[HN Gopher] Monopoly supplier of critical Pentagon semiconductor...
___________________________________________________________________
Monopoly supplier of critical Pentagon semiconductors shuts down
its production
Author : atlasunshrugged
Score : 152 points
Date : 2021-11-13 16:13 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (mattstoller.substack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (mattstoller.substack.com)
| dmingod666 wrote:
| So Huawei was a national threat but Abu Dhabi owned company
| supplied chips on GPSs are business as usual. Its think it's
| probable (may not be the case) the whole 'security risk' think
| was a ploy to get them ousted at the behest of thier
| competition..
| atonse wrote:
| Can't they use the defense production act or something to take
| over the company or the factory?
| whatshisface wrote:
| State monopolies are not that good of an alternative to private
| monopolies.
| baybal2 wrote:
| Absolutely, people matter. And in case of USA government
| taking over the ON Semi through DPA, you will have
| essentially the same creed of people being appointed to run
| it.
|
| This comes from an obvious fact that the prime majority of
| public companies in USA have boards stuffed with bankers, and
| asset managers, because a big portion of there are owned by
| bankers, and asset managers.
|
| Most people in government service administering companies
| also come from exactly the same banker/asset manager
| background for simple lack of any others.
| lostlogin wrote:
| It depends though doesn't it?
|
| For police, army and things like water supply, they are good.
| Many (including me) argue that far more services work better
| when state owned, eg health, education, power, infrastructure
| (eg roading) and public transport.
|
| It becomes a political argument rather fast.
| sofixa wrote:
| Yes, they are. Are you serious?
|
| A state monopoly's problems are complacency and applying
| government policy ( e.g. in a racist segregated country, they
| will apply that).
|
| A private monopoly will absolutely bleed their customers dry
| out of any money they can take off them, they'll usually
| stagnate and become complacent ( just like a state monopoly).
|
| Many things are natural monopolies ( infrastructure,
| education, healthcare) and are best left to state monopolies,
| even with the downsides.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > Many things are natural monopolies ( infrastructure,
| education, healthcare) and are best left to state
| monopolies, even with the downsides.
|
| You have to be really careful with this. Most of the
| natural monopolies are very narrow.
|
| You can't just say "infrastructure" or even
| "telecommunications." The natural monopoly is limited to
| the physical plant in the last mile. Transit is a
| competitive market. You don't want to extend the monopoly
| an inch more than it needs to be.
|
| Almost nothing in "healthcare" is a natural monopoly.
| _Maybe_ emergency services, and even then it 's not a
| "real" natural monopoly (which is characterized by high
| fixed costs and low variable costs) but rather a market
| failure as a result of being unable to make a rational
| choice between providers while you're unconscious. It
| certainly doesn't apply to, for example, cancer treatment,
| where there are many providers and people are willing to
| spend as much time as necessary and travel long distances
| in order to receive the most competitive care.
|
| And there is no sense in which any education is a natural
| monopoly whatsoever. It is the exact opposite -- a
| competitive market whose costs are predominantly variable
| (per-student) rather than fixed.
|
| There is a case to be made for the local government to do
| the thing which is actually a natural monopoly, but that
| doesn't mean you can just reclassify a bunch of random
| stuff you want the government to do as a natural monopoly
| when it isn't.
| kelnos wrote:
| > _And there is no sense in which any education is a
| natural monopoly whatsoever. It is the exact opposite --
| a competitive market whose costs are predominantly
| variable (per-student) rather than fixed._
|
| The thing that worries me about this kind of thinking is
| that, while it's technically correct, privatizing
| education, or treating it as a competitive market, gives
| you bad outcomes. The rich can afford to send their kids
| to the best schools, which keeps the rich families rich.
| The poor can only afford to send their kids to the worst
| schools, or the chronically-underfunded public schools,
| and this keeps the poor families poor.
|
| We already see this in some (many?) US school districts
| with our hybrid public/private system, largely because
| public education is underfunded and private schools are
| generally out of financial reach for most folks.
