finally got myself to take a pic. ive been busy lately with school. anyways, it has some weird markings, unlike any i have seen before. hell, it doesnt even have "ES" on it. any more info on this? even current p4s have "intel confidential" on it at least.
http://home.attbi.com/~richard_din/tualatin14ES.JPG
[moderator edit]changed image to a link since it was so large[/moderator edit]
my 1.4 p3 ES (PIC!!!!)
Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee
-
ChiefWeasel
- Posts: 262
- Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2002 3:26 pm
- Location: Worcester, UK
Might be better posting this at www.hardocp.com or similar, where they have lots of people with ESs and people from Intel etc.
Other than that , what do you need to know? You have it in a mobo?
Other than that , what do you need to know? You have it in a mobo?
Actually its whoever sold it to you that would be in trouble. They broke their confidentiality agreement with Intel. For them it could mean civil liability, and perhaps being charged as accessories to criminal theft of IP. Intel doesn't allow the people who get ES chips to sell them, either, that's definetely a no-no.
Since you never signed an agreement with Intel, you're probably in the clear, legally speaking.
Since you never signed an agreement with Intel, you're probably in the clear, legally speaking.
[high horse]
Well, Rusty, I am not a lawyer, but my confidence in Western legal systems isn't so shaky that I'd think the law and its practitioners can't distinguish between selling old prototypes and selling the plans to old prototypes. Without a copy of the actual agreement under which this particular ES was released (or any other ES), I sure wouldn't let my speculation about the terms of the contract and how the law would interpret it sound like legal fact. Old ESes are available pretty regularly on eBay, and I'm willing to bet someone from Intel knows about it, and doesn't really care. It's not like major review sites are auctioning off their new 3GHz P4s or something.
A better analogy might be to say that buying ESes on eBay is like buying used CDs that have "Promotional Copy Only" stamps on them, or ex-review copy preprints from used book stores, although even this analogy fails to capture the exact circumstances of the situation.
Sorry about any toes I may be stepping on, but I think it's desperately important that legal opinions be supported by actual law (as written and as applied), not by hearsay, speculation, and dubious analogy. It's definitely a good idea to bring up the possible legal ramifications of things, but presupposing to know what's legal and what's not, and what creates liability and what doesn't, in the complicated realm that is the intersection of IP law, contract law and (potentially) criminal law is not the way.
[/high horse]
Well, Rusty, I am not a lawyer, but my confidence in Western legal systems isn't so shaky that I'd think the law and its practitioners can't distinguish between selling old prototypes and selling the plans to old prototypes. Without a copy of the actual agreement under which this particular ES was released (or any other ES), I sure wouldn't let my speculation about the terms of the contract and how the law would interpret it sound like legal fact. Old ESes are available pretty regularly on eBay, and I'm willing to bet someone from Intel knows about it, and doesn't really care. It's not like major review sites are auctioning off their new 3GHz P4s or something.
A better analogy might be to say that buying ESes on eBay is like buying used CDs that have "Promotional Copy Only" stamps on them, or ex-review copy preprints from used book stores, although even this analogy fails to capture the exact circumstances of the situation.
Sorry about any toes I may be stepping on, but I think it's desperately important that legal opinions be supported by actual law (as written and as applied), not by hearsay, speculation, and dubious analogy. It's definitely a good idea to bring up the possible legal ramifications of things, but presupposing to know what's legal and what's not, and what creates liability and what doesn't, in the complicated realm that is the intersection of IP law, contract law and (potentially) criminal law is not the way.
[/high horse]
True.
My point was more that this was a legal issue, not that poor Hwtf was going to be arrested in the near future. The trading of ES's is a gray market; technically a no-no, but in usual practice nothing to worry about. Just because Intel chooses to not pursue the issue doesn't make it less illegal.
Just like how Microsoft doesn't go after every person who installs their copy of Windows on more than one machine in their house. Hell, I've got the same copy of XP on several machines at the moment and I haven't been arrested by the MS gestapo.
