AMD sues Intel (antitrust)

[Del Cecchi]

Pankaj wrote:

[Can you find someone who knows what they're doing to help you make a
post that displays properly?]

If you beleive Intel's case is so strong, why would they be
debilitated? Do you fear that? But I do believe they will be
debilitated It would be a very good thing for the industry,
consumers. Trust me on this: "Competition is good".

Much of the progress of civilization and been built on the creation of
monopolies, and competition is not always good. Many of the activities
that technologists admire and dream about require enormous
concentrations of power and of wealth, and the ruthless creation of
monopolies has more often than not been what has allowed those
concentrations to appear.

What do you think the computer industry would look like if it hadn't
been for IBM's ruthlessness? Follow comp.arch for a while and try to
grasp how much of the work was done by IBM when it was a monopoly.
What IBM didn't do, AT&T Bell Labs did. The insularity that went along
with IBM's enormous wealth and influence, not the actions of
regulators, eventually brought the monopoly to an end. AT&T was
brought down by regulatory activity, and it was not necessarily a good
thing.

Ah Robert, your historical revisionism again. IBM was never found to be
a monopoly after 1956. I gather you think monopoly is good? You
probably like central planning as well. Trust me it isn't good.

As to my thinking Intel's case being so strong, that's something you
just made up. I'm sure that Intel has pushed things to the point where
their lawyers will have to work to earn their money. And the *lawyers*
on *both* sides *will* get *their* money.

Sometimes companies, like people, do things because they can and it
seems to be in their best interest and they can't conceive that they
might get caught and the penalty might be extreme. Enron, Worldcom,
Itel, healthsouth, etc etc.

I didn't mention world hunger, but I did mention genocide, which is a
problem that can't be cured so easily with money. I mentioned what's
happening in the world because I find the self-righteousness of
business theoreticians more than a little annoying. You don't have a
need for inexpensive top of the line processors. The world won't
necessarily be a better place if the AMD/Intel competition works the
way you want it to. It doesn't matter all that much whether
competition in business is fair or not.

RM

Competition is good. Free markets are good. Bureaucracies are bad.
Who are the elite that they should determine what is best for us proles?

del

 

[Robert Myers]

Robert Myers wrote:

Ah Robert, your historical revisionism again. IBM was never found to be
a monopoly after 1956.

Pass my post along to IBM's legal department. I'm not taking back a
word. *I* find them to have been a monopoly long after 1956.

I gather you think monopoly is good?

Neither good nor bad, necessarily. On the whole, monopolies have
probably done more to advance what is generally called civilization
than to impede it. Whether the advancement of what is generally known
as civilization is a good thing might be debated.

You probably like central planning as well. Trust me it isn't good.

No need to trust you. And, nothing personal, but I wouldn't. The
number of wrong opinions about economics that have been uttered in
human history surely exceeds the number of humans who have ever lived.
In any case, we have empirical evidence that at least some versions of
central planning don't work.

Sometimes companies, like people, do things because they can and it
seems to be in their best interest and they can't conceive that they
might get caught and the penalty might be extreme. Enron, Worldcom,
Itel, healthsouth, etc etc.

I've tried to make it clear that, on my scale of ethics, the damage
done to the public good by Intel doesn't make it into the Enron or
Worldcom league. Probably Healthsouth, too, but there I don't know the
story well enough. You're free to make your own value judgments. Just
don't expect your value judgments to be universally accepted. I don't.

Competition is good. Free markets are good. Bureaucracies are bad.
Who are the elite that they should determine what is best for us proles?

Just this very afternoon, I was recounting for myself the number of
people now in--what would you call them?--policy roles I had known as a
lad--no doubt because, being an overachiever myself, I tended to be
around other overachievers. The ones who have made it big tend to be
on that Milton Friedmanish end of things. They are definitely the
elite. They are definitely making, or trying to make, decisions for
others. Marvelous things, elites: they can make anything work for
them: bureaucracies, monopolies, free markets, whatever's going.
That's why they're elites. You really should break up all those Wall
Street Journal editorials by reading, say, a little Nietzsche.

My being able to say these things so calmly is, I hope, a sign of
maturity. It used to infuriate me the way that the free market types
would pontificate about competition and freedom and then turn around
and twist every rule of politics to their advantage, often at the
expense of "fair" competition and what I took to be freedom. No more.
I now see that *everything* is to the best in this best of all possible
worlds.

