good, intel needs to get its act together, all this consumer locking, premium features prices and the such needs to stop.

Good time to sue AMD GPU division for not providing any competitive product against NoVidia.

Intel is a complete shit-show right now. They have so many internal problems. So I am not surprised that this is happening.

K.S.:

My opinion is that this is counter productive from a long term investment standpoint. Especially with internal restructuring of late. Unfortunate for workplace moral. I hope Intel beats this & isn’t further delayed by it.

I see why you're saying that but I don't think it's that unproductive. The reason people invest is because they hope their investments will yield a net profit. Intel has effectively lied to their investors and as a result, they aren't getting their net profit. So, they're suing to, at the very least, get back the money they put in, and to hopefully get Intel to take their situation more seriously. There must be some reason why Intel is struggling to advance their technology when Samsung and TSMC seem to have got it figured out just fine. If Intel were alone in this endeavor and AMD wasn't drawing attention away from Intel, I don't think we'd be seeing this lawsuit happen. Intel was relatively stagnant in progress for years, but only now does it matter because there's a viable alternative, and that alternative is hurting Intel's stock value.

xodius80:

good, intel needs to get its act together, all this consumer locking, premium features prices and the such needs to stop.

Actually, those are the very few things shareholders are happy about, because that means people are artificially paying more money, which the shareholders benefit from. Intel does in fact need to get their act together but the scummy business practices are unfortunately not going to go away any time soon. Oddly enough, it seems Intel is doubling-down on them.

Maddness:

I think that this is a large part of what is truly wrong with the world. Everyone believes they have an entitlement to something.

You got that right Murthy Renduchintala is one such person because he felt that he was entitled to be CEO of Intel hence he sandbagged other employees on trying to become CEO. And now Murthy is leaving.

K.S.:

Aftermath of an internal power struggle gone wrong...

Yup Bob Swan saw through his BS.

isnt it ironic how the same forces that pushed intel into this disastrous path are now complaining about it?

I kinda doubt that they have a solid case here. Maybe it's just a few smaller investors who just hope to get their nuisance fee from Intel to go away. Because I don't think there is a way for them to show that Intel knew about the problems long before that and just kept the shareholders intentionally in the dark. To solve their problems though, Intel requires a new architecture, which is something they likely didn't work on throughout the years and it will take them a few more to deliver. They do have enough cash to survive that for sure. So maybe shares will drop, but in a few years they will recover.

euskai:

OK, I don't think you know how markets work. Investors may be "gambling" their money, but if you play with marked cards then there´s trouble.

LOL this is for chumps

The investors are acting stupid. When you buy a car you buy into the promise that the car can perform. If you buy a toyota and expect to do 100km in 2 seconds, you are fooling yourself. You got to do your own research and make sure you are not caught unaware. Investors are trying to get out of this situation because they didn't do their due diligence

So many sides to this...but you cannot defraud investors, look what happened a few days back https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2020-145 Now, the question is this: is misleading investors the same as defrauding them? I think the answer is a very simple one, from my comfortable armchair: Cui bono? As Intel executives are monetarily rewarded by share price, this will have to go to the SEC for thems' to chimes' ins' and find out just what led intel to pass information to investors of this colossal screw up. So, to whom did this benefit? (the passing of the information to shareholders) This could be very serious case that runs for years, or it could all be over with a fine and a slap on the wrists....but heads have already rolled, so...maybe not? Hard to know how Intel will play this, but the game is perhaps not as rigged as they would have thought it was? I cannot imagine working at Intel, but I think it would be such a a great and fantastic place to work, with all that tech at your fingertips...whoah, that would be cool - but can it impact ones perception of what the purpose of the company is and the temptation to 'fudge' projections? Again, hard to know...so, to whom did this benefit? But...where is line? Where is it written that your projections are cast-iron-clad guarantees; and not simple 'ambitious, finger-crossed ideas' about the future? Fraud? Possibly. Questionable business projections? Yes. Without a doubt. Fine? Up to the SEC, if asked. Possible to topple/bury Intel? No chance. They are literally 'to big to fail'...110,000 employees... Intel have survived 9 stock market crashes people...they are not going anywhere, but changes are coming for sure, at the speed of the electron, and AMD has its foot firmly, deftly, buried on the accelerator.

The Laughing Ma:

True, I don't, but somewhere I get the impression that a lot of entitled people think they are owned money that technically they are not.

They could be if Intel knew about this delay and sat on it. Especially if Intel new the prior quarter and did not report it on their quarterly earnings. If it was a new development then I agree these folks will lose the case nothing to see here move along. I highly suspect Intel knew long before this news came out. There were to many rumblings of rumors about 7nm being delayed well before this news.

Maddness:

I think that this is a large part of what is truly wrong with the world. Everyone believes they have an entitlement to something.

