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: Amit Patel who wrote (72418)	1/28/1999 10:15:00 PM
From: Fred Fahmy	Respond to of 186894

Amit, Re: seems like the security issue is still open Quoting from the article you provided "The effects of any boycott on Intel would be negligible. " So, I guess it depends on what you call an open issue. If you mean that some people are still pissed off, I guess it is "still open". Materially, it never has been an issue at all. I must say, however, that it has been lots of fun watching these people get so bent out of shape. What a hoot!! FF

To: Amit Patel who wrote (72418)	1/28/1999 11:05:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Let's see, these Big-Brother-phobes now want to expand their boycott to any computer maker who sell machines using Pentium III CPUs, which basically includes all the top PC makers. Who's next on the boycott hit list, the software developers who will support the Pentium III's new instructions, like Microsoft and Netscape? The web sites which will use the CPU ID for legitimate security purposes? Any advertising agency who plays the Intel jingle? Arizona state representatives who vote against the Pentium III ban? If only the paranoid survive, then these crazed guys must be desperate for survival. Tenchusatsu

To: Amit Patel who wrote (72418)	1/29/1999 1:58:00 AM
From: Diamond Jim	Respond to of 186894

"seems like the security issue is still open" Amit, I say let them cry, let them protest, let them give us yet one more buying opportunity. If the ACLU doesn't like, you can bet I do. Of any problems that Intel has had in the last few years this has to be one of those that fits in the "some people will bitch about anything" category. Intel isn't going to commit suicide, people get up in arms before they know the facts. One thing for is for sure, Intel is not a stupid company. jim

To: Amit Patel who wrote (72418)	1/29/1999 10:14:00 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Amit, thanks for posting the PR. Anyone: What if a judge makes Intel take the feature completely out like the recent Microsoft ruling with Hallmark (i.e. sw fix rejected by courts)? What would be the costs/impact? The PR stated Intel's solution is to provide a (preloaded) software fix and (according to another PR) the fix turns this disputed item into an optional feature which is exposed to the user (i.e. the user decides to either use it or not) Recently, Hallmark battled Microsoft on a software fix which turns the disputed item into an optional feature exposed to the user. I was told the judge ruled: nope, you can't make this an optional feature, you (Microsoft) need to completely remove it from your product. What would be the financial outcome/costs to Intel if a like-minded judge ruled in a similar manner with the Pentium III issue? (i.e. ruled to remove the disputed item from the product, rather than allowing a sw fix.) I believe the PR said this P III issue would have negligible impact. However, the article didn't back the comment up with facts and figures, so I wasn't able to discern if this opinion referred only to the long-term. I'm long on Intel, but would like to assess some short term holdings so am interested in understanding the potential bottom-line financial costs. Any ideas? Amy J