Intel Didn't Tell Government About Meltdown/Spectre Because They Couldn't Help With Fix

KazeoHin said:
Therefore a corporation's responsibility is directly opposed to the government.
Click to expand...

...but there "is" the Bill Gates fiasco when he decided to fight them instead of removing internet explorer from Win 98.

Gotta side with bill, but tough call when all he had to do was remove explorer. Think they even came to his house to see what they could find. Eventually took years to get it all settled.
 
"When did corporations stop fearing government repercussion?"

xrealm20 said:
Oh, when millions of dollars lined the pockets of politicians.
Click to expand...
Shortly after prohibition and the mafia realized to beat the government you had to be the government.
 
Last edited:
KazeoHin said:
The government has papers and claims it has the ability to dissolve a corporation, but when was the last time it even threatened such a thing on a multi billion dollar corporate body? Moreover, how would it force the action? Is it going to take the corporation to jail? Is it going to detain the corporation? What's stopping a corporate body from shifting its assets to another country, where another government has no say in what it does?

And simply put, corporations have an ethical and moral and even a legal responsibility to the public and government.

That does not mean they have a practical responsibility.

As I said before, we aren't talking about law, ethics, morality, or theory. We're talking about reality. All the government can do is fine. If a corporation commits an atrocity that nets them 2 billion dollars profit, and the government fines them 200 million, the corporation technically got in trouble, but they still have no REAL ramifications for doing the same thing again.
Click to expand...

Please don't be disingenuous. Maybe that's what you're arguing now, but accountability is not where you started. You said corporations have no legal responsibility to anyone but their shareholders. This is a demonstrably false claim, which you've since (wisely) back-pedaled from.

Now whether corporations are being held accountable: That's a different question. I'm inclined to agree that they aren't, but that's a political failure, not a practical one. They certainly could be. Fines -- and if necessary, seizing assets -- would be quite effective. I mean seriously...do you imagine that corporations have their own armies, Jennifer Government style? Some day, perhaps, but we aren't anywhere near that yet.
 
Last edited:
bugleyman said:
Please don't be disingenuous. Maybe that's what you're arguing now, but accountability is not where you started. You said corporations have no legal responsibility to anyone but their shareholders. This is a demonstrably false claim, which you've since (wisely) back-pedaled from.

Now whether corporations are being held accountable: That's a different question. I'm inclined to agree that they aren't, but that's a political failure, not a practical one. They certainly could be. Fines -- and if necessary, seizing assets -- would be quite effective. I mean seriously...do you imagine that corporations have their own armies, Jennifer Government style? Some day, perhaps, but we aren't anywhere near that yet.
Click to expand...


Please quote where I said cooperations have no LEGAL responsibilities to the government. I'll wait.
 
KazeoHin said:
Please quote where I said cooperations have no LEGAL responsibilities to the government. I'll wait.
Click to expand...

You're being dishonest. You claimed corporations had no responsibility to anyone but their shareholders.

Companies do have both a moral and selfish responsibility for government just like individuals. The historical end result of a completely unregulated free market is consolidation, monopolilization and slavery.

Intel is being shady. I'd like to know just how closely they've been working with the Chinese... how long have they known? Why did Intel go to China about this first?
 
bugleyman said:
I hope the wait wasn't too long. ;)
Click to expand...

I mention nothing about the legal responsibilities. Legal restrictions are purely obstacles to overcome in order to fulfil their responsibilities to shareholders. If a corporation's responsibility was to the government, why would they evade tax? Why would they break any laws? Following the rules of law does not guarantee a successful, thriving business. Providing happy shareholders DOES.

If a corporation breaks the law but makes shareholders happy, they are successful.

If a corporation follows the laws but has unhappy shareholders, they are not successful.

Prove me wrong.
 
bugleyman said:
"I didn't say the light was on...I said it wasn't off!"

:rolleyes:

...and we're done here. Have a nice weekend.
Click to expand...

Because of your assumptions you misinterpreted what I said now you strut around like you made a point.

I stand by my original point, which you cannot refute, which is that any business' survival hinges on profitability, not morality, ethics or lawfulness. Therefore the business' responsibility is only to what helps it survive. Morality, ethics and lawfulness are worthless to a business or corporation if they do not aid in increasing profitability, AKA survival. This is why many honest, moral and ethical businessmen file bankruptcy while drug barons build empires. This is why Apple avoids tax by hoarding their cash in havens. If Apple had any responsibility to the law, they wouldn't. Their first and ONLY responsibility is survival.

If morality, ethics or lawfulness can bring greater profitability, then they become a means to an end. NOT A RESPONSIBILITY.
 
KazeoHin said:
Because of your assumptions you misinterpreted what I said now you strut around like you made a point.

I stand by my original point, which you cannot refute, which is that any business' survival hinges on profitability, not morality, ethics or lawfulness. Therefore the business' responsibility is only to what helps it survive. Morality, ethics and lawfulness are worthless to a business or corporation if they do not aid in increasing profitability, AKA survival. This is why many honest, moral and ethical businessmen file bankruptcy while drug barons build empires. This is why Apple avoids tax by hoarding their cash in havens. If Apple had any responsibility to the law, they wouldn't. Their first and ONLY responsibility is survival.

If morality, ethics or lawfulness can bring greater profitability, then they become a means to an end. NOT A RESPONSIBILITY.
Click to expand...

Yeah...welcome to the ignore list. The only thing you've managed to prove is that you're not worth my attention.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top