I agree 100% Bob. Ideas, which are the stuff of IP are more valuable than any gold on any market but to me they are more valuable again as they are the often unique product of the human mind (either solo or in a team) solving a problem. If we do not value our own thought output or those of our profession or peers, we value naught.
I admit I find what elPresidente is saying confusing and were I Sylvie I would be annoyed. Her story was clear to me and worth knowing. When I re-read the thread it looks like some of elPresidentes discussion is directed at the previous respondent as well as Sylvie. Having lived and worked in many parts of Asia as a consultant I can say that there is a very heterogeneous mix of corporate ideals and norms just as there are in any of the other parts of the globe I have lived and worked. Perhaps the one grain of fact hiding in elPresidente's comments is that in some geographically Asian cultures, individual intellectual property as a concept (and therefore logically Corporate IP) does not exist in the minds of those "running" the countries and in many citizens.
It is also a common thread amongst human rights groups and philosophers that a country cannot develop workable IP rights laws until it recognises that individuals have rights. Having found my own hardware designs and "firmware" on sale in parts of Asia I can attest to the difficulty of pursuing the concept.
Taiwan is different however. It does have well developed copyright, patent and IP laws and regulations. This is one good reason why a large OEM and silicon Fab business has developed there. Some of its neighbors are poles apart in this regard and doing business with them is therefore fraught with potential dangers and costs often overlooked. It would seem clear to me that Intels own audit and controls group should know what the procedures are within OEMs and it would be (and should be) embarassing to have the Taiwan CIB break this news to them.
elPresidente, it's a bit hard to understand what your complaint is. SylvieBarak has a hidden agenda, therefore, something is wrong with her facts as taken from a CIB report? Or something must necessarily be wrong with her conclusions? This is an ad hominem attack, which insults a person while promoting a fallacy: that because her motivations are not yours, her conclusions are necessarily incorrect. Not so: even if she is a firm believer in black magic, and likes children (roasted, they taste just like chicken) this doesn't affect the validity of her argument. Secondly, you mention that these parts were "likely" documented. Um, maybe, maybe not, but surely you don't expect that these chips were handed over in a brown paper bag in the parking lot along with Intel test reports? C'mon. This article is about theft, not about engineering data on the stolen material. Lastly, what is your "hidden agenda"? Your comment on the worth of human life doesn't say "worth" to whom. Is your life worth more than 1/10 that of a CPU? To whom? Those values may be yours, but there's no justification to assume that any or even some of us equate the lives of total strangers with $50 or $60.
Sylvie, I do appreciate the value of the story and its limitations. So do not feel forced to explain or justify yourself.
The story is Intel has very poor control mechanism if is allowing it's sample/beta units out of sight. I blame them as well as the OEM for not having checks and avoid this all together. This piece of news reflects very poorly in those individuals that have chosen a quick buck, and put their profesion on the line.
I can not see why would anyone jeprosize their life and profession for less than a honest living salary.
Perhaps of their cell living quarters, but it takes more clever piramid schems to make the big bucks.
If you are suggesting that top level individuals are all criminals?
That is very offensive to many.
I'm not sure what you're saying I need to have "a clue" about... Your comment is not particularly constructive. I reported a story with all the "facts" provided by the CIB. I asked Intel to confirm them. Intel would not comment. Would you rather I conjecturefacts out of thin air all by myself? Or not report the story at all? Your comment made little sense to me, sorry.
These are likely engineers working for OEMs in Taiwan, not for Intel. Intel has no factories in Taiwan but they provide tons of ES units to OEMs for validation and qual in preparation for new product launches. These should be scrapped when no longer needed, but if not well controlled by OEMs can end up in the market.
Your "facts" are presuming a lot in order to serve your Chicken Little agenda. They are betas, so it's likely the were tested and have documented errata - if Sylvie had a clue, she'd realize these were likely INTEL builds to provide to software developers - there's no mystery that software magically appears the day a new CPU is released.
In most parts of Asia, human life is worth 1/10th the price of an Intel CPU....in the USA, less so, since a lot of people could care less if you die without health care, which makes your lifeline CPU argument irrelevant and naive.
Since these are ES (Engrg samples), they have also not been tested over the full datasheet voltage & temp range, so they may fail in a customer's socket. This could be serious: for example, some years ago, EPROMs were in short supply, and several otherwise reputable mfgrs got some "gray mkt" parts with AMD part markings. These turned out to be test rejects which had been sold out in the parking lot. One of these found its way into a critical piece of medical equipment. The chip failed, and the patient died. AMD was able to trace the package & die ID & produce records that these failing devices had supposedly been scrapped, so AMD was off the hook. Not so the miscreants... jail time. Human life ain't worth a few bucks.
Replay available now: A handful of emerging network technologies are competing to be the preferred wide-area connection for the Internet of Things. All claim lower costs and power use than cellular but none have wide deployment yet. Listen in as proponents of leading contenders make their case to be the metro or national IoT network of the future. Rick Merritt, EE Times Silicon Valley Bureau Chief, moderators this discussion. Join in and ask his guests questions.