RM

 

[keith]

Pankaj wrote:

[Can you find someone who knows what they're doing to help you make a
post that displays properly?]

If you beleive Intel's case is so strong, why would they be
debilitated? Do you fear that? But I do believe they will be
debilitated It would be a very good thing for the industry,
consumers. Trust me on this: "Competition is good".

Much of the progress of civilization and been built on the creation of
monopolies, and competition is not always good. Many of the activities
that technologists admire and dream about require enormous
concentrations of power and of wealth, and the ruthless creation of
monopolies has more often than not been what has allowed those
concentrations to appear.

What do you think the computer industry would look like if it hadn't
been for IBM's ruthlessness? Follow comp.arch for a while and try to
grasp how much of the work was done by IBM when it was a monopoly.
What IBM didn't do, AT&T Bell Labs did. The insularity that went along
with IBM's enormous wealth and influence, not the actions of
regulators, eventually brought the monopoly to an end. AT&T was
brought down by regulatory activity, and it was not necessarily a good
thing.

Ah Robert, your historical revisionism again. IBM was never found to be
a monopoly after 1956. I gather you think monopoly is good? You
probably like central planning as well. Trust me it isn't good.

IBM wasn't "found" guilty in '56 either. There is a reason it's called
the "consent decree".

 

[keith]

Pass my post along to IBM's legal department. I'm not taking back a
word. *I* find them to have been a monopoly long after 1956.

Ah, and you fry Yousuf for making the same sorts of arguments about Intel.
Nice double-standard there, RM. Most of us call that "hypocrisy".

Neither good nor bad, necessarily. On the whole, monopolies have
probably done more to advance what is generally called civilization than
to impede it. Whether the advancement of what is generally known as
civilization is a good thing might be debated.

Thus, by and large, they're good, in your opinion.

No need to trust you. And, nothing personal, but I wouldn't. The
number of wrong opinions about economics that have been uttered in human
history surely exceeds the number of humans who have ever lived. In any
case, we have empirical evidence that at least some versions of central
planning don't work.

You're not exempt, "trust me".

I've tried to make it clear that, on my scale of ethics, the damage done
to the public good by Intel doesn't make it into the Enron or Worldcom
league. Probably Healthsouth, too, but there I don't know the story
well enough. You're free to make your own value judgments. Just don't
expect your value judgments to be universally accepted. I don't.

So you keep saying. Others think quite differently. I can;t see much
difference between Intel and M$, these days.

Just this very afternoon, I was recounting for myself the number of
people now in--what would you call them?--policy roles I had known as a
lad--no doubt because, being an overachiever myself, I tended to be
around other overachievers. The ones who have made it big tend to be on
that Milton Friedmanish end of things. They are definitely the elite.
They are definitely making, or trying to make, decisions for others.
Marvelous things, elites: they can make anything work for them:
bureaucracies, monopolies, free markets, whatever's going. That's why
they're elites. You really should break up all those Wall Street
Journal editorials by reading, say, a little Nietzsche.

My being able to say these things so calmly is, I hope, a sign of
maturity. It used to infuriate me the way that the free market types
would pontificate about competition and freedom and then turn around and
twist every rule of politics to their advantage, often at the expense of
"fair" competition and what I took to be freedom. No more. I now see
that *everything* is to the best in this best of all possible worlds.

What a bunch of pompous hooey! Yikes!

 

[YKhan]

IBM wasn't "found" guilty in '56 either. There is a reason it's called
the "consent decree".

As far as I'm concerned, IBM was always a monopoly until the early
1990's, when it was finally toppled and therefore no longer a monopoly.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Del Cecchi]

Ah, and you fry Yousuf for making the same sorts of arguments about Intel.
Nice double-standard there, RM. Most of us call that "hypocrisy".




Thus, by and large, they're good, in your opinion.



You're not exempt, "trust me".



So you keep saying. Others think quite differently. I can;t see much
difference between Intel and M$, these days.




What a bunch of pompous hooey! Yikes!

Gee I find it is the elite academics and celebrities who fall for
collectivism and central planning. I presumed it to be because they
think that then they would be in charge, being so superior and more
intelligent than the rabble.

I would have snipped but decided not to. If I can stand it at 28.8kb so
can others.

 

[Del Cecchi]

Neither good nor bad, necessarily. On the whole, monopolies have
probably done more to advance what is generally called civilization
than to impede it. Whether the advancement of what is generally known
as civilization is a good thing might be debated.



