Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GrahamGarside it's like all the food supermarkets chuck just as it reaches it's sell by date rather than feeding the homeless or disadvantaged |
IMHO, there are two things at work here Graham:
1) There is a certain class of people who feel they are ENTITLED to what others have. When you give, they demand that you give more. This is wrong. While my beliefs may obligate me to help those in need, that does not imply that those in need are entitled to what I have. It's a difference in attitude.
2) This actually follows from 1. If AMD were to give away those defective chips (or the supermarkets were to give away that food) and something bad were to happen because of it (or that supermarket were to give away that food, and someone got sick eating it), the legal liabilities would be enormous. Why should the company undertake that risk when it is getting nothing in return?
When I was working in the monitor manufacturing business, the company I worked for had a policy that, if we had a defective unit (one that wouldn't meet spec) but otherwise worked, we would put the unit in a 'hold' pile. Once/month, we would go through the hold pile, and units that were unusable would be scrapped, but units that were otherwise functional but simply failed to meet spec would be donated to local charities. We stopped that policy when we were sued because a unit that had poor focus was given to a lady who had bad eyesight to start with. She developed headaches from using the unit because of the poor focus (increased eye strain). We started salvaging as much of the units as we could, and scrapping the rest. In the long run, that policy ended up saving us money, where the previous policy of donating units cost us money, but we also ended up creating more waste, and a lot of people who could have made use of those monitors now don't get them.