Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD saying Intel did a Microsoft

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 6, 2007 10:54:44 AM

Umm... didn't Sarbanes Oaxley mandate that all emails in a corporation be kept for at least 2 years?

Correct me if i'm wrong.

If I'm not, Intel is in serious trouble. The FTC is fcuking around anymore when it comes to that crap.
March 6, 2007 11:09:56 AM

Quote:
Umm... didn't Sarbanes Oaxley mandate that all emails in a corporation be kept for at least 2 years?

Correct me if i'm wrong.

If I'm not, Intel is in serious trouble. The FTC is fcuking around anymore when it comes to that crap.


Thats what I thought too. When did SO come into effect?
Related resources
March 6, 2007 11:13:51 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes-Oxley_Act

On July 30, 2002, President George W. Bush signed it into law, stating it included "the most far-reaching reforms of American business practices since the time of Franklin D. Roosevelt." (Elisabeth Bumiller: "Bush Signs Bill Aimed at Fraud in Corporations", The New York Times, July 31, 2002, page A1).
March 6, 2007 11:36:07 AM

I didn't see anything in that article that said how long companies are required to retain email. It sounds like companies are responsible for creating their own control measures. Considering the fact that Intel generates over 4 million emails per month, it would be quite a task to retain those for 2 years. Also, if that were really an issue, you would think it would be brought up in the article... if not the title of the article. I could be wrong though.
March 6, 2007 11:41:49 AM

It doesn't look like anyone is going to say way to go Intel for at least coming forward that it screwed up and didn't try to cover up the accidental loss.
March 6, 2007 12:04:44 PM

Every company I ever worked for has kept backups of every e-mail for years, usually at least 3, even before SO (for most companies, its not a big deal it just means you archive your backup tapes/discs). It not only protects the company in the future, but your investors as well. I think most courts will see this as intentional especially from a large tech corp.
March 6, 2007 12:08:26 PM

Have you worked for any companies that have 100k employees, all corresponding with email?
March 6, 2007 12:38:05 PM

Quote:
Have you worked for any companies that have 100k employees, all corresponding with email?


who make billions of dollars, who has no excuse for losing there email archives considering they are an IT company who probably helped usher in the era of tapes and other forms of data backup

no no, they got the perfect excuse they're Intel they can do whatever they want.

Intel: "whateva whateva i do what i want"
in there best Eric Cartman impersonation
March 6, 2007 12:49:50 PM

Actually, the cost of storing 4 million emails (a number that would obviously increase over time) a month for 3 years, many containing attached sensitive documents, some rather large, would be astronomical even for large companies like Intel. Besides we are only talking about a few emails here where Intel has already sent millions of documents to AMD.
March 6, 2007 1:26:54 PM

Sounds like AMD has been using the courts to inconvience Intel through court orders that require massive amounts of resources to comply with.

I tend to think this law suit is pointless. If Intel supposedly was keeping Dell from buying AMD processors, then tell me how AMD ended up selling processors to Dell.
March 6, 2007 2:10:33 PM

Quote:
Sounds like AMD has been using the courts to inconvience Intel through court orders that require massive amounts of resources to comply with.

I tend to think this law suit is pointless. If Intel supposedly was keeping Dell from buying AMD processors, then tell me how AMD ended up selling processors to Dell.



ehm.. did you miss the whole charade where Dell stockholder filed against Dell for not sharing the fact (and the money?) that Dell was receiving as payments from Intel?

Something that stopped promptly right before Dell started offering AMD..
March 6, 2007 2:21:32 PM

Quote:
Actually, the cost of storing 4 million emails (a number that would obviously increase over time) a month for 3 years, many containing attached sensitive documents, some rather large, would be astronomical even for large companies like Intel. Besides we are only talking about a few emails here where Intel has already sent millions of documents to AMD.


4000000 * 12(months) * 3(years) * 5(Mb avg size)
= 144000 Giga
= 144 Terabytes
= 144000 / 72 (DAT 72 Gb compressed) = 2000 tapes
or
= 144000 / 100 (BlueRay 100Gb compressed) = 1440 discs
or
= 144000 / 1000 (hd 500Gb, x2 compressed, and searchable) + raid5 and hotspares = 200 hd (SAN)

Not impossible for Intel, is it ?
March 6, 2007 2:27:19 PM

Quote:
I didn't see anything in that article that said how long companies are required to retain email. It sounds like companies are responsible for creating their own control measures. Considering the fact that Intel generates over 4 million emails per month, it would be quite a task to retain those for 2 years........