Oh wait, there's someone knocking on my door.
Uh oh.
It's Bill.
Gotta go....see ya'll in 5 to 10 years.
My point was more that this was a legal issue, not that poor Hwtf was going to be arrested in the near future. The trading of ES's is a gray market; technically a no-no, but in usual practice nothing to worry about. Just because Intel chooses to not pursue the issue doesn't make it less illegal.
Just like how Microsoft doesn't go after every person who installs their copy of Windows on more than one machine in their house. Hell, I've got the same copy of XP on several machines at the moment and I haven't been arrested by the MS gestapo.
Oh wait, there's someone knocking on my door.
Uh oh.
It's Bill.
Gotta go....see ya'll in 5 to 10 years.
Rusty075 wrote: Just like how Microsoft doesn't go after every person who installs their copy of Windows on more than one machine in their house. Hell, I've got the same copy of XP on several machines at the moment and I haven't been arrested by the MS gestapo.
Oh wait, there's someone knocking on my door.
Uh oh.
It's Bill.
Gotta go....see ya'll in 5 to 10 years.
there's a MS gestapo???
what do they do hunt down software pirates and beat them up with tablet PC's? 
Probably as good a summation as can be made in that many words.The trading of ES's is a gray market; technically a no-no, but in usual practice nothing to worry about.
Probably not, but their decision not to pursue it does seem to indicate something peculiar about it's illegality-- something that would require serious research to resolve. Maybe you know better, but for all I know, Intel NDAs for ESes could have an expiration date, or could be superseded by some other contract or law at some pointJust because Intel chooses to not pursue the issue doesn't make it less illegal.
I figured as much.My point was more that this was a legal issue, not that poor Hwtf was going to be arrested in the near future.
[soapbox] I'm especially sensitive to legal/technology issues lately because of how the US Congress has created new draconian criminal penalties for transgressions that were previously covered under more reasonable pre-existing criminal statutes (like much of the "cyber-terror" US legislation passed recently) or non-criminal civil statutes (like the DMCA). I think it's important that as citizens and users of technology we keep a perspective on how the law affects us, and (again) I commend you for raising the issue. But it bothers me when we concede victory too quickly to the forces that want to control ever more of our behavior. Buying or selling ESes may be "illegal", but it should only ever be as illegal as buying or selling a used promotional CD. When we tell ourselves and others that it's illegal like theft, we make ourselves forget that the law must have proportionality, and we condition ourselves to accept horror stories like this, which aren't too far from Rusty's "MS gestapo".
So, yes, Hwtf will probably not be arrested for buying his (pretty awesome) P3 ES in the near future, because, even though it may be "illegal", the laws are complex and hard to enforce, and Intel doesn't seem to care. Hopefully, his security in his person is guaranteed by more than obstuse legalese and corporate fiat. Hopefully, all of us recognize that Hwtf, dastardly lawbreaker that he is, poses no threat to the prosperity of the world and its people, and, hopefully, we'll ensure that our governments, which exist to serve and protect our interests, do not consider his actions criminal, but provide only the appropriate civil relief to the offended party. The alternative can only lead to a very ugly future.
[/soapbox]
A curious argument. I read the linked article, and I'm confused as to what your opinion of it was. Did they do something illegal by uncapping their modems? It would seem so. It seems that what happened is a risk you take when you break the law. I think when they installed that software, they were agreeing to accept the consequences.
So basically I'm refuting your argument about laws having proportionality. If that concept is worked into the law, I'm all for it. But you can't just take a completely arbitrary law and say you are going to follow it on the basis or proportionality. That's like me saying, "The laws of biology say that if I sever my spinal column, I will be paralyzed. I am going to break only one of my vertebrae, therefore I should only be slightly harmed or not injured at all. I know this because I am only breaking one, not all of my vertebra." The law of biology is not proportional. It never will be. Me saying it should be doesn't make it so.
