Intel Named One of the World’s Most Ethical Companies

[HardOCP News]

Intel has been recognized as one of the 2016 World’s Most Ethical Companies by The Ethisphere Institute, an independent corporate ethics think-tank. A six-time honoree, Intel was recognized for demonstrating sustained ethical leadership and for its performance across several criteria, including ethics and compliance; corporate citizenship; and responsibility. Learn more about Intel’s commitment to corporate governance and ethics.

 

[Pieter3dnow]

Intel still owes $1.4 billion after losing European antitrust appeal

Woot

Can I hire this institute and proclaim myself master of the universe?
I'm willing to pay for this just not as much as Intel

 

[buzzbomb]

So anti-competitive behavior doesn't rate?

 

[kbrickley]

Intel still owes $1.4 billion after losing European antitrust appeal

Woot

Can I hire this institute and proclaim myself master of the universe?
I'm willing to pay for this just not as much as Intel

Intel hasn't yet exhausted all of their appeals. As a publicly traded company it would be unfair to their stockholders to pay this fine until all the appeals have been pursued (and that is also what the law allows so it is both legal and ethical). That said, this case was about incidents that occurred in the 90's, while this award is about Intel's recent activities (20 years later) so there is nothing in the EU judgement that indicates Intel is currently unethical.

 

[Gman1979]

So anti-competitive behavior doesn't rate?

We call it anti-competitive. They call it a responsibility to the shareholders due to unrestrained capitalism. I'm sure their own stock has no influence on the nuanced difference between the two lol

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

You have to love the whitewash.

They are where they are because if historically being one of the most brutally anti-competitive and frivolous lawsuit happy companies there ever was.

 

[Uvaman2]

Intel still owes $1.4 billion after losing European antitrust appeal

Woot

Can I hire this institute and proclaim myself master of the universe?
I'm willing to pay for this just not as much as Intel

Yes master, maybe this institute wont do it, but I will for only 1000$.
Also you can create your own institute using legal zoom, and just have some friends declare you master.
Maybe also greenest person in the block too?
I agree sometimes this shit is redonculus, and this seems fishy.
I mean how they are going to determine shit, is not like Intel would be transparent about all their business, they just cant.

 

[Draax]

Is it Ethical to build a fab plant of Palestinian land stolen by Israel?

Intel built a fab plant in Kiryat Gat. Kiryat Gat was part of the Faluja pocket, which was an area of land which was NOT captured by Israel during the war in 48. When the armistice was signed, it clearly stated that Egyptian troops, holding the pocket, could withdraw and the it guaranteed the safety of the Arabs living in said area and allowed them to stay. Shortly after Israel forced the Arabs out by way of beatings, robbery and rape. Many years later Intel chose to build a fab plant on this land .... I consider that highly unethical.

 

[Quix]

Think-tanks are total bullshit, the entire concept. They're not regulated, they have no oversight and anyone can just start one up today. For example, I can start my own tomorrow and name Jeffrey Dahmer the "Nicest Guy Ever", that doesn't make it true. The tobacco industry, for example, ran several that claimed smoking tobacco was good for you up until the point that no one could possibly believe that line anymore.

 

[Pieter3dnow]

Think-tanks are total bullshit, the entire concept. They're not regulated, they have no oversight and anyone can just start one up today. For example, I can start my own tomorrow and name Jeffrey Dahmer the "Nicest Guy Ever", that doesn't make it true. The tobacco industry, for example, ran several that claimed smoking tobacco was good for you up until the point that no one could possibly believe that line anymore.

Some of the institutions/think-tanks have "neutral" names but if you look at their "agenda" it is not .

 

[PersonalJ]

Is it Ethical to build a fab plant of Palestinian land stolen by Israel?

Intel built a fab plant in Kiryat Gat. Kiryat Gat was part of the Faluja pocket, which was an area of land which was NOT captured by Israel during the war in 48. When the armistice was signed, it clearly stated that Egyptian troops, holding the pocket, could withdraw and the it guaranteed the safety of the Arabs living in said area and allowed them to stay. Shortly after Israel forced the Arabs out by way of beatings, robbery and rape. Many years later Intel chose to build a fab plant on this land .... I consider that highly unethical.

