AMD also sued for Spectre

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Jan 18, 2018.

  1. Redemption80

    Redemption80 Ancient Guru

    Likes Received:
    GALAX 970/ASUS 970
    Again, there seems to be alot of diversion onto Intel in an AMD being sued thread...
  2. tsunami231

    tsunami231 Ancient Guru

    Likes Received:
    EVGA 1070Ti Black

    people here like it, sorta like people hate on seagate here, and pretty much anything else so long llama gets it pound of drama
  3. gx-x

    gx-x Maha Guru

    Likes Received:
    1070Ti Phoenix
    they are not bugs. They are features that someone found a way to exploit. Like, you can use a space shuttle full of fuel and crash it down into a city and kill thousands of people. Get sued for a bug.
    understand? Predictive branching is not a bug, but a beneficial feature that can be exploited.
    Now lets all go back to cave age because new stuff can be exploited.
  4. sykozis

    sykozis Ancient Guru

    Likes Received:
    MSI RX5700
    This suit was filed by a law firm on behalf of AMD investors. Now, read that statement. It doesn't say that a group of investors filed a lawsuit. It says a law firm. In other words, greedy lawyers looking for their next paycheck. AMD and Intel can both use that in their own defense. Now the lawyers have to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that a large portion of investors were in fact harmed financially and intentionally by Intel or AMD (depending on the case they're involved in). If either fails, they're at the mercy of Intel's or AMD's lawyers.... Only the initial 2 cases filed against Intel were actually filed by people who felt they were wronged. To call these "class-action" suits at this point would be a bit misguided. It's actually not possible to file a "class-action" suit. The lawyers file the initial lawsuit and then after providing sufficient evidence, request a judge to elevate the suit to "class-action" status, which requires the lawyers to then prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the claims made in the initial filing directly affect a large number of people. In this case, they'll likely also have to prove that disclosure was withheld solely for the purposes of profit, which can't be done. If these suits fail in court, both Intel and/or AMD have legal grounds to retaliate against the original filer of the suits by charging that they filed a frivolous lawsuit.

    The only equivalent thread concerning Intel that I'm aware of, is the thread that I started. Within that thread, there is no praise for AMD nor bashing of Intel.

    While a large portion of Americans are stupid....there are some of us that question the logic behind this as well as the original lawsuits against Intel for loss of product value as a result of vulnerability mitigations.

    Brian Krzanich established his 10b-5 in October 2017 and executed the sale of stock in November 2017. He had full knowledge of both "Meltdown" and "Spectre" when he established his 10b-5 in October 2017, and when the stock sale resulting from the 10b-5 took place in November 2017. This is of public record. An investigation has already begun into the stock sale. If evidence exists to justify criminal charges, they'll likely be filed. If no such evidence exists, he'll get a slap on the wrist from Intel's legal department and told not to do it again. Either way, a proper investigation is about finding truth and the truth is all that matters. As a CEO with knowledge of a major vulnerability, he should have known better than to sell his stock prior to public disclosure, regardless of his intentions. Poor judgement doesn't necessarily make one guilty of a crime and to assume such is ignorant. However, if he chose to sell that stock before public disclosure purely for financial reasons, that would make him guilty. Either way, people need to hold off on passing judgement until the investigation concludes.

    As for these lawsuits, in MY opinion....they're all BS.

  5. Kaarme

    Kaarme Ancient Guru

    Likes Received:
    Sapphire 390
    I know what it is. I called it a bug because it's a shorter word than an exploitable feature (which is in fact two words).

Share This Page