4 ms·
Bring on the lawsuits. Ignore the patches and sue Intel for the underlying security flaws. When they point to the patches, clearly state that because of the new
by mnm1 8y ago
Bring on the lawsuits. Ignore the patches and sue Intel for the underlying security flaws. When they point to the patches, clearly state that because of the new license, they do not solve the problem and will not be applied. No one signed up for this when they bought an Intel CPU and that's saying a lot considering all the bullshit we do sign up for when buying one. This is outrageous. Intel should be sued in a class action. Whether they could have known about the exploits or not is irrelevant at this point. They refuse to provide proper patches without this license which is equivalent to providing no patches at all while knowing about the exploit. They have provided faulty hardware without a way to fix it. A lawsuit or a few thousand is the only way to get resolution on this.
- aerotwelve 8y agoHow many mandatory binding arbitration clauses and/or class action waivers have Intel hidden in their license agreements over the years? If they did it right, they never have to worry about a class action lawsuit (and the horrible press that comes with it) anytime soon. Which, of course, makes the kind of systematic deception Intel is trying to pull off here much easier. It's a feature!
- flukus 8y agoI could be wrong but I think binding arbitration is almost exclusively an American thing. The rest of the world can sue.
- mnm1 8y agoI wasn't aware that CPUs have licenses. It's certainly not something I've ever agreed to on purpose or otherwise. There is no box or manual to imply that I have ever agreed to such a license. I'm not doubting you, I'm just wondering where this license lies and when/how did I agree to it?
- drewmol 8y agoI agree but is it possible this is aimed at avoiding class action suits about false advertised performamce, by attempting to make the new benchmarks inadmissible?