No need to trust you. And, nothing personal, but I wouldn't. The
number of wrong opinions about economics that have been uttered in
human history surely exceeds the number of humans who have ever lived.
In any case, we have empirical evidence that at least some versions of
central planning don't work.

Ah, but if you were in charge it would work? IBM in the 80's was a
giant exercise in central planning. It didn't work either. Why do you
think that IBM lost the PC market?

snip

I've tried to make it clear that, on my scale of ethics, the damage
done to the public good by Intel doesn't make it into the Enron or
Worldcom league. Probably Healthsouth, too, but there I don't know the
story well enough. You're free to make your own value judgments. Just
don't expect your value judgments to be universally accepted. I don't.

If only enron and worldcom hadn't been bothered by the government, they
would still be in business and have done no harm. The harm was caused
by the fallout of them going under due to the meddling of the government
exposing the fraudulent accounting. See I can play that game too.

Just this very afternoon, I was recounting for myself the number of
people now in--what would you call them?--policy roles I had known as a
lad--no doubt because, being an overachiever myself, I tended to be
around other overachievers. The ones who have made it big tend to be
on that Milton Friedmanish end of things. They are definitely the
elite. They are definitely making, or trying to make, decisions for
others. Marvelous things, elites: they can make anything work for
them: bureaucracies, monopolies, free markets, whatever's going.
That's why they're elites. You really should break up all those Wall
Street Journal editorials by reading, say, a little Nietzsche.

Still not as bad as those folks who only want to fix all the problems by
taking from the productive folks (tax the rich, as claude pepper used to
say) and use it to make themselves feel good.

My being able to say these things so calmly is, I hope, a sign of
maturity. It used to infuriate me the way that the free market types
would pontificate about competition and freedom and then turn around
and twist every rule of politics to their advantage, often at the
expense of "fair" competition and what I took to be freedom. No more.
I now see that *everything* is to the best in this best of all possible
worlds.

RM

stay calm. It's only usenet.
random snippage above.

 

[Robert Myers]

Ah, but if you were in charge it would work? IBM in the 80's was a
giant exercise in central planning. It didn't work either. Why do you
think that IBM lost the PC market?

I definitely wouldn't make the claim that, if I were in charge it would
work. Examples of successful central planning, like the Interstate
Highway System, are readily at hand, just as examples of spectacular
failures of central planning are readily at hand. Neither warrants a
blanket generalization about central planning.

People tend *not* to advertise the success of monopolies because their
methods are unattractive and because the success of monopolies doesn't
fit in with au courant preconceptions about the way the world works.
Time was, though, when a sovreign (person or state) wanted to begin
something new, the first thing to do was to grant a monopoly.

Questions about how large organizations manage capital investments like
R&D are probably better left to business school classrooms.

If only enron and worldcom hadn't been bothered by the government, they
would still be in business and have done no harm. The harm was caused
by the fallout of them going under due to the meddling of the government
exposing the fraudulent accounting. See I can play that game too.

If you really believe that, we are in disagreement, but I don't think
you really believe that. Enron and Worldcom damaged many lives.

Still not as bad as those folks who only want to fix all the problems by
taking from the productive folks (tax the rich, as claude pepper used to
say) and use it to make themselves feel good.

Class warfare is so out of style. Values warfare is in. As to the
"still not as bad" part, we don't agree.

RM

 

[Robert Myers]

Ah, and you fry Yousuf for making the same sorts of arguments about Intel.
Nice double-standard there, RM. Most of us call that "hypocrisy".

Perhaps you should stick to the sports page. Yousuf all but called me
an idiot for not knowing that Intel already was a monopoly by some
legal standard that I should have known about.

I've reached a point in life where I've realized that, in many ways, I
probably could fairly be assessed to be an idiot, but the way that
Yousuf accused me is not one of them, so I took him on.

It was not an argument about opinions ("I think Intel is/isnot a
monopoly"). It was an argument about facts ("By an objective legal
standard Intel is/isnot a monopoly").

It was, is, and likely ever shall be my opinion that IBM exercised
monopoly power in computers long after 1956. Many in the Justice
Department, which continued to pursue IBM, would apparently have agreed
with me.

I don't think Intel has the kind of monopoly power that IBM enjoyed
when it was defining just about everything in computing that people
would spend the next three decades talking about and reinventing. And
what IBM didn't define, AT&T did.

