousands of Intel shareholders," company spokesman Chuck Mulloy said.

Federal ethics laws and rules prohibit an executive official with an economic interest in a decision from participating through recommendations, advice or rulings.

The only way Rove could avoid violating the laws was "if he were truly mute and he offered no comment then or later" on the Intel matter, said Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor.

Creating a blind trust or divesting months earlier should have been a "no brainer," said Sheldon Cohen, who set up the first presidential blind trust in 1963 for Lyndon Johnson.

"The whole purpose of ethics rules is to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, and having even a hint of an appearance problem destroys people's confidence in government," Cohen said.

White House spokeswoman Anne Womack said Rove originally decided last December to sell his stocks in individual companies but then was advised in January by Bush transition counsel Fred Fielding that he should hold off. Fielding suggested the White House counsel's office should obtain a government certificate of divestiture that would allow Rove to defer paying capital gains taxes on the stock sales.

White House officials said the request for the certificate was delayed because the counsel's office was inundated with the work of a new administration – such as arranging security clearances for nominees and developing ethics standards for employees.

During that time, Rove's stock fell about 20 percent and then recovered much of the loss before the sale.

An AP computer analysis of stock prices indicates the stocks that Rove valued on his ethics form last December at between $1.2 million and $2.8 million had dropped in value to between $896,000 and $2.2 million by mid-March. At the time he sold, they were between $1 million and $2.5 million.

"During the time that White House counsel was reviewing Karl's file, Karl did receive multiple ethics briefings explaining the importance of avoiding any conflicts of interest," Bartlett said. "Based on those meetings, Karl avoided any discussions that specifically or materially affected his financial holdings."

Rove's session with Intel wasn't the only one with an industry in which he held a financial stake, according to interviews.

Rove met March 20 in Washington with nuclear power interests to listen to executives' ideas for the Bush energy plan. At the time, Rove held up to $250,000 in stock in General Electric, which has a nuclear energy division.

The trade group that represents GE's nuclear interest attended the gathering, officials said.

White House officials said they believed Rove could participate in "outreach events" – where he might listen to ideas to bring back to the White House – without engaging in a conflict of interest.

In the March 12 meeting with Rove, Intel pushed for the merger of Dutch company ASML and California-based Silicon Valley Group (SVG) to develop the next generation of high-tech machines that churn out computer chips, Intel's main product.

Intel subsequently sent a letter to three Cabinet members responsible for reviewing the merger – Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Commerce Secretary Donald Evans and Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill.

The letter was marked "immediate attention requested" and reminded the secretaries that "Intel is the principal consumer" of SVG. The letter copied in Rove, Cheney, White House chief of staff Andrew Card and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

Three weeks later, the interagency group that included the three Cabinet secretaries approved the merger

washingtonpost.com



To: Dave Budde who wrote (137362)6/13/2001 8:49:27 PM
From: Dave Budde  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 186894
 
Stewart Alsop’s back on the Mac saddle.

fortune.com

"My Old Flame: The Macintosh
I'm rethinking the Mac as a factor in computing. One simple reason: The Macintosh seems to work.

Like most people, I wrote the Macintosh off a long time ago. After an 11-year relationship, I dumped the Mac in 1996 and persuaded my partners to switch to a Windows-only network. I thought Apple Computer was pretty much toast. But then Steve Jobs refocused the employees and started getting real financial results, and the company delivered a series of truly cool devices. All of which led me, a few weeks ago, to buy my first Apple product in years--the gorgeous Titanium G4 Macintosh. Now I'm rethinking the Macintosh as a factor in computing. There's one simple reason: Unlike Windows, the Macintosh seems to work.

I bought my Titanium G4 just before Apple shipped its new operating system, so I'm not using that yet. But check out what I've been able to do in relatively short order: I have connected my digital camera to the computer via the USB port (something I still haven't managed on Windows 2000); the Mac's Airport card seems to work just fine with our wireless network, so I can carry the Titanium around the house; a piece of software called DAVE connects the Macintosh to the Windows-based network in our house (sometimes known as the Digital Manor), so I can get documents from my desktop and notebook computers.

I'm well aware that there's still a downside to using a Mac. I know there is a lot of software that I can't get on the Macintosh. None of my five portfolio companies that make client software make Macintosh versions. But for pretty much every important productivity application--word processing, spreadsheets, presentations, e-mail, and so on--there's some Macintosh equivalent that will suffice. (Most of the alternatives are actually just versions of the Microsoft software I use on Windows.)

The bottom line: Sure, there's pain in adopting the Mac. But if I accept that, I get to use a computer that works, and that pretty much does what I expect and want a computer to do.

Windows, on the other hand, still doesn't seem to work. Now, of course, you can turn on a Windows PC and have it operate. But you can't do so without a guaranteed level of frustration, and your frustration will definitely increase the more you use the computer. If you use your PC simply to write or to e-mail or to analyze spreadsheets, you'll suffer just a little. But push the limits; use the computer for a bunch of different tasks. If your Windows experience is like mine, programs will fail or crash; the machine will start acting funny; tasks won't get completed; you'll wait around a lot hoping the machine will work after this reboot.

Microsoft executives are readying Windows XP, a new version of the company's operating system, and they promise that this new version will be better. I've heard similar promises for years; now I just smile, nod my head, and wonder at the power of the Kool-Aid they serve in Redmond. I don't believe these execs. They were very enthusiastic about Windows 3.0, Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows 2000. Their enthusiasm is meaningless, because (unless you opt for the Mac) you won't have a choice. You will use this software--if not today, tomorrow. I remember writing a column about how I wasn't going to upgrade to Windows 98 ("A Software Junkie Rejects Windows 98," in the fortune.com archive). I did resist--for a year. Then I bought a new computer, and it came with Windows 98 installed. Then I bought another PC, with Windows 2000. Every new version has problems, and every new version is more frustrating. Worse yet, I now operate in an increasingly complex web of hardware, a world in which I want my Kyocera Smartphone, my BlackBerry, and my Visto Website to all be synchronized with my PCs at home and the corporate network. The key pieces of software tying all this together follow specifications set by Microsoft. And they don't work. Not nearly well enough. And so my frustration level rises and rises.

It's grown, in fact, to the point where I want to say that I'm sick and tired and I'm not going to take this anymore. But then I remember that I recommended to my partners that we go Windows-only in 1996. Why? Because by giving up Macs, I told them, we wouldn't spend time integrating all our different computers and could instead use computers to our advantage. Boy, was I wrong: It is as hard to maintain and integrate Windows computers as it is to integrate multiple kinds of computer systems.

So what should I do? Should I go back to using a Macintosh, which would mean asking the partners to adjust once again, and asking the techies to configure our system again? Or should I stumble along with Windows? What a choice!"