Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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: carl a. mehr who wrote (172848)	2/6/2003 1:03:49 AM
From: carl a. mehr	Respond to of 186894

correction Ted Hoff, Stanley Mazor and Fedrerico Faggin may not have been employees No. 1, 2 and 3 sorry...humble carl

To: carl a. mehr who wrote (172848)	2/6/2003 1:22:22 AM
From: The Duke of URL©	Respond to of 186894

So many talented Silicon Valley engineers left Fairchild Semiconductor in the late 60's to create startups that the Fairchild offspring were dubbed "Fairchildren." Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore founded Intel as employees #1 and #2. Andy Grove left Fairchild to become Intel's employee #4.

To: carl a. mehr who wrote (172848)	2/6/2003 4:05:52 AM
From: tcmay	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

"I guess that Grove is living up to his motto: Only the Paranoid Survive. He is so insecure and wants to leave a legacy of being a VIP that participating in the founding of Intel. What a falsehood! (Right now he and his inner circle is going to be remembered for stealing Intel right out from under the hard working Intel engineers). " First, I explained in my last post that Grove clearly deserves to have said about him that he participated in the founding of Intel. He was central in those early months. That you are unhappy with the stock options some Intel people have gotten is no reason to misstate what has been widely accepted and not disputed for 35 years now. More on Grove below. "Greed is what I will put on his tombstone. Show your love for him by sending some kind words to andy.grove@intel.com" This is uncalled for. "He is trying to rewrite Intel's history. Will you try winning 1MillionHumbles by getting the bio corrected? Good luck!" Grove didn't write that bio, any more than Moore wrote his, or Barrett wrote his. This is what flacks do. And Noyce himself referred for many years to Intel as the "three-headed monster." For those of us who worked there when all three were there on a daily basis, it was clear that Noyce and Moore were the primary founders, but that several others were intimately involved in the critical founding period. The "founding" was not some Dirac delta function...it involved at least several key people. "Yes, Andrew S. Grove, was Intel's 4th employee. Employees 1,2 and 3 were (possibly in this order): Ted Hoff, Stanley Mazor and Fedrerico Faggin." The exact order is not important. Vadasz has a lower number than Grove, and he jokes that this is because Andy hired him! You need to get beyond your angry foaming and get back to arguing real issues. "Question for the audience: What made Grove so great at Intel? Was he a good engineer or did he rise to the top by taking credit for other peoples work? The Humble One is just asking the question as my suspicion was raised by the phony bio where he claims to be something that he is not...humble carl " I was at Intel from 1974 to 1986. I saw Grove in my building on a daily basis, but only began to interact with him when I was more senior, starting around 1978. (Though a year earlier I briefed my boss Craig Barrett every morning on a crisis we were working on and Barrett then carried my words to Grove.) Grove was the "drill instructor" who kept things going at Intel. He also had vision, but his primary strength was as a no-nonsense/no b.s. manager. LIke other Intel managers, he had an extremely strong technical background. This made him a pleasure to work for, for people like me...I always knew that if I spoke the truth, did my homework, was technically excellent, that a meeting with Grove would be exhilarating. Others, often with marginal technical preparation, were frightened at the thought of dealing with Grove. The managers I deal with at Intel, those I've named here and some others I won't name because the names are likely to be meaningless to outsiders, were outstanding in their technical perceptions and overall managerial abilities. As for huge stock options, sure, we all sometimes shake our heads at the sizes of the stock options. At least I do. But is it so strange for a guy like Grove to make a few hundred million off of his 35 years with Intel? (I haven't checked closely, done all the integrations of past stock reports, accounted for shares he no longer has to report publically, etc., but my recollection is that Grove, Parker, Vadasz, Barrett, Ottelini, etc. are in the $100-400 million range, depending on whether they kept their stock, and so on.) Moore is of course worth several billion, even at today's prices, because he was once a 5-10% owner of Intel (I forget whether it was 5% or 10%). This automatically made him worth $25 billion near the peak. (I remember sitting with him at an ordinary cafeteria table around the time he had just become a billionaire on paper....his patty melt tasted the same as mine!) Look, I knew a guy who worked for Apollo and then Oracle. He quite Oracle to join a Linux startup company. Less than eighteen months later his paper worth was $750 mllion. Meaning, several times what Barrett and Vadasz and other 25-30-year veterans of a _real_ company were worth! If you think Intel would be better served by sharply curtailing stock options, convince enough other shareholders and you will have your wish. But be careful what you wish for. --Tim May