This is BS. Lets do the math

(At 0.5MB* per email) X (4million email/month) = (2 million MB/month)

(2 million MB/month) X (12months) = (24 million MB/year)

(24 million MB/year) / (500GB drives) = (48 (500GB) drives)

(48 (500GB) drives) X ($200USD/per drives**) = $9600/year

Therefore less the $10,000 a year to back up emails.

*average email is way less then this
**average 500GB drive is less then this

Are you telling me a multi-billion dollar company like Intel who spends multiple millions on advertising doesn't have the money to spend on archiving their own email.

Intel should be forced to give %50 of all profits to AMD from the last 10 years.

PS. Best Buy sucks! :D 
March 6, 2007 2:27:52 PM

Quote:
Actually, the cost of storing 4 million emails (a number that would obviously increase over time) a month for 3 years, many containing attached sensitive documents, some rather large, would be astronomical even for large companies like Intel. Besides we are only talking about a few emails here where Intel has already sent millions of documents to AMD.



What is the average size of an email? 20KB according to UC Berkeley Email Stats.

Lets assume it's 20KB.
4 000 000 * 20 = 80 000 000 KB = 80 GB / month
80 GB * 12 = 960 GB / year
960 GB * 3 = 2880 GB / 3years

( 2880 GB / 750 GB [Seagate] = 3.84 HDD drives
Of course the data is not stored on hdd but it might be easier to get a picture)

Of course not everyone send mail every day and some people send also (big) attachments while other people send smaller sized mail than that.
March 6, 2007 2:36:56 PM

Quote:

( 2880 GB / 0.75 GB [Seagate] = 3840 HDD drives
Of course the data is not stored on hdd but it might be easier to get a picture)


Dude, nobody is going to use a 0.75GB drive. Did you mean 0.75TB? Cuz that'd be more realistic. In which case, with your numbers, it'd be four drives. Heck, my PC at home can handle that much.
March 6, 2007 2:50:34 PM

the funny thing is.. intel "miracleously" recovered lost emails that were "misplaced"...

misplaced my ass XD

gods, intel surely was a bit scared of AMD's findings...
March 6, 2007 2:51:39 PM

Yeah sorry I meant 750GB (0.75TB).
March 6, 2007 2:51:46 PM

and as were all seeing, it would be nearly impossible, and entirely inexcusable for intel (who is one of the largest IT corporations), to just *lose, and not be aware*, of some potentially very important documents (in the form of emails)... even the average user makes backups of their data, or at least should if they dont... ...so there would be absolutely no excuse for intel not to, unless they (or employee(s)) decided to intentionally remove it from however many backups they may have

...and even then, though the cost may be relatively high... remnants of the data *could* still be recovered, in some form, if its stored digitally anyhow... unless the storage medias were removed entirely, but that might cause losing other important data even, even more likely
March 6, 2007 2:53:56 PM

Quote:
I didn't see anything in that article that said how long companies are required to retain email. It sounds like companies are responsible for creating their own control measures. Considering the fact that Intel generates over 4 million emails per month, it would be quite a task to retain those for 2 years........


This is BS. Lets do the math

(At 0.5MB* per email) X (4million email/month) = (2 million MB/month)

(2 million MB/month) X (12months) = (24 million MB/year)

(24 million MB/year) / (500GB drives) = (48 (500GB) drives)

(48 (500GB) drives) X ($200USD/per drives**) = $9600/year

Therefore less the $10,000 a year to back up emails.

*average email is way less then this
**average 500GB drive is less then this

Are you telling me a multi-billion dollar company like Intel who spends multiple millions on advertising doesn't have the money to spend on archiving their own email.

Intel should be forced to give %50 of all profits to AMD from the last 10 years.

PS. Best Buy sucks! :D 

You're oversimplifying. First off, you're calculating based on the cost/size of today's HDDs. Second you have to keep in mind those HDDs wont just be floating somewhere in a miracle room that doesn't cost anything where HDDs never fail and never need to be maintained.
March 6, 2007 2:59:14 PM

Quote:
Actually, the cost of storing 4 million emails (a number that would obviously increase over time) a month for 3 years, many containing attached sensitive documents, some rather large, would be astronomical even for large companies like Intel. Besides we are only talking about a few emails here where Intel has already sent millions of documents to AMD.