Arabs shouldn't have invaded in 1967 and 1973 then.

 

[Osirus]

Is it Ethical to build a fab plant of Palestinian land stolen by Israel?

Yes.

 

[Draax]

Arabs shouldn't have invaded in 1967 and 1973 then.

Are you purposefully failing to comprehend the issue about the Faluja pocket not being captured by Israel or the terms of the armistice?

By the way ... it was Israel who attacked Egypt first in '67.

 

[Meeho]

Well, UN put Saudi Arabia on head of human rights council, so I can see Intel getting the most ethical award. What a wonderful world we live in.

 

[Monkey God]

AMD might object.

 

[PersonalJ]

Are you purposefully failing to comprehend the issue about the Faluja pocket not being captured by Israel or the terms of the armistice?

By the way ... it was Israel who attacked Egypt first in '67.

Because Egypt was about to attack, so they were preemptively struck.

 

[Draax]

Because Egypt was about to attack, so they were preemptively struck.

False. Israel claimed that Egypt had attacked first, after this was shown to be a complete fabrication Israel changed its tune and stated that well ... they weren't attacked first, but they pre-preemptively attacked Egypt. Nasser sent two divisions to the Sinai, as Egypt feared an attack from Israel (which is what ended up happening). This is backed up by the following quote by Israeli Chief of Staff Rabin:

“I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into Sinai on 14 May would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.”

But hey ... why stop there. The Israeli, chief of logistical command General Matetiyahu Peled, during the war, stated the following:

“The thesis according to which the danger of genocide hung over us in June 1967, and according to which Israel was fighting for her very physical survival, was nothing but a bluff which was born and bred after the war.”

Peled then followed up his statements with the following:

“All those stories about the huge danger we were facing because of our small territorial size, an argument expounded once the war was over, have never been considered in our calculations. While we proceeded towards the full mobilisation of our forces, no person in his right mind could believe that all this force was necessary to our ‘defence’ against the Egyptian threat. This force was to crush once and for all the Egyptians at the military level and their Soviet masters at the political level. To pretend that the Egyptian forces concentrated on our borders were capable of threatening Israel’s existence does not only insult the intelligence of any person capable of analysing this kind of situation, but is primarily an insult to the Israeli army.”

Netiher historical fact, nor Israels own military officials (who were in command during the 67 war) support what you say.

 

[PersonalJ]

False. Israel claimed that Egypt had attacked first, after this was shown to be a complete fabrication Israel changed its tune and stated that well ... they weren't attacked first, but they pre-preemptively attacked Egypt. Nasser sent two divisions to the Sinai, as Egypt feared an attack from Israel (which is what ended up happening). This is backed up by the following quote by Israeli Chief of Staff Rabin: But hey ... why stop there. The Israeli, chief of logistical command General Matetiyahu Peled, during the war, stated the following: Peled then followed up his statements with the following:

Netiher historical fact, nor Israels own military officials (who were in command during the 67 war) support what you say.

Egypt is a dumpster of a country and has been for millenia, of course they were about to attack. Straight from wikipedia:

In May 1967, Nasser received false reports from the Soviet Union that Israel was massing on the Syrian border.[32] Nasser began massing his troops in two defensive lines[33] in the Sinai Peninsula on Israel's border (May 16), expelled the UNEF force from Gaza and Sinai (May 19) and took up UNEF positions atSharm el-Sheikh, overlooking the Straits of Tiran.[34][35] Israel reiterated declarations made in 1957 that any closure of the Straits would be considered an act of war, or justification for war,[36][37] and Nasser declared the Straits closed to Israeli shipping on May 22–23.[38][39][40] On May 30, Jordan and Egypt signed a defense pact. The following day, at Jordan's invitation, the Iraqi army began deploying troops and armoured units in Jordan.[41] They were later reinforced by an Egyptian contingent. On June 1, Israel formed a National Unity Government by widening its cabinet, and on June 4 the decision was made to go to war. The next morning, Israel launched Operation Focus, a large-scale surprise air strike that was the opening of the Six-Day War.