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| The really rich can do homeschooling and that avoids all
| problems. What is the problem that you are trying to
| address, the rich having access to better education than
| others or the others not having the same education as the
| rich? There is no solution to that than forcing everyone
| to go to the same school, but one can also avoid my
| moving to a different state or country.
| BeFlatXIII wrote:
| Moving requires being able to afford the buy-in and, for
| families who don't earn enough to afford the education of
| the rich (those seem to be the careers that are less
| amenable to remote work), finding a new job. The upfront
| costs are prohibitive.
| Teever wrote:
| Is that true?
|
| I was under the impression that state monopolies are a
| fundamental part of modern arms procurement in some
| instances.
| wildrhythms wrote:
| I don't think that works when the companies aren't in the U.S.
|
| >the Pentagon relied on one production line for key chips, and
| that production line, owned by Abu Dhabi-controlled Global
| Foundries, just sold it off to a firm that will shut it down.
| pm90 wrote:
| If the company is not in the US, they can use coercion
| through diplomatic channels. This appears to be a lack of
| willingness or incompetence to react to this event.
|
| Considering that the factory itself is in the US, it seems
| pretty absurd that it wasn't taken over. Like do we ground
| all our B2s if we run out of spare parts and nobody is around
| to make them? Insane.
| legutierr wrote:
| It is very doubtful that the factory itself is foreign-owned.
| It's more likely directly owned by a US corporate entity, and
| Global Foundries held ownership in that entity.
|
| In any event, the Defense Production Act does not have an
| exception if the business is foreign-owned. The President's
| powers are very broad. The scenario described in TFA is
| exactly why the Defense Production Act exists, and I am also
| curious to know why it wouldn't be invoked in this case.
| mrtnmcc wrote:
| Globalism, why war is obsolete.
| JasonFruit wrote:
| It's not out of date, it's retro.
| atlasunshrugged wrote:
| Kinetic conflict anyways. Economic warfare seems alive and
| well
| BeFlatXIII wrote:
| Sanctions are a euphemism for economic warfare.
| LogonType10 wrote:
| Funny, that's what they said before WW1.
| seanw444 wrote:
| Did they though?
| mrtnmcc wrote:
| If they did, the World Wars proved the point, such
| conflicts are in nobody's interest.
| squidlogic wrote:
| IMO the world wars proved that MAD is the only brake on
| open conflict.
| LogonType10 wrote:
| Was the US not better off after WW2?
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| It was better off because it didn't have its major
| industrial cities firebombed while every other country
| did.
| FpUser wrote:
| Bet it won't be better off after WW3. Nobody will except
| maybe some primitive tribes in forgotten places.
| LogonType10 wrote:
| I've heard this cold war doom and gloom stuff way too
| many times. Do you have any good reason for repeating it?
| It sounds like the book of revelation just repackaged for
| boomers.
| dang wrote:
| Could you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or
| flamebait comments to HN? You've unfortunately been doing
| this a lot, and it's not what this site is for. We're
| trying for something other than internet default here.
|
| If you wouldn't mind reviewing
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and
| taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart,
| we'd be grateful.
| FpUser wrote:
| >"I've heard this cold war doom and gloom stuff way too
| many times."
|
| Why would I care what you've heard. I expressed my
| opinion. I do not need "good reason" for it. You are
| entitled to your own. Go start the war and celebrate.
| atlasunshrugged wrote:
| Yes, I don't think it works for foreign owned entities
| although I guess they could basically use the DPA as more of
| a carrot for an Intel or someone to have a guaranteed
| purchase order for X# years at a certain price for these
| chips at a level that would be profitable for them
| Shadonototra wrote:
| But Mr Spencer is now billionaire, who cares!
| iamshs wrote:
| Intel chief: Too many chips made in Asia, 7 months ago.