RM

 

[keith]

Perhaps you should stick to the sports page. Yousuf all but called me
an idiot for not knowing that Intel already was a monopoly by some
legal standard that I should have known about.

....and you, sir, are no different. You talk down to *everyone*, even
those who have some knowledge of what's going on. ...the definition of a
pompous ass.

I've reached a point in life where I've realized that, in many ways, I
probably could fairly be assessed to be an idiot, but the way that
Yousuf accused me is not one of them, so I took him on.

Indeed, anyone who thinks differently than to polit-buro allows must be
terminated. ...typical of academia. That *is* your position.

It was not an argument about opinions ("I think Intel is/isnot a
monopoly"). It was an argument about facts ("By an objective legal
standard Intel is/isnot a monopoly").

"Objective" == "not convicted", perhaps. Whether or not Intel (or M$) is
a monopoly isn't the point. Are they using predatory practices to limit
competition is the point. I've seen enough to say that they indeed are.

It was, is, and likely ever shall be my opinion that IBM exercised
monopoly power in computers long after 1956. Many in the Justice
Department, which continued to pursue IBM, would apparently have agreed
with me.

....and? Sorry, but like things economic, you haven't a clue.

I don't think Intel has the kind of monopoly power that IBM enjoyed when
it was defining just about everything in computing that people would
spend the next three decades talking about and reinventing. And what
IBM didn't define, AT&T did.

Irrelevant. IBM was under the consent decree to behave in a particular
manner. That lasted until the mid '90s. ...but don't let the facts get
in your way.

 

[keith]

As far as I'm concerned, IBM was always a monopoly until the early
1990's, when it was finally toppled and therefore no longer a monopoly.

Watch that "was always". What does that mean, exactly? In what market?
As I just told the idiot RM (ok, if you won't directly call him that, I
will), IBM was under the consent decree to practice business in a
particular manner. It wasn't a small issue in IBM almost going under the
waves in '93. I've been around a tad longer Yousuf.

 

[Robert Myers]

...and you, sir, are no different. You talk down to *everyone*, even
those who have some knowledge of what's going on. ...the definition of a
pompous ass.

Yousuf is free to call Intel a monopoly if he cares to. What he can't
do is to tell me that some objective fact about Intel is obvious when
it isn't. The "objective fact" about Intel is something that AMD is
putting out and wants everyone to accept as obvious but that has not
yet been proven and isn't obvious.

Indeed, anyone who thinks differently than to polit-buro allows must be
terminated. ...typical of academia. That *is* your position.

Who gives you the right to put words in my mouth? When have I ever
said or even implied such a thing?

And by what subterranean pathways in your mind does your comment have
anything to do with what I said? Yousuf made a claim, and I rebutted
it. What has that got to do with terminating anyone?

"Objective" == "not convicted", perhaps. Whether or not Intel (or M$) is
a monopoly isn't the point. Are they using predatory practices to limit
competition is the point. I've seen enough to say that they indeed are.

No. Not proven. Not obvious, and not even related to what Yousuf
thought was the obvious standard. In another piece an AMD spokesman
put it out there that they can only *compete* for 60% of the market:
the exact break point for Section 1 sanctions. That's an AMD claim at
this point. That's part of AMD's publicity campaign: these are the
facts, this is what's happening, this is what any idiot should see, and
*you* are a volunteer in their campaign.

Let the courts figure it out. They'll make a hash of it just like
they've made a hash of every other anti-trust action I've seen during
my lifetime. I think it's hilarious that all the free market
campaigners are cheerleaders for this last bit of nonsense. Have at
it. Just don't spout sports bar big talk at me and expect me to think
you're talking facts.

...and? Sorry, but like things economic, you haven't a clue.

Has it occurred to you, Keith, that being an *employee* of IBM doesn't
actually raise your credibility in this matter? Aside from the fact
that decades of corporate newsletters and water-cooler conversations
don't necessarily provide useful information, you are not exactly a
disinterested party.

RM

 

[YKhan]

Watch that "was always". What does that mean, exactly? In what market?
As I just told the idiot RM (ok, if you won't directly call him that, I
will), IBM was under the consent decree to practice business in a
particular manner. It wasn't a small issue in IBM almost going under the
waves in '93. I've been around a tad longer Yousuf.

Just based on attitude, not based on any official court cases and
whatnot. IBM acted like an arrogant monopoly pretty much until the
early 90's when it got its come-uppance. I can spot a monopoly based on
its attitude without requiring a court to tell me.