 

[Draax]

First .... wikipeida?
Second ... it is interesting how the narrative has changed over the course of a few posts. First we started with "The arabs invaded", then it was "The arabs were going to invade, so it was a pre-emptive strike", now we have "It was a planed large scale military operation launched by Israel". IMO when the narrative changes so drastically people cannot afford to be so naïve as to continue to believe.
Lastly, you post does nothing to address the comments made by Israeli military officals, who were part of the 67 war.

 

[PersonalJ]

First .... wikipeida?
Second ... it is interesting how the narrative has changed over the course of a few posts. First we started with "The arabs invaded", then it was "The arabs were going to invade, so it was a pre-emptive strike", now we have "It was a planed large scale military operation launched by Israel". IMO when the narrative changes so drastically people cannot afford to be so naïve as to continue to believe.
Lastly, you post does nothing to address the comments made by Israeli military officals, who were part of the 67 war.

Wikipedia is fine when it has citations associated with it, there's no need for peer reviewed journal articles on such a well documented topic. It's really not hard to believe Arab states wanted to attack Israel in 1967, Arab states hate Israel and Jews. The Arabs clearly were about to invade, and in 1973 Israel didn't preemptively strike despite knowing an attack was about to occur.

Those 1967 quotes aren't representative of the entire situation which is quite well documented. You continue to post nonsensical claims that Israel was in no danger of being attacked and are at fault for being the victim.

 

[Draax]

Wikipedia is fine when it has citations associated with it, there's no need for peer reviewed journal articles on such a well documented topic. It's really not hard to believe Arab states wanted to attack Israel in 1967, Arab states hate Israel and Jews. The Arabs clearly were about to invade, and in 1973 Israel didn't preemptively strike despite knowing an attack was about to occur.

Those 1967 quotes aren't representative of the entire situation which is quite well documented. You continue to post nonsensical claims that Israel was in no danger of being attacked and are at fault for being the victim.

So let me get this straight .... non peer reviewed articles, from wikipeida, are acceptable ..... but documented statements made by Israeli military officials who were in charge during the '67 war are nonsense ....... wow .... just wow. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

By the way Israels 6th prime minister, Menachem Begin, said the following:

“In June 1967 we had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us, We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”.

 

[tazeat]

They can't seem to ethically euthanize AMD quite yet, but they keep trying...

 

[Pieter3dnow]

They can't seem to ethically euthanize AMD quite yet, but they keep trying...

Yeah while they kept saying to the market were beating AMD in every way possible we slap AMD silly , ARM walked away with the mobile market talk about incompetence ...

Arabs shouldn't have invaded in 1967 and 1973 then.

Yes.

So When Donald Drumpf becomes the next president of the United States of America you guys will steal more Mexican territory for each time you get invaded by Mexican people ?

 

[evilsofa]

1. Intel gets called ethical
2. Israell shot first in 1967
3. President Trump invades Mexico
4. I love where this thread is going.jpg

 

[Pieter3dnow]

I blame Steve

 

[Macblastr]

1991. AMD files an antitrust lawsuit against Intel.

•1993. FTC halts its ongoing antitrust investigation into Intel without taking any action.

•1995. AMD and Intel settle pending lawsuits with each other.

•1998. FTC alleges that Intel withheld technical details of processors from companies with which it was engaged in patent disputes.

•1999. Intel settles case with FTC.

•2000. AMD lodges antitrust complaint with European Commission

•2005. Japan charges Intel with violation of Japanese Antimonopoly Act. Intel accepts ruling without admitting wrongdoing. AMD files antitrust lawsuit in U.S. court. Intel filesresponse to AMD lawsuit and court date is set for 2010.

Intel and Transmeta settle lawsuit. Intel pays Transmeta $150 million, plus $20 million a year over the next five years, and Intel is granted licensing rights to Transmeta technology for 10 years. South Korea accuses Intel of breaking antitrust laws.

•2008. FTC begins new antitrust investigation into Intel. South Korea finds that Intel is guilty of unfair competition and fines it $25.5 million.