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26573236
| black_13 wrote:
| IBM and their shitty software sold to DOD. The stopped improving
| and having decent training RHAPSODY a hundred years ago.
| winternett wrote:
| Non Technical (IT & Infrastructure) people making technical
| decisions is what may destroy the pentagon if you ask me.
|
| Fraud and waste is always a concern in Government operations, but
| if you take a real look at who is leading decision making, people
| in those positions (including in private companies) are often
| completely unaware of the impacts of their decisions, while their
| advisory staff is often a team of people from a private
| (shareholder owned) company focused on billing their clients
| advantageously at every opportunity they get, and providing
| advice that maintains a "constant stream of revenue".
|
| It's not technology we need to fix first, it's the lack of
| integrity and the focus on opportunistic profit applied to the
| vary basis of the organization. The method in which contracts are
| managed, administered, and regulated needs a major overhaul to
| address the changing landscape of business.
|
| Many mission-critical manufacturing and information service
| operations that the military runs simply should not ever rely (in
| any way) on privately owned and profit/shareholder-driven
| companies because it breaks integrity and accountability.
| dade_ wrote:
| Massive consolidation is happening in every industry, IT
| distribution to cabinet parts to industrial equipent. I think it
| is from cheap debt allowing private equity to buy up a bunch of
| companies, smash them together, cut the duplication and lower
| margin parts of the business, hiking margins as they eliminated
| competition, and then spinning them off. Debt has been so cheap,
| they don't even need to have up front capital, just borrow and
| profit off the deal.
|
| However, it is eliminating useful and valuable products & tools,
| disrupting lives, and making it very difficult to run a business
| that relies on those parts.
|
| This is one of the many ways endless years of emergency low
| interest rates are destroying the economy and the livelihood of
| many people.
| gumby wrote:
| Matt stoller has written extensively on this topic, if it
| interests you.
| ItsMonkk wrote:
| This is the conclusion that I am coming to as well. You need to
| pick the correct tool for the job.
|
| What's the correct tool? The simplest tool that can get the job
| done, the Principle of Least Power[0]. We often hear "Favor
| Composition over Inheritence", but never "These are the
| instances where Composition does not work, and Inheritence
| needs to be used instead."[1] Rich Hickey's "Simple Made Easy"
| shows many more examples, but this principle is very wide
| reaching. Prefer expressions over code blocks. Prefer for over
| while. Prefer map over for. Prefer data over functions. Prefer
| functions over macros. Prefer monoliths over micro-services.
| Prefer companies over governments. Prefer bikes over cars.
| Prefer smaller teams over bigger teams.
|
| It's that last one that is intriguing me. You need to ensure
| that all of the skills that you need to be in the company are
| there, you can leave a bit of a buffer like Kelly-sizing, and
| then you want to optimize for that and cut as much as you can.
| Vertical integration is just another instance of tight
| coupling. The less people in the company, the less you need to
| communicate, the more it can get done. You want the skills Venn
| diagram of the team to look like the Olympic rings.
|
| Social media runs into this same trap where communities grow
| far to large. The economies of scale within the space grows and
| even with the worsening of communication the entity gets
| stronger with each member according to a network effect. Both
| need some sort of dampening effect or forced splitting, but I
| don't know yet what that is.
|
| [0]: https://blog.codinghorror.com/the-principle-of-least-
| power/
| DSingularity wrote:
| Makes you wonder what the conclusion will be.
| baybal2 wrote:
| I am actually very glad that those investment wizards almost
| completely nuked whole sectors of the semiconductor market.
|
| It cleared a lot of long standing nasty monopolies, which self
| destructed since their LBO schemes collapsed, or...
| successfully went through, and they were sold to unwitting
| asset manager/banker types for $$$$$, just to be chopped up
| after they found what a load of lemons they bought.
| convolvatron wrote:
| certainly agree that there should be some kind of garbage
| collection process that pushes established companies to
| reinvent themselves at least a little to keep up.
