• Now's your chance win big! Join our community and get entered to win a RTX 2060 GPU, plus more! Join here.

    Meet Stan Dmitriev of SurrogateTV on the Pi Cast TODAY! The show is live August 11th at 2:30 pm ET (7:30 PM BST). Watch live right here!

    Professional PC modder Mike Petereyns joins Scharon on the Tom's Hardware Show live on Thursday, August 13th at 3:00 pm ET (8:00 PM BST). Click here!

Intel Targeted By 32 Lawuits For Meltdown And Spectre Vulnerabilities, Alleged Insider Trading

Status
Not open for further replies.

redgarl

Distinguished
AMD is having a bunch to, however, I would be surprise if anyone can apply for them. We are talking about a 0.15$ drop for the particular day in the share and you can only apply if you lost more than 100k$.
 

valeman2012

Distinguished
Apr 10, 2012
1,256
11
19,315
21
Intel knew about it more 1 year for sure, and they choose to safely advertise Kaby Lake and Coffee Lake CPUs to the shop.

AMD also knew about for years too, but the AMD prevented security bug-Meltdown quietly which leaves them to Spectre lawsuits after being careless.
 

Heloc

Distinguished
Jan 16, 2011
4
0
18,510
0
This is all pretty boiler-plate language in a company's annual report. Everyone who deals with those reports knows that that important stuff is always in the footnotes and, in fact, the document is mostly the footnotes.

Any publically traded company is required to disclose any lawsuits or regulatory activity that might have a material effect on their financial statements.

You'll know that Intel knows they're screwed when you see a liability show up on their balance sheet for an estimated settlement while the case is still making it's way through the courts.
 

hixbot

Distinguished
Oct 29, 2007
818
0
18,990
1
Of course they kept the vulnerabilities secret. If they announced the vulnerabilities before patches were available, they'd be opening the door to criminals. They probably should have delayed new hardware sales, however.
 

Heloc

Distinguished
Jan 16, 2011
4
0
18,510
0


Right on. I can come up with plenty of explanations for why intel did what they did where they were operating in good faith except that they kept selling a product they knew to be vulnerable. That's just to protect their profits. I mean, even that isn't like, totally evil as their still looking out for their employees and stock holders (and many of the employees are stock holders too) but the way it's supposed to work is that the company takes care of the customers and the customers help the company take care of everyone else.
 

berezini.2013

Prominent
Sep 25, 2017
51
0
630
0
This looks bad for cpu business all together. if Intel crashes and burns to hell there would only be AMD which has really bad efficiency rating. Every release AMD has ever made with a new launch people that bought into it have suffered one way or another. The only way not to see it is to cover up your eyes and be ignorant.
 

phobicsq

Prominent
Sep 1, 2017
81
0
640
3
These companies need to be held accountable for this. Sadly all the people will see little money from the suit that will likely take years. Large companies have a great solution in the US as they can basically do what they want because thru can afford to pay damages. The pharmaceutical industry has been making fines and lawsuits a part of doing business for a long time.
 

therealduckofdeath

Honorable
May 10, 2012
783
0
11,160
70
I can't see anyone with a processor older than 2017 standing a chance getting anything. Depending on when Intel and AMD knew about it, consumers with the newest processors, bought before it was made public, could probably see a chance getting something for loss of performance?
 
IDK if anyone will really get anything out of this, but it's pretty obvious that someone in Intel had to know at least about Meltdown many years ago. The security features are advertised as working, so they had to have been tested to make sure they actually prevent illegal operations.

If Intel didn't actually test them, then you have criminal negligence and maybe false advertising. If Intel did test them and just didn't care that they didn't work right, then you have criminal negligence and definitely false advertising.

The insider trading allegations have some pretty damning evidence too. Big execs selling off to minimum stock allowed to hold their job right before huge negative press releases? Come on, at least try to be discrete.
 

none12345

Honorable
Apr 27, 2013
431
2
10,785
0
The insider trading one seems pretty cut and dry to me. Guilt or innocence depends on one thing.

Was the preplanned sale of stock planned before or after intel knew about the problem. Intel knew about 9 months before the public knew. The stock sale happened just before the public was notified. If this sale was preplanned before intel knew....then they are in the clear.

If it was planned after intel knew....then that is straight up guilty as far as im concerned. And when i say before intel knew....it better have been planned months before, not days before(because its really easy for someone in the know to have tipped intel off with a wink/wink/nod/nod a week or several weeks before they told them officially).
 

P1

Honorable
Dec 26, 2013
2
0
10,510
0
OMG!!! Unfortunately, the saga continues to unfold on the vulnerability front. Researchers recently uncovered new variants that are covered by the recent patches, but the discovery shows how easy it is to develop new variants based on the fundamental principles behind the current vulnerabilities. That means that new 'strains' may emerge soon that aren't mitigated by the current patches.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS