Question

Engineering Ethics Course

Codes of Ethics Assignment

Review the Intel Pentium Chip case (Case below) and answer following questions:

1. Which statements in IEEE’s code of ethics do you believe Intel violated in this case? For each statement you select, justify your selection with an explanation.

2. Given that Intel perceived that the chip flaw was insignificant, and that flaws are likely to occur in early versions of a chip, what approach do you think Intel should have followed as they put the chips on sale?

The Intel Pentium® Chip Case

In late 1994, the media began to report that there was a flaw in the new Pentium microprocessor produced by Intel. The microprocessor is the heart of a personal computer and controls all of the operations and calculations that take place. A flaw in the Pentium was especially significant, since it was the microprocessor used in 80% of the personal computers produced in the world at that time.

Apparently, flaws in a complicated integrated circuit such as the Pentium, which at the time contained over one million transistors, are common. However, most of the flaws are undetectable by the user and don’t affect the operation of the computer. Many of these flaws are easily compensated for through software. The flaw that came to light in 1994 was different: It was detectable by the user. This particular flaw was in the floating-point unit (FPU) and caused a wrong answer when double-precision arithmetic, a very common operation, was performed.

A standard test was widely published to determine whether a user’s microprocessor was flawed. Using spreadsheet software, the user was to take the number 4,195,835, multiply it by 3,145,727, and then divide that result by 3,145,727. As we all know from elementary math, when a number is multiplied and then divided by the same number, the result should be the original number. In this example, the result should be 4,195,835. However, with the flawed FPU, the result of this calculation was 4,195,579 [Infoworld, 1994]. Depending on the application, this six-thousandths-of-a-percent error might be very significant.

At first, Intel’s response to these reports was to deny that there was any problem with the chip. When it became clear that this assertion was not accurate, Intel switched its policy and stated that although there was indeed a defect in the chip, it was insignificant and the vast majority of users would never even notice it. The chip would be replaced for free only for users who could demonstrate that they needed an unflawed version of the chip [Infoworld, 1994]. There is some logic to this policy from Intel’s point of view, since over two million computers had already been sold with the defective chip.

Of course, this approach didn’t satisfy most Pentium owners. After all, how can you predict whether you will have a future application where this flaw might be significant? IBM, a major Pentium user, canceled the sales of all IBM computers containing the flawed chip. Finally, after much negative publicity in the popular personal computer literature and an outcry from Pentium users, Intel agreed to replace the flawed chip with an unflawed version for any customer who asked to have it replaced.

It should be noted that long before news of the flaw surfaced in the popular press, Intel was aware of the problem and had already corrected it on subsequent versions. It did, however, continue to sell the flawed version and, based on its early insistence that the flaw did not present a significant problem to users, seemingly planned to do so until the new version was available and the stocks of the flawed one were exhausted. Eventually, the damage caused by this case was fixed as the media reports of the problem died down and as customers were able to get unflawed chips into their computers. Ultimately, Intel had a write-off of 475 million dollars to solve this problem.

What did Intel learn from this experience? The early designs for new chips continue to have flaws, and sometimes these flaws are not detected until the product is already in use by consumers. However, Intel’s approach to these problems has changed. It now seems to feel that problems need to be fixed immediately. In addition, the decision is now based on the consumer’s perception of the significance of the flaw, rather than on Intel’s opinion of its significance.

Indeed, similar flaws were found in 1997 in the early versions of the Pentium II and Pentium Pro processors. This time, Intel immediately confirmed that the flaw existed and offered customers software that would correct it. Other companies also seem to have benefited from Intel’s experience. For example, Intuit, a leading manufacturer of tax preparation and financial software, called a news conference in March of 1995 to apologize for flaws in its TurboTax software that had become apparent earlier in that year. In addition to the apology, they offered consumers replacements for the defective software.

Answer 1

answer(01)

First three statements of IEEE code of ethics is voilated.

(Reference:https://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html)

statement(01) To hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public, to strive to comply with ethical design and sustainable development practices, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environment.

See in the bold line' strive to comply with ethical design ' is voilated.

because As intel after launch of pentium ,they knew that chip is faulty but they wanted proof from each individual customers to verify that before offering compensation software or replacement

statement 02 To avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest whenever possible, and to disclose them to affected parties when they do exist;

It is voilated because they even deny intially that the fault occur in there chip hence did not come to public or media when they start noticing the fault in the chip and did not go public with information of fault until they were put in serious pressure.

statement 03 to be honest and realistic in stating claims or estimates based on available data;

Definitely they were not honest about the performance of intel chip at the time of launch and claimed falsely.

Answer(02)

WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE>>>>>BY INTEL>>>>>>

SEE IEEE CODE OF ETHICS STATEMENT 7

to seek, accept, and offer honest criticism of technical work, to acknowledge and correct errors, and to credit properly the contributions of others;

This line what intel could have done.

(1) if there was fault they should have accepted it and must keep customer satisfaction at top periorty.

(2) In todays days like big firm Google and facebook and other allows common user to test there beta version and find fault after they satisfy and get requried result than they launch there product in the market >>> this implies in todays era customer satisfaction is what that generates and multiplies profit .Like you must have heard ford car case when they heard there car engine is faulty they recalled all cars from world market very quickly because now it is very important to keep the brand name alive .

Conclusion

Before launching chip

(1) Do in house test before producing chip in large number .

(2) run the beta version to few customers improve from those selected customers organise quiz event ,allow technical researchers hackers to find fault fault of your product.

(3) correct all possible error and specify all perfomance specification to user honestly .

(4) launch the product.

(5) keep on improving and providing customare care facility to all users for better understanding of product.