|
| but i really dont want to give any credit to those guys -
| they certainly aren't discriminating - they'll eat, digest,
| extract any salable capital and just shit out whatever is
| left.
|
| i suppose you can argue that they exert an evolutionary
| pressure to develop an immune system (?)
| thisisfine84 wrote:
| Consolidation has been going on for decades.
|
| Previously it was blue collar companies, now it's tech because
| they own the blue collar companies.
|
| Real environment consumption and simplifying necessary
| utilities I have no problem with.
|
| It's the ownership model I take issue with. We dismantled many
| economical government systems through policy to make private
| ones look good while the private ones purposely fuel "consume,
| dispose" messaging.
|
| Lives WILL be disrupted by climate change. No law of physics
| guarantees anyone an American way of life. Physical reality
| provides the info we have to work with, no matter how hard
| politicians and willfully ignorant folks want to believe it's
| grandpa and grandma's sacrifice that willed society into
| existence.
| silexia wrote:
| Another huge reason is government overregulation. It takes many
| years and millions of dollars of capital to start a bank or a
| medical business or many other types of companies.
|
| And don't forget the gigantic scam that is intellectual
| property. Creating one small pebble of an idea that could only
| be created because of the titanic mountain of human knowledge
| underneath it, and then block competition and progress for
| decades is horrifying.
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| That's just the natural way of capitalism if you allow
| companies to get bigger and bigger. They can buy up any
| upcoming competition for good money so most startups are being
| built to be bought and not as standalone businesses. You see
| that and also in medical devices where I work. Seems most
| industries will evolve into a state where you have 2-4
| competitors that suppress all competition by building up
| regulatory hurdles and by their ability to buy small companies.
|
| I would be in favor of massively progressive taxation of large
| companies. I just don't see the value of them beyond a certain
| size but I see a lot of danger accumulating so much power in
| their hands.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > Seems most industries will evolve into a state where you
| have 2-4 competitors that suppress all competition by
| building up regulatory hurdles and by their ability to buy
| small companies.
|
| This isn't a natural law, it's the point at which antitrust
| stops letting them buy each other. If it wasn't for that they
| would merge to monopoly. And that few competitors is enough
| for them to implicitly or explicitly collude instead of
| actually competing.
|
| But it only works if barriers to entry are high. Otherwise
| investors would see profit in going into competition with the
| cartel. Which is why they lobby for regulatory barriers to
| prevent that from happening.
|
| > I would be in favor of massively progressive taxation of
| large companies. I just don't see the value of them beyond a
| certain size but I see a lot of danger accumulating so much
| power in their hands.
|
| What causes this is really the opposite, and what you're
| suggesting would make it worse.
|
| Corporate expansion is a tax deduction to corporations
| because corporate income tax is a tax on profit and building
| new factories etc. to expand vertical integration is a cost.
| So they'd have more incentive to reinvest all their revenues
| instead of paying the tax. That's how you get Amazon.
|
| The real problem there is that we double tax corporations. So
| Ian invests in Apple and his share of Apple's profits are
| $1000. If Apple pays the money to Ian so he can go invest it
| in a company that makes electric cars, he has to pay tax on
| it right away, and then he has less to invest. If he leaves
| the money inside of Apple and Apple expands into making
| electric cars, he doesn't have to pay the tax until he sells
| his shares and gets to earn returns on the money in the
| meantime.
|
| So then investors have a preference for share price
| appreciation over dividends, which is equivalent to
| preferring conglomeration over returning profits to the
| investor to invest in independent companies. Then we get more
| and ever-expanding huge conglomerates and less independent
| companies that do one thing and do it well.
|
| The solution is to make dividends a tax deduction to the
| corporation. Then corporations with money they don't know
| what to do with will do that for the tax deduction.
