Chapter 2: Professionalism and Code of Ethics

Profession

Work that requires sophisticated skills, judgement- significant decisions based on formal
training and experience, and discretion

Extensive formal education

Standards to admission

Significant public good results

Code of ethics

Rights, duties,and obligations of professionals

Framework for arriving good ethical choices

Never a substitute for sound judgement

Cannot be arrested when violated but can have expulsion from engineering society

To apply moral principles

Guide on how to act on specific situations

Codes of Engineering Societies

Emphasize commitments to safety, public health and environment

2 codes of Ethics

1. IEEE code

Short and deals in reality

Does Not mention duty to ones employer

Does mention duty to environment

2. NSPE

Longer and more detailed

Does mention duty to ones employer

Internal Conflicts in codes

Hiarchy

Public safety is paramount

A microprocessor is an electronic component that is used by a computer to do its work. It is a central

processing unit on a single integrated circuit chip containing millions of very small components including
transistors, resistors, and diodes that work together. Microprocessors help to do everything from
writing to searching the Web. Everything a computer does is described by lots of precise instructions,
and microprocessors carry out these instructions at incredible speedmany millions of times a second.
[1]

Intel Pentium Chip (Pentium FDIV bug)

Late 1994, medias reported flaws in Intels Pentium Chips

At that time, 80% of PCs uses Pentium as microprocessors

Different flaw, detected by a user, Professor Thomas R. Nicely, a Virginia mathematics professor
discovered and publicized the flaw.

Flaw was in the Floating Point Unit (FPU) and caused a wrong answer when double precision
arithmetic, a very common operation

Using spreadsheet software, they computed 4,195,835 multiply by 3,145,727, and then divide
that result by 3,145,727. The result should be 4,195,835. However, the result of this calculation
was 4,195,579. "Intel Inside, Can't Divide."

At first, Intel denied that there is a problem with the chip

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.

Businesses affected, accounting firms, medical and research facilities.

The chip would be replaced for free only for users who could demonstrate that they needed an
unflawed version of the chip

This approach did not satisfy most Pentium users

IBM, a major Pentium user, canceled the sales of all IBM computers containing the flawed chip.

In response to mounting public pressure, Intel agreed to replace the flawed chip with an
unflawed version for any customer who asked to have it replaced. "we are today announcing a
no-questions-asked return policy." said CEO Andrew Grove

Only 10% of consumers asked for the new processors

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.
 They 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.

Intel had a write-off of 475 million dollars to solve this problem.

The decision is now based on the consumers perception of the significance of the flaw, rather
than on Intels opinion of its significance.

In 1997 in the early versions of the Pentium II and Pentium Pro processors had similar flaws but
this time, Intel immediately confirmed that the flaw existed and offered customers software
that would correct it.

In late 1994, the media began to report that there was a fl aw in the new Pentium microprocessor
produced by Intel.

Apparently, flaws in a complicated integrated circuit such as the Pentium are not uncommon. Most of
these flaws cannot be detected by the user and do not affect the operation of the computer.

This particular fl aw was in the fl oating-point unit (FPU) and caused a wrong answer when double-
precision arithmetic, a very common operation, was performed.

When this bug was first reported, Intel denied that it existed.

After this bug was proven to exist, Intel denied that it was a problem. They stated that the errors would
not affect most users and stated the probability of an error was 1 in 27 million. Publicly, Intel
acknowledged the floating point flaw, but claimed that it was not serious and would not affect most
users.

IBM halted shipments of all their computers that contained the flawed Pentium chip

Intel offered to replace processors to users who could prove that they were affected

Intel offered to replace all flawed Pentium processors on the basis of request, in response to mounting
public pressure

However, Intel had knowingly sold flawed processors, and continued to do so even after creating a
version that had no such fault. They planned to release the fixed version only after selling their
remaining stock of flawed chips

Ethics

Intel should put disclaimer on their flawed CPUs

Kept them from being released

Fix the flaw before selling the processors

Recalled all flawed ones

 Fix testing procedures

The right of costumers is to know that the processors they are buying is flawed

Report to intel the problem and they will test and resolve it

If Intel brush off the customer and the problem is not a big deal, tell others about the problem
so they will think it is a big issue.

Try to solve the problem together

Monetary cost and non-monetary cost

If intel will replaced all it will cost them $475 million

Intels stock drop by 5%

Reputation

2.7 Was this case simply a customer-relations and PR problem, or are there ethical issues to be
considered as well?

Customer-relations and PR problem:

-Intel ignored the problem that was reported to them

-Did not want to replace flawed chip unless customer proves that they really need the unflawed one

Ethical issue:

-They did not disclose the flaw to their customers

-Continued to sell their product despite knowing that it is flawed

2.8 Use one of the engineering codes of ethics to analyze this case. Pay special attention to issues of
accurate representation of engineered products and to safety issues.

Intel had decided to continue selling the flawed microprocessors until they ran out of them. This is
ethically wrong according to the standards of the IEEE violating the third code. [IEEE] This code is the
code that deals with honesty and realism. Intel violated this by telling the public that the product was
not flawed knowing fully that the product was overly flawed.

to accept responsibility in making decisions consistent with the safety, health and
welfare of the public, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or
the environment;
to be honest and realistic in stating claims or estimates based on available data;
to improve the understanding of technology, its appropriate application, and potential
consequences;
to seek, accept, and offer honest criticism of technical work, to acknowledge and correct
errors, and to credit properly the contributions of others
 to avoid injuring others, their property, reputation, or employment by false or malicious
action;

2.9 When a product is sold, is there an implication that it will work as advertised?

They should ensure that 100% of what they offer in their advertisement of the product is real.

