Originally posted by: Idontcare
Originally posted by: apoppin
Can we please get back to the topic instead of insane anarchy rants ?
This thread would be maybe five posts long if we stripped out everything that isn't
on-topic. :laugh:
Heck even the title of the topic is questionable, Intel
wasn't dubbed EVIL, they were fined for business activities that apparently stopped 2 yrs ago.
Even if the EU wanted to dub Intel evil, it would have to be done in past tense, as in "Intel
was EVIL". I haven't read anything that claims Intel is still committing the offenses under discussion.
So using present tense (or future tense) when ascribing the ethical and moral state of Intel's decision makers is not something that can be done without speculation.
The administration changed, Barret had his lawyers draft some memo's that convinced him Intel was not committing acts of anti-competition as they interpreted the laws. Otellini came into town and his lawyers had a different interpretation of the laws so they stopped doing it, but at the same time he can't exactly go to war with the prior administration so they'll just elect to sweep it under the rug and move on if possible.
Or am I talking about water-boarding now? If GWB is guilty of allowing torture (and I'm not saying he did) then is Obama equally "evil" for not pursuing criminal action against the memo drafters? I think the philosophical parallels are there for what happened at Intel between the time Grove left the helm to Barret and when Barret left it to Otellini.