| specialist wrote:
| I'm fine with returning to the system of high corporate
| income taxes, disbursing surplus to investors via
| dividends, high corporate R&D budgets, pensions, living
| wages, typical executive to janitor compensation ratio
| somewhere around 40:1, sustained productivity booms, and
| whatever other beneficial outcomes we got from the the last
| keynesian regime.
|
| I'm ambivalent about capital gains taxes on _individual_
| investors. The rate should probably adapt dynamically, like
| pick a target number for the gini coefficient (or whatever)
| and ratchet the tax rate as necessary.
|
| I'm completely untroubled by so-called double taxation.
| Squint and it looks like a VAT. It makes _perfect sense_ to
| me that most every transaction should be taxed. That 's
| kinda the point.
| thisisfine84 wrote:
| Centralization is natural or socialism and communism, because
| it's natural to human social agency. It literally simplifies
| production.
|
| All capitalism does is provide a legal document letting a
| minority claim more for themselves.
| LogonType10 wrote:
| >I would be in favor of massively progressive taxation of
| large companies
|
| Say goodbye to electric cars.
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| Tesla didn't need a trillion dollar valuation to have an
| impact on the car market. When Apple, Google or Microsoft
| made their biggest contributions to innovation they also
| were much smaller. Now they are just milking their market
| position for profit without generating much innovation.
| fabianhjr wrote:
| > As of December 2020, China had the largest stock of
| highway legal plug-in passenger cars with over 4.5 million
| units, 42% of the global plug-in car fleet in use.[10][20]
| China also dominates the plug-in light commercial vehicle
| and electric bus deployment, with its stock reaching over
| 500,000 buses in 2019, 98% of the global stock, and 247,500
| electric light commercial vehicles, 65% of the global
| fleet.[21]
|
| Source:
| https://www.wikiwand.com/en/New_energy_vehicles_in_China
|
| The difference isn't on taxation but investment; China
| invests way more in infrastructure and development.
|
| > Tesla Motors Inc., SolarCity Corp. and Space Exploration
| Technologies Corp., known as SpaceX, together have
| benefited from an estimated $4.9 billion in government
| support, according to data compiled by The Times. The
| figure underscores a common theme running through his
| emerging empire: a public-private financing model
| underpinning long-shot start-ups.
|
| Source: https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-
| subsidies-201...
| [deleted]
| baybal2 wrote:
| Taxations is definitely different. Please check what
| Chinese tax rates are, and costs of doing business in
| China. In short, for those who don't want to lookup it
| themselves, it's way, way more, probably higher than even
| most highly taxed EU countries.
|
| I just 5 something years, Chinese manufacturing economy
| became completely unrecognisable. It's a hot money game
| now in a way US stock market will look rather decent, and
| logical.
| archibaldJ wrote:
| Taxation in China (at least by law) is quite comparable
| to Germany's (40+% when you reach ~$144k) but without all
| the social benefits. Unlike Germany, there are gray areas
| in the Chinese system where people find ways to pay less
| tax. But there are also other cost-inducing things than
| tax.
|
| In lights of the evergrande crisis, I'm not sure how
| efficient China's hugely state-directed investment system
| is. And much won't be achieved had there not been Deng's
| economic reforms and the tax indulgence that followed.
|
| More than anything, high taxation stifles innovations in
| China. What you see in China is not real innovation (in
| the sense of inventing new things), but social-mobility
| [1] as a consequence of authoritarianism which can result
| in mass adoption of technologies, etc.
|
| Also, considering the recent Tang Ping (Tang Ping )
| movement, I don't think China's social-economy is
| currently in a healthy state.
|
| [1] https://andrewbatson.com/2021/10/13/mobilization-and-
| modules...
| fabianhjr wrote:
| > recent Tang Ping (Tang Ping ) movement, I don't think
| China's social-economy is currently in a healthy state.
|
| Well, it is not like an antiwork movement has been
| forming on the US and is gaining mainstream traction. (
| https://www.reddit.com/r/antiwork/ )
|
| > In lights of the evergrande crisis, I'm not sure how
| efficient China's hugely state-directed investment system
| is.