These guys broke the law. They suffered the consequences. It is NOT an issue of what is fair and reasonable. You're forgetting the very concepts that make Western civilization great. If something is wrong, you are free to try and fix it. If these guys weren't happy with their cable internet service, they should have switched providers, complained to the company to get things changed, or started their own company. These things are legal and commendable.
It makes me laugh when people feel they should be able to do whatever they want because it seems reasonable and fair to them. That's crap, and you know it. Or, if you don't know it, you would soon learn it as soon as someone broke into your house and, using a baseball bat, broke your face up so that you were horribly scarred. They could say, "My actions were reasonable and fair to me." That doesn't do much for you as you try to cope with your pain. This may seem an extreme example, but it is the logical progression of what you are advocating.
We have laws to prevent stuff like this happening.
Allow me to rant, and this is no longer directed at anyone in particular. It frustrates me no end when people complain about "the man" and how government is holding us down and rules aren't fair and we need anarchy to save our souls. The people who advocate these things are doing so from the center of a culture built on the very things they want to tear down. They have never seen the armed groups going from house to house dragging the women out into the streets to be raped in front of their husbands and fathers. They've never had shells whistling over their heads as they huddle in the cold mud. They've probably never even been really and truly hungry. If they were, they would soon realize that the very things they feel so strongly are "tying us down" are really allowing them to live in unprecendent peace and prosperity. Simply amazing.
Peace.
So basically I'm refuting your argument about laws having proportionality. If that concept is worked into the law, I'm all for it. But you can't just take a completely arbitrary law and say you are going to follow it on the basis or proportionality. That's like me saying, "The laws of biology say that if I sever my spinal column, I will be paralyzed. I am going to break only one of my vertebrae, therefore I should only be slightly harmed or not injured at all. I know this because I am only breaking one, not all of my vertebra." The law of biology is not proportional. It never will be. Me saying it should be doesn't make it so.
These guys broke the law. They suffered the consequences. It is NOT an issue of what is fair and reasonable. You're forgetting the very concepts that make Western civilization great. If something is wrong, you are free to try and fix it. If these guys weren't happy with their cable internet service, they should have switched providers, complained to the company to get things changed, or started their own company. These things are legal and commendable.
It makes me laugh when people feel they should be able to do whatever they want because it seems reasonable and fair to them. That's crap, and you know it. Or, if you don't know it, you would soon learn it as soon as someone broke into your house and, using a baseball bat, broke your face up so that you were horribly scarred. They could say, "My actions were reasonable and fair to me." That doesn't do much for you as you try to cope with your pain. This may seem an extreme example, but it is the logical progression of what you are advocating.
We have laws to prevent stuff like this happening.
Allow me to rant, and this is no longer directed at anyone in particular. It frustrates me no end when people complain about "the man" and how government is holding us down and rules aren't fair and we need anarchy to save our souls. The people who advocate these things are doing so from the center of a culture built on the very things they want to tear down. They have never seen the armed groups going from house to house dragging the women out into the streets to be raped in front of their husbands and fathers. They've never had shells whistling over their heads as they huddle in the cold mud. They've probably never even been really and truly hungry. If they were, they would soon realize that the very things they feel so strongly are "tying us down" are really allowing them to live in unprecendent peace and prosperity. Simply amazing.
Peace.
...that's a bit absolutist.
Nazi Germany had laws that sent Jews, gays, communists, etc., to their deaths.
Just because a state sanctions a law doesn't mean it's right. People have to work out for themselves what is right and what is not. I believe that most people, however, do see society as an instrument of good, and therefore choose to work within the confines of that society.
Just my two euro-cents...
Nazi Germany had laws that sent Jews, gays, communists, etc., to their deaths.
Just because a state sanctions a law doesn't mean it's right. People have to work out for themselves what is right and what is not. I believe that most people, however, do see society as an instrument of good, and therefore choose to work within the confines of that society.
Just my two euro-cents...