Do you realze that without attachments emails are around 1K? It's just like storing a bunch of text files. There are very inexpensive TB arrays and have been since before 2005. In my lab at MS we had several TB arrays.

1KB will go into 1TB about 1 million times. And with compression you can multiply by about 5 since it's basiclly text.

Also, they only need the email of 1000 people or so, not the whole company or even a large part.
March 6, 2007 3:06:07 PM

Quote:
Umm... didn't Sarbanes Oaxley mandate that all emails in a corporation be kept for at least 2 years?

Correct me if i'm wrong.

If I'm not, Intel is in serious trouble. The FTC is fcuking around anymore when it comes to that crap.
:arrow: No your right,my company(Corel)went public over a year ago and we must keep our email for 2 years(tape backup or whatever)they have all these killer rules(thanks to crooked executives).
March 6, 2007 3:08:19 PM

Quote:
and as were all seeing, it would be nearly impossible, and entirely inexcusable for intel (who is one of the largest IT corporations), to just *lose, and not be aware*, of some potentially very important documents (in the form of emails)... even the average user makes backups of their data, or at least should if they dont... ...so there would be absolutely no excuse for intel not to, unless they (or employee(s)) decided to intentionally remove it from however many backups they may have

...and even then, though the cost may be relatively high... remnants of the data *could* still be recovered, in some form, if its stored digitally anyhow... unless the storage medias were removed entirely, but that might cause losing other important data even, even more likely


Grant it, Intel should have communicated well that important documents need to be saved, but look who lost them. They were mostly high level execs who on a daily basis receive dozens upon dozens of emails every day from subordinates looking to suck up or ask menial questions making it extremely difficult to keep all this organinzed. If an email is ignored based on a subject that looks benign on just one day, it's likely to sit in mail box until it is deleted in a month.

It is also impossible to recover data if by the time someone realizes it's needed that the info has already been written and rewritten, all their information is likely to be randomly placed on servers scattered about the planet making it even more difficult to track.
March 6, 2007 3:15:29 PM

Quote:
and as were all seeing, it would be nearly impossible, and entirely inexcusable for intel (who is one of the largest IT corporations), to just *lose, and not be aware*, of some potentially very important documents (in the form of emails)... even the average user makes backups of their data, or at least should if they dont... ...so there would be absolutely no excuse for intel not to, unless they (or employee(s)) decided to intentionally remove it from however many backups they may have

...and even then, though the cost may be relatively high... remnants of the data *could* still be recovered, in some form, if its stored digitally anyhow... unless the storage medias were removed entirely, but that might cause losing other important data even, even more likely


Grant it, Intel should have communicated well that important documents need to be saved, but look who lost them. They were mostly high level execs who on a daily basis receive dozens upon dozens of emails every day from subordinates looking to suck up or ask menial questions making it extremely difficult to keep all this organinzed. If an email is ignored based on a subject that looks benign on just one day, it's likely to sit in mail box until it is deleted in a month.

It is also impossible to recover data if by the time someone realizes it's needed that the info has already been written and rewritten, all their information is likely to be randomly placed on servers scattered about the planet making it even more difficult to track. :arrow: Intel is a public company,the rules have changed and somebody(s) will be held accountable if the data can't be found once court day arrives.
March 6, 2007 3:16:37 PM

Quote:
and as were all seeing, it would be nearly impossible, and entirely inexcusable for intel (who is one of the largest IT corporations), to just *lose, and not be aware*, of some potentially very important documents (in the form of emails)... even the average user makes backups of their data, or at least should if they dont... ...so there would be absolutely no excuse for intel not to, unless they (or employee(s)) decided to intentionally remove it from however many backups they may have

...and even then, though the cost may be relatively high... remnants of the data *could* still be recovered, in some form, if its stored digitally anyhow... unless the storage medias were removed entirely, but that might cause losing other important data even, even more likely


Grant it, Intel should have communicated well that important documents need to be saved, but look who lost them. They were mostly high level execs who on a daily basis receive dozens upon dozens of emails every day from subordinates looking to suck up or ask menial questions making it extremely difficult to keep all this organinzed. If an email is ignored based on a subject that looks benign on just one day, it's likely to sit in mail box until it is deleted in a month.

It is also impossible to recover data if by the time someone realizes it's needed that the info has already been written and rewritten, all their information is likely to be randomly placed on servers scattered about the planet making it even more difficult to track.
sorry dude, but for an enterprise, yours is a dumb excuse.
and not valid for a judge...
March 6, 2007 3:17:06 PM

lack of being able to be organized is no excuse though... every email they receive, they should keep, (for the 2-3 years i guess that theyre supposed to) even if its just 'junkmail'

correct me if im wrong though... but cant even corrupted data be reconstructed, even if its only a fragment of it? i would imagine it would take awhile, but, i would still think its possible
March 6, 2007 3:17:32 PM

Quote:

It is also impossible to recover data if by the time someone realizes it's needed that the info has already been written and rewritten, all their information is likely to be randomly placed on servers scattered about the planet making it even more difficult to track.


That simply wont do. The court will say if thousands of other companies can manage it then so can Intel. If this is a SO violation Intel could be slapped hard and this could also prejudice them badly in this case.

In reality the chances of this being an accident are 1% vs. 99% deliberate deletion of incriminating evidence. This is the adult version of "The dog ate my homework."

Also this is a civil trial so its "balance of probability" not "beyond a reasonable doubt".
March 6, 2007 3:22:25 PM

Quote:

You're oversimplifying. First off, you're calculating based on the cost/size of today's HDDs. Second you have to keep in mind those HDDs wont just be floating somewhere in a miracle room that doesn't cost anything where HDDs never fail and never need to be maintained.


First off, the cost is not astronomical. My company employs 45,000 people, most of whom have email addresses. When Sarbanes Oxley went into effect, an annoucement was made that all email communication would be archived for 2 years and other legal communication for 7 years. And we're by no means anywhere near the size in REVENUE of Intel. Yet we have half as much employees.

Now here's the information requiring publicly held corporations to archive email:

Quote:
Section 802 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires auditors to retain auditing information for a period of 7 years. The information refers to all records relevant to the audit or review; this includes workpapers, memoranda, correspondence, communications, and electronic records (including email). In fact, Section 802 makes it a crime, punishable by up to 10 years in jail, if auditors of public companies fail to maintain such correspondence.

Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires the CEO and CFO of a public company to personally certify and attest to the accuracy of their company's financial statements contained in periodic reports. Section 404 requires auditors to certify the underlying controls and processes that companies use to reach financial results. Both sections require proof that a company's reported financial information can be relied on - and require companies to invest in procedures that ensure information is recorded and managed in a trustworthy manner, including email. As an organization's dependence on electronic mail continues to grow, the mismanagement of email provides a growing target for litigators and regulators. Companies must ensure that records in digital form are managed with the same care and attention as records in paper form.

Business records must be protected at all times from unauthorized tampering and deletion, more so when a company is involved in audits, investigations, litigation or other formal proceedings. It is therefore of primary importance to copy and archive data before a user has a chance to manipulate it or delete it. Companies must ensure that directors, management and accounting personnel in particular, are informed of their obligation to preserve business records.


Of particular importance is that last paragraph because it relates to the AMD vs Intel Anti-Trust lawsuit.

http://kbase.gfi.com/showarticle.asp?id=KBID002205
March 6, 2007 3:24:32 PM

Quote:
lack of being able to be organized is no excuse though... every email they receive, they should keep, (for the 2-3 years i guess that theyre supposed to) even if its just 'junkmail'

correct me if im wrong though... but cant even corrupted data be reconstructed, even if its only a fragment of it? i would imagine it would take awhile, but, i would still think its possible



SPAM didn't even cross my mind! If we're to include SPAM in the mails being stored the calculations I've made aren't correct since the ratio mail vs spam must be horrible.

Although I don't believe they store SPAM since it should be stopped by the mail server and hence only mail passing to the employees get stored.
March 6, 2007 3:28:20 PM

Under Sarbanes Oxley it would't need to be kept. It doesn't have a qualifier. ;-)
March 6, 2007 3:40:07 PM

Quote:
Sounds like AMD has been using the courts to inconvience Intel through court orders that require massive amounts of resources to comply with.

I tend to think this law suit is pointless. If Intel supposedly was keeping Dell from buying AMD processors, then tell me how AMD ended up selling processors to Dell.



ehm.. did you miss the whole charade where Dell stockholder filed against Dell for not sharing the fact (and the money?) that Dell was receiving as payments from Intel?

Something that stopped promptly right before Dell started offering AMD..

