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: Paul Engel who wrote (65650)	9/29/1998 7:26:00 PM
From: Timothy Liu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Personally I don't think it is a big deal. Yoffie is a director only and it is more likely his research project. And Intel is in no worse position IMHO. Tim Just 0.02$

To: Paul Engel who wrote (65650)	9/30/1998 7:34:00 AM
From: nihil	Respond to of 186894

RE: DUMB MOVE BY YOFFIE You might think Yoffie's new book on net competition is a dumb move but I doubt if Andy Grove would agree with you. When Yoffie signed on as a director he was an associate (maybe even assistant) professor and the youngest director of a large publicly held industrial corporation. I think he had come to Intel's attention from his research and consulting. He has continued to earn consulting fees from Intel in addition to his director's fees. Intel is very fortunate in having an active and influential scholar of strategy on its board. You would enjoy his Strategic Management in Information Technology Prentice-Hall, 1994. In general, a director has a legal responsibility to avoid a conflict of interest, as does a professor at Harvard. If serving on the Intel board restricted Yoffie's research in information industry, he would have to give up one job or the other. Under any conditions, he needs to have informed and consult with the legal authorities at Harvard and Intel before entering into conflicting obligations. I assume he has done so, since it is routine for professors and directors (and even consultants) to avoid conflicts. As to the information collected in interviews, it is customary to promise confidentiality to respondents -- the form in my experience is to make a bald promise "I will not reveal ..." but it is common to inform the respondent (if it is true) that the respondent's identity cannot be recovered from the response. In personal interviews, it is impossible to make such promises, and the interviewer faces a serious problem (like Clinton's government attorneys and Secret Service agents) of confidentiality. What duty does one have to conceal or not reveal evidence of a crime freely offered? I, myself, have had respondents admit to felonies and come across written evidence of felonies in the files of corporations where I was doing research. I have agreed not to disclose, but if a subpoena is served and I am ordered to answer I must do so. I have no obligation as a law enforcement officer or officer of the court to volunteer evidence of a crime. Research is only possible because the implict "don't ask, don't tell" rule is in effect. In many countries research like this is impossible because reporters and scholars are forced into systematic blackmail in order to survive and no one will talk to them. My guess is that Microsoft will get access to the interviews by means of a special master who will look for evidence of crimes or maybe civil offenses. Regardless of the form of the confidentiality promise, Yoffie should not go to jail or destroy the evidence (and I am confident he won't). I am sure his informants were well advised by Yoffie and their own counsel and there will be little that is helpful to Gates. I would expect that Netscape guys are more close mouthed than Gates and Balmer, but there are lots of tangled tracks on the deck that show that Andreesen is a loose cannon.