[HN Gopher] Dutch government takes control of Chinese-owned chip...
___________________________________________________________________
Dutch government takes control of Chinese-owned chipmaker Nexperia
Related:
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3328726/chinas-
wingtech-says-dutch-court-freezes-control-nexperia-amid-national-
security-dispute
Author : piskov
Score : 233 points
Date : 2025-10-13 10:03 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cnbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cnbc.com)
| rickdeckard wrote:
| Would be interested to hear some details on this from someone
| within Nexperia (or the automotive customers it supplied), if
| anyone is here on HN
|
| That governmental decision was surely not taken lightly, it's a
| significant move with high risk of increasing geopolitical
| tension...
| jacquesm wrote:
| That will not happen. But yes, you are right that this decision
| was not taken lightly, I've only heard of one other such move
| in the last 50 years or so.
|
| The Chinese propaganda machine is already making lots of waves
| about how NL is no longer a democracy and how this dings NL
| reputation abroad.
|
| The Dutch have put restrictions on Wingtech to not make certain
| changes (sale or move of assets, intellectual property, company
| activities, employees) for a year. That should give you enough
| to chew on I think (and it is public knowledge). Specifically
| the IP and assets bits are in focus here, more so because the
| parent company is on a watchlist. Note that they not only
| kicked out the CEO - which in itself is an earth shaking move
| for a company this big - they _also_ took control over the
| shares.
| rickdeckard wrote:
| Related, the announcement of the Dutch government:
| https://www.government.nl/latest/news/2025/10/12/minister-of...
| rzerowan wrote:
| alt link
| https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3328726/ch...
| dang wrote:
| Thanks, we'll add that to the toptext as well.
| Doxin wrote:
| Some more context from a dutch news source[0]:
|
| The ministry of economic affairs intervened out of a fear that
| crucial technological skills and capacities will leave the
| Netherlands and Europe. The ministry stated in a press release[1]
| that there was a threat of a "knowledge leak" (w/e that means
| exactly) and a possible threat to the European economy.
|
| After this intervention the Dutch government can now stop or
| reverse decisions within the company. That's only allowed if
| those decisions are harmful to the interests of the company, or
| for the future of the company as a Dutch or European business, or
| to the retaining of this crucial value chain for europe.
|
| The company can appeal this decision in court.
|
| For context, the law that allows this all to happen was passed in
| 1952 and has never before been used. As much as I think our
| government is currently ran by a bunch of nincompoops, I am
| inclined to believe that something _quite_ significant was about
| to happen for this law to get invoked. What exactly that was can
| for now only be speculated about.
|
| I can recommend you run google translate (or equivalent) on the
| press release. It's as close as you can get to the source of this
| news for now. I can only imagine the government is going to be
| having plenty of debates on the topic coming up, seeing as this
| is a _very_ rare use of a _very_ heavy-handed tool.
|
| [0] https://nos.nl/artikel/2586270-kabinet-grijpt-hard-in-bij-
| ch...
|
| [1]
| https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/actueel/nieuws/2025/10/12/wet-b...
| rzerowan wrote:
| Maybe pressure from the US gov? As a negotiatingtactic vs China
| - remeber the moves against MotorSich in Ukraine some years
| back , where the deal was win-win for both but Washington put
| the kibosh on it and ultimately got destroyed by Russian
| offensive. Since the speed/urgency and unusual application of
| the law as you mention , mean extraodinary actions must have
| quite extraordinary causes. In any case still too many unknowns
| in the story , hopefully clarity ensues soonest.
| Doxin wrote:
| Believe it or not, but the dutch government has agency. It's
| not impossible for US pressure to be _a_ factor, but I think
| it 's more likely the management of the company was planning
| to move production to china or something like that. That'd
| (rightly!) spook the government into some quick action,
| especially given the political climate around Russia
| seemingly not being content with having their war confined to
| Ukraine.
|
| Unfortunately we seem to be living in interesting times.
