Essay #1

CE480
The Intel Pentium Chip
Summary of Case Study
Flaws in the micro-processors chips were a common thing since they have millions of

transistors. These flaws where not an issue since most of the flaws are not detectable by users.

The issue rose in 1994, since flaws were detected by users by simple arithmetic calculations. The

initial response by Intel was that there were no issues with the chip processors. Later on Intel

agreed to replace the chip for any user that requested to have an unflawed chip. Personal

computer were still being sold even though the chips had flaws in them. It became evident that

they could not sell a chip that would not be flawless, since their testing does not detect them till

consumers use the products.

Ethical Questions

1. Did Intel violated the code of ethics by selling chips that had flaws?

2. Was there anything wrong in the statements made by intel denying that there were

flaws in the microprocessors?

3. Did the decision Intel take on the method of replacement of the chips deceiving?

Discussion

Intel’s initial act of selling the chips did not violate any issues of the code of ethics. The

chips may not show any issues of flaws during initial testing and may have not been caught

before their release. When Intel knew that there were flaws on the chips and continued to sell

them they began to violate the code of ethics. Section II.5 of the NSPE Code of Ethics, states that

engineers will “avoid deceptive acts” (NSPE, 2007). By knowing that their chips had flaws and
continued to sell them they were violating the code. The selling of computers with flaws is a

deceiving act to customers that bought the computers. There should have been a immediate recall

of the computers with the chips in them.

When Intel made statement to the public they were also violating the code of ethics. In

the fundamentals of NSPE Code of Ethics in Section I.3 states that engineers should “issue

public statements only in an objective and truthful manner” (NSPE 2007). Intel had made public

announcements that there were no flaws in the chips their computers had. They had enough

evidence that there was flaws in the chips since with simple arithmetic calculations there was a

six thousandths of a percent error on the calculations that should have had provided the original

answer. The statements should not have been made since they were also deceiving to the public.

The resolution that Intel provided in replacing the chips was also not very ethical. By

only providing replacements to people that notice that there were flaws in the chips violated two

sections of the NPSE codes. The first one is Section I.3 which states that they should “conduct

themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically” (NSPE 2007). The second one that is violated with

this act was Section III.1.a which states that “Engineers shall acknowledge their errors and

should not distort or alter the facts” (NSPE 2007). Replacing only chips to customers that detect

the flaws is not a honorably way on conducting business. Everyone that had purchase a computer

with chips that had flaws should have had been able to get a replacement. By doing such

replacement option they were not acknowledging their error in being wrong. Intel should of

provided a resolution to replacing the chips with ease to the customers. Having evidence of the

issue they should have not given customers a hard time in order to get a replacement chip.

Additional Information
 Having evidence that backed up the customers claims, Intel should of provided and easier

resolution. Intel should have had provided an announcement that they evaluating to see if the

chips had flaws instead of denying of any issues. This would of have help to follow the code of

ethics better and come issued a better resolution to customers.

References
1. “Code of Ethics for Engineers .” National Society of Professional Engineers , National
Society of Professional Engineers, 2007,
www.nspe.org/sites/default/files/resources/pdfs/Ethics/CodeofEthics/Code-2007-July.pdf.
2. Fleddermann, Charles B. Engineering ethics. 4th ed., Prentice Hall, 2012.