•2009. European Commission finds that Intel is guilty of engaging in anti-competitive practices and levies a record $1.44 billion fine against Intel. Intel pays penalty, but is actively appealing judgment. The state of New York files a lawsuit against Intel, alleging antitrust behavior. Nvidia and Intel end collaborative partnership and engage in legal battle. Intel and AMD settle all pending lawsuits between each other (again). Intel pays AMD $1.25 billion and the two engage in a new five-year cross-licensing agreement. FTC files formal antitrust charges against Intel.

 

[westrock2000]

For those that work at Intel, do they still force managers to give a certain number of subordinates a bad review? Upper management not allowing you to have all good/acceptable workers in a module.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

False. Israel claimed that Egypt had attacked first, after this was shown to be a complete fabrication Israel changed its tune and stated that well ... they weren't attacked first, but they pre-preemptively attacked Egypt. Nasser sent two divisions to the Sinai, as Egypt feared an attack from Israel (which is what ended up happening). This is backed up by the following quote by Israeli Chief of Staff Rabin: But hey ... why stop there. The Israeli, chief of logistical command General Matetiyahu Peled, during the war, stated the following: Peled then followed up his statements with the following:

Netiher historical fact, nor Israels own military officials (who were in command during the 67 war) support what you say.

Very well summed up.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

For those that work at Intel, do they still force managers to give a certain number of subordinates a bad review? Upper management not allowing you to have all good/acceptable workers in a module.

That's the jack Welch / General Electric model, right? Rank your employees, and constantly get rid of your lowest performing 10%, regardless of how good they are, as they lets you bring in new blood, and a good proportion of them may be even higher performers.

If people were machines, I could see this working quite nicely, but I can't help but think that in the real world, all this does is create a really hostile work environment, and lots of distrust, and long term that is - IMHO - more harmful to an organization than the risk of having a few low performers on staff.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

1991. AMD files an antitrust lawsuit against Intel.

•1993. FTC halts its ongoing antitrust investigation into Intel without taking any action.

•1995. AMD and Intel settle pending lawsuits with each other.

•1998. FTC alleges that Intel withheld technical details of processors from companies with which it was engaged in patent disputes.

•1999. Intel settles case with FTC.

•2000. AMD lodges antitrust complaint with European Commission

•2005. Japan charges Intel with violation of Japanese Antimonopoly Act. Intel accepts ruling without admitting wrongdoing. AMD files antitrust lawsuit in U.S. court. Intel filesresponse to AMD lawsuit and court date is set for 2010.

Intel and Transmeta settle lawsuit. Intel pays Transmeta $150 million, plus $20 million a year over the next five years, and Intel is granted licensing rights to Transmeta technology for 10 years. South Korea accuses Intel of breaking antitrust laws.

•2008. FTC begins new antitrust investigation into Intel. South Korea finds that Intel is guilty of unfair competition and fines it $25.5 million.

•2009. European Commission finds that Intel is guilty of engaging in anti-competitive practices and levies a record $1.44 billion fine against Intel. Intel pays penalty, but is actively appealing judgment. The state of New York files a lawsuit against Intel, alleging antitrust behavior. Nvidia and Intel end collaborative partnership and engage in legal battle. Intel and AMD settle all pending lawsuits between each other (again). Intel pays AMD $1.25 billion and the two engage in a new five-year cross-licensing agreement. FTC files formal antitrust charges against Intel.

This is a good summary as well. it leaves out the compiler issue and the 2010 Intel / AMD billion dollar settlement (which should have been 10 times higher, but Intel had AMD over a barrel) but still good.

This writeup of Intel and it's x86 legal battles by the late Harvard Law school professor Greg Tang is a very interesting read if you'd like the historical perspective, and some more details on some of this stuff.

It paints a picture of an Intel that since it's inception used sketchy deepest pockets legal approaches to force it's market dominance, rather than compete, and really doesn't paint the company in a good light.

That's the thing though, these "Business Ethics" prizes and awards are, and have always been whitewash opportunities. They exist for the sole purpose of helping companies with sketchy business practices and legal pasts bury their ethical baggage, so that when you search for it, you get plenty of articles about how wonderful they are, instead of all the dirty laundry. You can never trust these awards, and that's why it makes me happy to see that whenever they are published, people like us in this forum call out the bullshit and re-post links to their sketchy past to help prevent them from burying it in bullshit.