Yousuf khan

 

[keith]

Just based on attitude, not based on any official court cases and
whatnot. IBM acted like an arrogant monopoly pretty much until the
early 90's when it got its come-uppance. I can spot a monopoly based on
its attitude without requiring a court to tell me.

Your bias is showing. The facts don't support your conclusions. The
*fact* is that IBM was "regulated" as a "monopoly" by the '56 consent
decree. Note that having a monopoly isn't illegal, just that once
fact is found (or admitted to) the rules change. The '56 CD was most
responsible for the uearly '90s decline and almost failure, since the
market had moved somewhat form '56 and the old rules still applied. In the
'90s IBM was successful in getting many (now all) of these restrictions
lifted. The wounds still exist though. You're too new to understand what
a burdon the '56 DC was (do you have to sign he BCG's every year?).

 

[YKhan]

Your bias is showing. The facts don't support your conclusions. The
*fact* is that IBM was "regulated" as a "monopoly" by the '56 consent
decree. Note that having a monopoly isn't illegal, just that once
fact is found (or admitted to) the rules change. The '56 CD was most
responsible for the uearly '90s decline and almost failure, since the
market had moved somewhat form '56 and the old rules still applied. In the
'90s IBM was successful in getting many (now all) of these restrictions
lifted. The wounds still exist though. You're too new to understand what
a burdon the '56 DC was (do you have to sign he BCG's every year?).

Nope, don't have to sign BCG's (don't even know what they are).
However, in the 80's and early 90's, IBM's arrogance was showing.
They're a much more humble company now, of course, which is the way I
like it.

If IBM was a regulated company since the 50's, then it sure looks like
they had quite a bit of leeway within that framework. Although the
memories are fading with the years, I can remember various arrogant
steps taken by IBM since the inception of the PC.

Yousuf Khan

 

[George Macdonald]

Has it occurred to you, Keith, that being an *employee* of IBM doesn't
actually raise your credibility in this matter? Aside from the fact
that decades of corporate newsletters and water-cooler conversations
don't necessarily provide useful information, you are not exactly a
disinterested party.

That does it! I was going to leave this one alone but since Keith probably
won't say it I will: that is about as cheap, tacky and taudry as I've seen
on this newsgroup from *anybody*. Whatever your personal beef here, Keith
has contributed greatly to this newsgroup over the years -- as opposed to
your "contributions" which are apparently purely shilling for Intel in
recent times -- and he doesn't deserve that.

In case you're still confused, it is outrageously indecent to take it upon
yourself to expose someone's employer here... and could even lead to a
withdrawal of Keith's ability to post here. We'll see but I hope not.

As for Intel's transgressions they have already been found guilty in Japan;
while rejecting the findings, they have accepted to adopt recommended
behavior. What kind of legal gobbledygook is that?... They are simply
guilty... they are soiled... they are an "ex-virgin"! What you don't seem
to have figured out here is that the JP FTC has decided not to proceed with
a trial involving the usual fines and retributions - instead they have left
it up to AMD to attempt to collect the damages they most certainly deserve.

As for Intel's corporate behavior and the AMD "claims", you can either call
AMD a bald-faced liar or acknowledge that Intel indulged in practices
worthy of the name racketeering... the same methodology as employed by the
Mob. Oh and this is just the beginning of the proceedings - as the stories
spread around, it would not surprise me to see some legal eagle rustle up a
class action suit based on this.

 

[Robert Myers]

That does it! I was going to leave this one alone but since Keith probably
won't say it I will: that is about as cheap, tacky and taudry as I've seen
on this newsgroup from *anybody*. Whatever your personal beef here, Keith
has contributed greatly to this newsgroup over the years -- as opposed to
your "contributions" which are apparently purely shilling for Intel in
recent times -- and he doesn't deserve that.

In case you're still confused, it is outrageously indecent to take it upon
yourself to expose someone's employer here... and could even lead to a
withdrawal of Keith's ability to post here. We'll see but I hope not.

Get a life, George. Where do you think I found out who Keith's
employer is?

And the outrage here, George, is all yours, although you still haven't
gotten into Keith's league of using locker room insults. I don't have
any interest of any kind in Intel. Don't own any stock, don't work for
them, don't accept advertising from them, don't have any kind of
business relationship with them at all except to be on a list that
allows me access to developer information. Therefore, I cannot "shill"
for Intel.

