On Wednesday, Judge Michael Simon, of the US District Court of Oregon, partially denied the tech giant's motion to dismiss a class-action lawsuit arising from the. "We are pleased with the Court's decision, which found that the claims we allege show Intel 'took advantage of consumers' lack of knowledge such that the resulting unfairness was glaringly noticeable, flagrant, complete, and unmitigated,' said Christopher Seeger, an attorney with Seeger Weiss LLP, who is lead counsel for the plaintiffs, in an emailed statement. 'Intel will have to defend itself against claims that the semiconductor goliath knew its microprocessors were defective and failed to tell customers,' reports the Register.
#Tossed out spectre meltdown chip flaw trial
The likely off-ramp for Intel, in the absence of further procedural defenses, would be a settlement – a trial runs the risk of a significant damage award. The case isn't yet destined for trial as there are more procedural steps along that road. it will start working out the math for all those branches before the program. Please, no Moore: 'Law' that defined how chips have been made for decades has run itself into a cul-de-sac Speculative execution (Spectre) and Meltdown is a chip attempting to predict.Boffins find if you torture AMD Zen+, Zen 2 CPUs enough, they are vulnerable to Meltdown-like attack 16 Judge finds security is not a central feature of iDevices Thomas Claburn Thu // 20:30 UTC A California District Court judge has dismissed a proposed class action complaint against Apple for allegedly selling iPhones and iPads containing Arm-based chips with known flaws.When the world ends, all that will be left are cockroaches and new Rowhammer attacks: RAM defenses broken again.Intel's recent Atom, Celeron, Pentium chips can be lulled into a debug mode, potentially revealing system secrets."For the seven plaintiffs who purchased computers after September 1, 2017, they have alleged enough facts at this stage of the proceedings to survive Intel's motion to dismiss on the grounds of failure to state a claim."
"Based on plaintiffs' allegations, it is not clear that Intel had a countervailing business interest other than profit for delaying disclosure for as long as it did (through the holiday season), for downplaying the negative effects of the mitigation, for suppressing the effects of the mitigation, and for continuing to embargo further security exploits that affect only Intel processors," the judge wrote in his order.
0 kommentar(er)