|
| How is a private developer that overleveraged itself the
| fault of a state that is investing in _public
| infrastructure_ like high speed rail, nuclear reactors,
| and tech in general? Since anything vital is public
| property they can do what self-called capitalists in the
| US cannot: let evergrande fail. (No private company in
| China is "too big to fail")
| not-elite wrote:
| > This is one of the many ways endless years of emergency low
| interest rates are destroying the economy and the livelihood of
| many people.
|
| Japan has held rates near the zero lower bound since the late
| 1990s. If rates were the only factor, you'd expect to see the
| same situation there.
| speeder wrote:
| You mean the country of the Zaibatsu? Where the economy is
| stagnant for the past several years? That has several global
| conglomerates like Sony and Toyota?
| baybal2 wrote:
| Those zabatsu are by no means stagnant. Strong yen meant
| cheap investments for them overseas.
|
| Their business empire grew N-fold, they just didn't grow in
| Japan, but the rest of Asia.
|
| Find a name of any non-Chinese blue chip company from Asia,
| and there is good chance it has Japanese investors.
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| > Their business empire grew N-fold, they just didn't
| grow in Japan, but the rest of Asia.
|
| I feel like that's strengthening the point you're arguing
| against. Consider the quotes sentence alongside the
| realities of American firms outsourcing their
| manufacturing. Yes the firms are still juiced by American
| investors, but there are additional concerns beyond the
| investment capital. It affects individuals jobs,
| industries, and economies here in America (or in Japan)
| for large components of the economy to _happen
| elsewhere_.
| TheJoeMan wrote:
| I'm not sure which country you're from, but Japan lost their
| dominant position in US tech consumer goods around late
| 1990's
| dmingod666 wrote:
| The time you refer to in Japan is also known as the 'lost
| decade'.
| 323 wrote:
| "lost decade", how cute :)
|
| > _The term originally referred to the years from 1991 to
| 2001, but the decade from 2001 to 2011 (Lost 20 Years) and
| the decade from 2011 to 2021 (Lost 30 Years) have been
| included by commentators._
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Decades
| r3trohack3r wrote:
| This has been occupying my mind space lately.
|
| I used to describe this situation as "late stage capitalism"
| and lay the blame at capitalism's feet. I've recently done a
| 180 on that.
|
| The tangling of Copyright, Trademark, and Patent law into the
| mega-legal structure of "intellectual property" law has had
| devastating effects IMO.
|
| The government creates and protects monopolies, and then allows
| those monopolies to be bought and sold like playing cards. It's
| not surprising that pools of money result in the concentration
| of these government created monopolies.
|
| This is most evident to me in healthcare. The pattern in the
| late 2000s and 2010s was to purchase up drug companies for
| their IP, gut the R&D, and jack up drug prices since the
| government would enforce their monopoly - and consumers had no
| choice since they needed the drugs. Yes this is GREED, but this
| isn't capitalism. Capitalism would _solve_ this - but
| government actively stands in the way of letting market
| pressures fix that market.
| i_am_proteus wrote:
| The fab was sold to ON Semiconductor, a US concern. The US
| government could invoke the defense production act.
|
| More likely, the fab can more-profitably produce some other
| product, and the United States would have to offer a higher price
| to restart production.
| strstr wrote:
| Slightly off-topic, but I think you mistranslated the word for
| corporation. I suspect you translated "Konzern" from german to
| english's "concern". But I'm honestly unsure. In context the
| word concern could almost work.
| Amezarak wrote:
| It is less common nowadays, but that is one of the
| definitions of "concern" in English: a company or a
| corporation. So it's entirely correct as is.
| i_am_proteus wrote:
| Curious indeed! Merriam-Webster tells me that one definition
| of "concern," as a noun, is `an organization or establishment
| for business or manufacture.`
|
| But perhaps this is not in common use amongst native English
| speakers!