I´m entitled to a nice Porsche, a very big house, lots of money and some super hot babes! But nothing so far, don´t know what´s going wrong...

remember when elon got in trouble ? he tweeted that he secured funding and people flocked to buy stock , meanwhile musk did not had any funding secured at all so the case against him was that he lied to manipulate the stock price in such case he could have sold a lot of his shares when riding high and buy back when it crash things like that where happening way to often in the past before regulations thats why regulations got into place ... a company has obligation to be transparent if they knew before hand that the 7nm is not on track and they kept saying it is on track then this can be seen as stock manipulation ... point is if the firm that is behind the sue can prove that.

Venix:

remember when elon got in trouble ? he tweeted that he secured funding and people flocked to buy stock , meanwhile musk did not had any funding secured at all so the case against him was that he lied to manipulate the stock price in such case he could have sold a lot of his shares when riding high and buy back when it crash things like that where happening way to often in the past before regulations thats why regulations got into place ... a company has obligation to be transparent if they knew before hand that the 7nm is not on track and they kept saying it is on track then this can be seen as stock manipulation ... point is if the firm that is behind the sue can prove that.

Course the SEC and everyone was being dense asf. If you recall he tweeted he secured funding at 420 which was a joke about him smoking weed with Joe Rogan that everyone gave him crap about.

euskai:

Their only chance would be if they actually had solid proof that someone already had that information beforehand, which it's unlikely. Bonus point if someone in the board had been selling like crazy before the drop, but once again I doubt it as that crap is way too easy to spot.

Like this? https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/01/intel-ceos-sale-of-stock-just-before-security-bug-reveal-raises-questions/ This related to a stock sale in 2018 which was attributed to the meltdown and spectre errors. However Intel has been working on their 10nm since 2016, so could easily have been a different issue such as this. Lots of people commenting that these losses are the outcomes of investing in shares, and sometimes they are, and that this is people wanting their cake and eating it too. However looking at it the opposite way, if Intel can report whatever they want with regards to their manufacturing processes (which is a huge part of their business model and essential to their remaining competitive) and expect that nothing will happen to them, that is them having their cake and eating it too - failing to deliver but immune to any kind of penalty or criticism. Falsely reporting information, particularly to large investment groups and banks where stable dividend paying shares often make up a significant chunk of their investigations will clearly piss a lot of people off, and rightfully so. The large investments made into Intel is based on understandings of their future roadmap, which includes the design, manufacture and sale of new products. You cannot spend >4 years promising something, saying it's on track, but actually continually fails to deliver (and appears was well understood internally for a while https://semiaccurate.com/2019/04/25/leaked-roadmap-shows-intels-10nm-woes/), never reported to investors until it was too late and now significant change in course which will result in them trailing the market significantly, both in releasing new products and catching up to using smaller manufacturing nodes.

JamesSneed:

Course the SEC and everyone was being dense asf. If you recall he tweeted he secured funding at 420 which was a joke about him smoking weed with Joe Rogan that everyone gave him crap about.

i am not accusing elon or anyone about stock manipulation i just brought it as an example why they might be getting sued i honestly do not care i have no money on the course either way :P

Venix:

remember when elon got in trouble ? he tweeted that he secured funding and people flocked to buy stock , meanwhile musk did not had any funding secured at all so the case against him was that he lied to manipulate the stock price

elon is an asshole through and through. everyone knows US has been decapitating "business unfriendly" govts since forever. what you dont do is admit this freely and air for everyone to see. yet this genius is completely unaware that his "We will coup whoever we want! Deal with it” tweet will reverberate through the ages, taking away little legitimacy that Empire is left with. and all this because hes insecure and wants to be edgy. beautiful

I just wanted to chime in here as I actually practice in this area of the law. This type of litigation is *common* when a large corporation's stock takes a sudden downturn. The reason for this is the large, immediate loss. The large initial loss makes the potential upside of a discovery-burdened lawsuit worth the risk. Essentially, the investors are gambling a smaller (but still very substantial) amount of money in litigation costs with the hope that they can get the case into discovery and *THEN* hopefully discover enough incriminating information to actually win the case (or have a strong enough hand for a good settlement). Intel didn't do anything wrong, based on the information in the public-sphere. Every poster here stating Intel defrauded their investors doesn't know anything about corporate law or securities law. In the US, anyone can sue anyone, even if they have zero case. Right now, the plaintiffs have no case. If they can get it to discovery, they hope to find some information that will give them a case. It is an expensive gamble, but with the amount of money lost, it is an expected gamble.

If any of the insider info is true, Intel have known for an eternity now that they're going to be up to a year, if not more, behind the schedule they promised their investors nonstop. If that's not defrauding in American law, then American law doesn't know the definition of words. If I were a huge Intel investor I'd throw everything including the kitchen sink at suing Intel right now.