As for Intel's transgressions they have already been found guilty in Japan;
while rejecting the findings, they have accepted to adopt recommended
behavior. What kind of legal gobbledygook is that?... They are simply
guilty... they are soiled... they are an "ex-virgin"! What you don't seem
to have figured out here is that the JP FTC has decided not to proceed with
a trial involving the usual fines and retributions - instead they have left
it up to AMD to attempt to collect the damages they most certainly deserve.

You, like Yousuf, simply do not know what you're talking about. Either
that, or your desire to hold some particular view of the world
overwhelms your common sense. Intel is never going to bother to sue
you, so it doesn't matter that what you are saying is defamatory and
false, but it is. Intel has agreed to a set of rules for future
behavior. Period.

As for Intel's corporate behavior and the AMD "claims", you can either call
AMD a bald-faced liar or acknowledge that Intel indulged in practices
worthy of the name racketeering... the same methodology as employed by the
Mob. Oh and this is just the beginning of the proceedings - as the stories
spread around, it would not surprise me to see some legal eagle rustle up a
class action suit based on this.

As for your making demands of the type "you can do this or you can do
that," just who the hell do you think you are?

RM

 

[keith]

That does it! I was going to leave this one alone but since Keith probably
won't say it I will: that is about as cheap, tacky and taudry as I've seen
on this newsgroup from *anybody*.

Oh, crap, that's not nearly the bottom for RM. He lectured me a couple
of years ago about IBM's layoffs, while I was watching my cow-orkers
leave the building. I was just about to pull the trigger on both
barrels, but decided that he didn't know shit and wasn't worth it and
canceled the article. He's gotten infinitely more crass since.

While, I don't advertise that I work for IBM, it's not hard to figure it
out and I will answer if asked (that BCG thing, Yousuf). I *try* to stay
away from things confidential, but it doesn't always work and often will
just drop the issue, rather than chance a breech of NDA. It is sometimes
hard to know what has been announced.

hatever your personal beef here, Keith
has contributed greatly to this newsgroup over the years -- as opposed to
your "contributions" which are apparently purely shilling for Intel in
recent times -- and he doesn't deserve that.

Correction: "shilling for IA64". RM is in love with the dead.

In case you're still confused, it is outrageously indecent to take it upon
yourself to expose someone's employer here... and could even lead to a
withdrawal of Keith's ability to post here. We'll see but I hope not.

Nah, I'll try more carefully to cover any confidentiality though. There
was an intersting conversation above that I was formulating a response to,
but...

As for Intel's transgressions they have already been found guilty in Japan;
Fact.

while rejecting the findings, they have accepted to adopt recommended
behavior. What kind of legal gobbledygook is that?...

They are simply guilty... they are soiled... they are an "ex-virgin"!

Fact. The only question is whether AMD can capitalize on this. The EU
thing is a rather large thorn too!

What you don't seem to have figured out here is that the JP FTC has
decided not to proceed with a trial involving the usual fines and
retributions - instead they have left it up to AMD to attempt to collect
the damages they most certainly deserve.

Works. Why should the government get enriched? Though it looks like the
JP thing looks more like the IBM '56 consent decree to mee. "I
promise..." ...and that was devastating enough.

As for Intel's corporate behavior and the AMD "claims", you can either
call AMD a bald-faced liar or acknowledge that Intel indulged in
practices worthy of the name racketeering... the same methodology as
employed by the Mob. Oh and this is just the beginning of the
proceedings - as the stories spread around, it would not surprise me to
see some legal eagle rustle up a class action suit based on this.

Damn! I shudda bought an Intel processor. ;-)

 

[Del Cecchi]

snip
Works. Why should the government get enriched? Though it looks like the
JP thing looks more like the IBM '56 consent decree to mee. "I
promise..." ...and that was devastating enough.

Unless they treat it like ms consent dealey with the US government and
ignore it.

 

[Robert Redelmeier]

Has it occurred to you, Keith, that being an *employee* of
IBM doesn't actually raise your credibility in this matter?
Aside from the fact that decades of corporate newsletters and
water-cooler conversations don't necessarily provide useful
information, you are not exactly a disinterested party.

An "ad hominem" argument forces others to defend.

Employees for large corporations frequently are it's harshest
(because most accurate) critics. They see what goes on and are
insulated from personal gain or loss by the size of the corp.
So long as they don't actually reveal specifically confidential
information, the corp has trouble making reprisals, if it is
even aware!

-- Robert