When selling a product, there is an expectation that the product will work as
advertised. Intel promoted their chips as accurate to and beyond 9th significant digit and
there was an expectation from consumers that it would perform to that precession.

-to be honest and realistic in stating claims or estimates based on available data

2.10 Should you reveal defects in a product to a consumer? Is the answer to this question different if the
defect is a safety issue rather than simply a fl aw? (It might be useful to note in this discussion that
although there is no apparent safety concern for someone using a computer with this fl aw, PCs are
often used to control a variety of instruments, such as medical equipment. For such equipment, a fl aw
might have a very real safety implication.) Is the answer to this question different if the customer is a
bank that uses the computer to calculate interest paid, loan payments, etc. for customers?

While a product may not be error-free, consumers will at least be able to decide for themselves which
errors are important to them.

A flaw is no different with safety issues. A flaw can also affect accounting firms, medical division
etc. The customer has the right to know what they are really buying. Intel should have reveal the
errors before selling it like a disclaimer for their pentium chips. Another option is to recall all
flawed chips and replace it with corrected ones.

2.11 Should you replace defective products even if customers wont recognize the defect?

Based on the Code of Ethics of Engineers, they should avoid all conduct or practice that deceives the
public. Besides that, they should also avoid the use of statements containing a material
misrepresentation of fact of omitting a material fact or omitting a material fact.

Furthermore, an engineer shall be guided in all their relations b he highest standards of honesty and
integrity. They shall acknowledge their errors and shall not distort or alter the facts. On top of that, they
shall advise their clients or employers when they believe a project will not be successful.

So it is safe to say that a company should replace the defective products even if customers wont
recognize it. An engineer should be responsible in finding product that has defects before the product
being sold and after the product being sold.

Replaced the chips even if they cant recognize the flaw because Intel lied about their product
and customers should not expect less. They thought it will be 100% working. The customers
has the right to have what they had paid for.
2.12 How thorough should testing be? Is it ever possible to say that no defect exists in a product or
structure?

It is not possible that a

2.13 Do fl aws that Intel found previously in the 386 and 486 chips have any bearing on these questions?
In other words, if Intel got away with selling fl awed chips before without informing consumers, does
that fact have any bearing on this case?

Before the flaws are undetectable so they think it will not be significant. But this time it is
detected by a user. Intel should not judge if the flaw is significant or insignificant. The users
should judge this and in this case intel told the user that it is not significant and was only
pressured by public thats why they were forced to replace the flawed chips with new ones.

2.14 G. Richard Thoman, an IBM senior vice president, was quoted as saying, Nobody should have to
worry about the integrity of data calculated on an IBM machine. How does this statement by a major
Intel customer change the answers to the previous questions?

2.15 Just prior to when this problem surfaced, Intel had begun a major advertising campaign to make
Intel a household name. They had gotten computer manufacturers to place Intel Inside labels on their
computers and had spent money on television advertising seeking to increase the public demand for
computers with Intel processors, with the unstated message that Intel chips were of signifi cantly higher
quality than other manufacturers chips. How might this campaign have affected what happened in this
case?

Intels reputation was affected not only in the past but it will also be remembered in the future.
Customers will also tend to switch on other brands.
There are also lots of circulating jokes on the internet about intel pentium bug:
You dont need to know whats inside
"Intel Inside, Can't Divide."
"United We Stand, Divided We Fall"

2.16 What responsibilities did the engineers who were aware of the flaw have before the chip was sold?
After the chips began to be sold? After the flaw became apparent?

Before the chip was sold:

Based on NSPE (National Society of Professional Engineers) Code of Ethics:

II. Rules of Practice

1. Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
a. If engineers judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property, they
shall notify their employer or client and such other authority as may be appropriate.
b. Engineers shall approve only those engineering documents that are in conformity with
applicable standards.
c. Engineers shall not reveal facts, data, or information without the prior consent of the client or
employer except as authorized or required by law or this Code.
d. Engineers shall not permit the use of their name or associate in business ventures with any
person or firm that they believe is engaged in fraudulent or dishonest enterprise.
e. Engineers shall not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering by a person or firm.
f. Engineers having knowledge of any alleged violation of this Code shall report thereon to
appropriate professional bodies and, when relevant, also to public authorities, and cooperate
with the proper authorities in furnishing such information or assistance as may be required.

III. Professional Obligations

1. Engineers shall be guided in all their relations by the highest standards of honesty and
integrity.
a. Engineers shall acknowledge their errors and shall not distort or alter the facts.
b. Engineers shall advise their clients or employers when they believe a project will not be
successful.

After the chips began to sold:

Based on NSPE (National Society of Professional Engineers) Code of Ethics:

3. Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
a. Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony.
They shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, statements, or
testimony, which should bear the date indicating when it was current.
b. Engineers may express publicly technical opinions that are founded upon knowledge of the
facts and competence in the subject matter.
c. Engineers shall issue no statements, criticisms, or arguments on technical matters that are
inspired or paid for by interested parties, unless they have prefaced their comments by explicitly
identifying the interested parties on whose behalf they are speaking and by revealing the
existence of any interest the engineers may have in the matters

After the flaw became apparent:

Based on NSPE (National Society of Professional Engineers) Code of Ethics:

3. Engineers shall avoid all conduct or practice that deceives the public.
a. Engineers shall avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact
or omitting a material fact.
III. Professional Obligations
1. Engineers shall be guided in all their relations by the highest standards of honesty and
integrity.
a. Engineers shall acknowledge their errors and shall not distort or alter the facts.