| kelnos wrote:
| It's somewhat common, but probably not the most popular
| usage. I think most people who read business news regularly
| would see it used in sentences like, "Due to Company Foo's
| dire financial situation, they will cease to be a going
| concern".
| strstr wrote:
| If you check english wikipedia, it lists "Concern" as a
| type of business structure that predominantly exists in
| Germany[0]. The word has be pulled into english, but it's
| definitely not a commonly used english word, and it is
| likely pedantically inaccurate in reference to an American
| corporation.
|
| [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concern_(business)
| op00to wrote:
| Native English speaker. Well aware of concern used to
| reflect a business.
| [deleted]
| agency wrote:
| I mainly see that definition used in the context of the
| phrase "going concern"
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Going_concern
| setpatchaddress wrote:
| What happened to the requirement to second-source semiconductors?
| mpyne wrote:
| Same thing that happened to the requirement to code DoD
| software only in Ada: the requirement was scrapped when it
| became obvious the marketplace had shifted so much that the DoD
| would have to choose between second-sourcing obsolete gear or
| staying current with technology the market was postured to
| deliver.
| bsvgywer wrote:
| There is absolutely no legal reason that the DoD can't take
| Intel/AMD/Whomever's designs to alternative manufacturers.
| Unfortunately in the name of making the richest among us
| richer, our leadership hardly exercises the DoD's blanket
| license of all things patented. Along the same lines, we no
| longer break up companies that dominate their industry,
| giving us fewer choices for alternative manufacturers.
| wmf wrote:
| Maybe no legal reason but there is a technical reason: a
| chip designed for a specific manufacturing process (e.g.
| IBM Cu-32) can only be made on that process and there may
| only be one fab that can run the process. The chip would
| have to be somewhat redesigned to be manufactured
| elsewhere.
| ectopod wrote:
| Does the DoD have the right to demand designs and knowhow
| from Intel and AMD? Patents alone are really not much use.
| Supermancho wrote:
| In the name of national security, I would hope so. Why
| wouldn't it? US Companies don't mean much if there's no
| US behind it.
|
| The issue is there is no overt war to drive the
| nationalism support necessary to push people into freely
| transferring knowledge. It seems to magically appear,
| when there's a feeling of imminent danger but ppl
| question it in times of peace.
| xxpor wrote:
| Are you sure they still do? Since 2015, patents are
| property for 5th amendment purposes:
| https://cip2.gmu.edu/2015/06/22/supreme-court-recognizes-
| tha...
| moring wrote:
| What parts of a modern system _can_ even be second-sourced?
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Death by 1000 greedy cuts.
| 323 wrote:
| Pentagon should just order it's chips from China.
|
| It should also move vehicle assembly there, it's much cheaper.
|
| In fact, they should outsource everything outside it's core
| competency - strategy.
| MeinBlutIstBlau wrote:
| Don't worry, the USA will soon have TM at the top of it with an
| "Owned by China" so we won't even need to do it. We'll just be
| forced to!
| rvba wrote:
| Death by PowerPoint?
| TomAbel wrote:
| The Asianometry newsletter wrote a really insightful newsletter
| about the US Government's Semiconductor Chip Buying Problem[1]
| (He also has Youtube video[2] you can watch on the same
| newsletter)
|
| In the newsletter and video he talks about the US's Trusted
| Foundry Program and the different pitfalls and challenges that
| came with the program.
|
| [1]https://asianometry.substack.com/p/the-government-
| semiconduc...
|
| [2]The US Military's Semiconductor Buying Problem
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSNhk4TflKA
| andromeduck wrote:
| I think the USG could definitely do at least the design side of
| a M1 like series of chips that cover 80-90% of their needs but
| yeah idk how we could make the US industry competitive again
| when Intel has dropped the ball so hard.
| dmingod666 wrote:
| Very smart and in-depth content, people here would love it.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-11-13 23:02 UTC)