So, Intel gave price breaks to try to keep the largest OEM as an exclusive customer.

I fail to see how this is illegal. Last I heard was that AMD had 25% of the market for CPUs and was growing.

It sounds to me like it was hurting Dell to be exclusive with Intel because AMD processors were in demand and Dell finally realized this and started using AMD processors so there customer had a better choice.

Am I missing something? Sounds like competition in the market place and legal bussiness practices by Intel to me. :roll:

Maybe the Judge is a Fanboy. LOL
March 6, 2007 3:43:01 PM

It isn't legal. But the allegations are that Intel flat out gave money to Dell to stay exlusive... and Dell added that money to their "revenue." That is illegal.
March 6, 2007 4:00:56 PM

It will be rather amusing if Intel gets nailed with heavy fines when MS (who did much much much worse things) got off scot free.
March 6, 2007 4:15:11 PM

Quote:
It will be rather amusing if Intel gets nailed with heavy fines when MS (who did much much much worse things) got off scot free.


I wouldn't say M$ got of scot free (they paid a LOT of fines in the USA and Europe).... but they have been able to maintain their monopoly.

Fortunately, their monopoly is slowly slipping through their fingers.
March 6, 2007 4:24:53 PM

Those microsoft fines were like a judge fining me $50. They paid it from petty cash.
March 6, 2007 6:40:16 PM

Quote:
Intel is gonna sink.. Yes Sir !! I hate those companies selling for profit with high margins over customers, even more Intel that dont care about their own custumers, laws and other companies that bested them a while ago... Intel is gonna sink... and Im gonna drink my beer and cheer for their lost. Next I want Microsoft to sink even deeper... oh well guess they know how to swim and they got cash. Microsoft could buy USA and make it sink all-of-sudden so who is gonna stop them ?? We need someone or something stronger to put against those unruly companies having cash only in their little heads big wallets.....


We will all sink before Intel does :wink:

8) Paul Otellini just has too honest a face,I can't believe he's a crook.
March 6, 2007 10:35:13 PM

[/quote]

The eyes tell the truth.A face can be trained.[/quote]

Wrong.....a man's crouch always tell's the truth. A womans hooch can be trained.
March 6, 2007 10:48:12 PM

Quote:
It will be rather amusing if Intel gets nailed with heavy fines when MS (who did much much much worse things) got off scot free.



I think being obsessed with me is affecting your mind. MS has paid out probably $8B in fines and settlements. Calif got close to a billion. Sun got a billion. 19 states got a few billion all together.
The EU fined them $650M and is thinking about adding a 4 million a day fine.
March 7, 2007 12:37:33 AM

Quote:
AMD saying Intel did a Microsoft


Maybe you should spend more time in school instead of here, then you would learn what a complete sentence is....

Everyone knows Intel cheated by giving Oem's major incentives and price breaks, even at a loss in some cases, to keep market share while Athlon 64 and X2 walked all over P4 and Pentium D. They gave these companies huge price breaks to keep them from selling AMD systems.
Its all fact.

And Mad Mod Mike speaks...again. :roll:
So, sales deals and lower prices to stave off competiton are illegal huh?. Whatever you say Komrade, Гайки, сумашедший микрофон mod

Mike, put your skirt back on and go back to Nzone.
March 7, 2007 12:53:54 AM

AMD just cries wolf, BFD 8O
March 7, 2007 12:58:16 AM

Quote:


Grant it, Intel should have communicated well that important documents need to be saved, but look who lost them. They were mostly high level execs who on a daily basis receive dozens upon dozens of emails every day from subordinates looking to suck up or ask menial questions making it extremely difficult to keep all this organized. If an email is ignored based on a subject that looks benign on just one day, it's likely to sit in mail box until it is deleted in a month.

It is also impossible to recover data if by the time someone realizes it's needed that the info has already been written and rewritten, all their information is likely to be randomly placed on servers scattered about the planet making it even more difficult to track.


Uuuummmm... yeah. So where I work we do tape backups weekly of all of our data (Not just exchange but documents as well) Emails are kept for two years, other data 6-36 months.

In addition, even our mobile servers have the ability to back up data for extended periods of time.

Finally, mountains out of molehills on how difficult it is
March 7, 2007 1:25:32 AM

Quote:

dude I lost my left butt cheek. :wink:


QUOTE OF THE DAY :trophy: :mrgreen:
!