| dragonelite wrote:
| The US has immense pressure on the dutch government, given
| their control over ASML . Its US big tech and semi design
| studios that determines who will need to buy EUV from ASML.
| Given ASML is not allowed to do business with China, Russia
| etc.
| sgt101 wrote:
| Where else will they buy EUV from?
| fwipsy wrote:
| You could just add easily argue that the Dutch government
| has immense leverage over the US, since ASML controls the
| leading edge fab technology that underpins Nvidia etc. It
| seems more to me like a highly profitable partnership
| that neither side can credibly threaten to withdraw from.
| echelon wrote:
| > Unfortunately we seem to be living in interesting times.
|
| China played a remarkably smart game. We let it happen.
|
| People have been telling us for twenty years that this
| would happen and nobody listened until it was almost too
| late.
| bigbadfeline wrote:
| Either way, it cannot be stopped, China will develop
| independent technology sector because they can and they
| have no other choice. They don't trust the West and cases
| like this make such attitude understandable.
|
| As soon as China tries to compete with the rich
| monopolies, the "free market" goes out of the window and
| becomes "free to do as we tell you".
| thewebguyd wrote:
| > As soon as China tries to compete with the rich
| monopolies, the "free market" goes out of the window and
| becomes "free to do as we tell you".
|
| Hence big tech cozying up to this administration, and all
| the attempts to ban AI regulation.
|
| China won already, US is just trying to stop the bleeding
| corimaith wrote:
| >As soon as China tries to compete with the rich
| monopolies, the "free market" goes out of the window and
| becomes "free to do as we tell you".
|
| When China cannot compete with incumbents those
| protections also go up and when they can now people like
| you appeal to free trade (while ignoring existing
| protections). You are being overly charitable to one side
| here. Which is it? Free trade or Protectionism?
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| Ultimately the Dutch, like for instance the Australians,
| are a rounding error compared to China and a pawn in a
| bigger game. At least the Dutch can "hide" behind the EU.
|
| So there will noise but this won't stop China' rise and it
| won't stop Europe's decline, either.
| tmnvix wrote:
| > For context, the law that allows this all to happen was
| passed in 1952 and has never before been used.
|
| Interesting parallel here with China recently invoking - for
| the first time - their own legislation from the 50's to ban
| rare earth exports for military uses.
| dylan604 wrote:
| How can you say what the minerals were actually used for
| though is the question I always have in these types of
| situations. There are multiple uses of the minerals. Since
| I've now gotten a literal boat load of the minerals from you,
| I can use those minerals on other things which now frees up
| my personal source of minerals on the things you didn't want
| them used in. In the spirit of the agreement, I'm in full
| compliance all while achieving the thing you didn't want me
| to achieve. It's nothing but Pilate washing his hands
| dgfitz wrote:
| Are you tracking that harvesting REM is a nasty business
| with a lot of "don't look" environmental impacts? As such,
| most countries don't do it, or have an infrastructure for
| it.
| dylan604 wrote:
| https://rareearthexchanges.com/best-rare-earth-mining-
| compan...
|
| Plenty of US companies ready and willing. They've finally
| gotten an administration that is of like mind on screw
| the environment and dig dig dig.
| dgfitz wrote:
| So, you agree?
| dylan604 wrote:
| Agree with what? What is it that you think is a gotcha
| here?
| dgfitz wrote:
| Most countries don't do it, including the US.
|
| "Ready and willing" is quite the turn of phrase.
| dylan604 wrote:
| I've seen US numbers along 70-80% is imported. That
| leaves 20-30% domestic. Some of the REEs are 100%
| imported, so that's a different issue. But you seem to be
| implying that the US is 100% importing all REEs with no
| domestic production at all. That's not true. Yes, some
| production is slowed due to environmental issues. Some of
| it is a different nature along the lines of "why mine
| yours when you can buy someone else's". You keep yours in
| the ground until you have to get it. You have some small
| production just to keep the know-how, but you keep the
| stove down to a simmer from a boil.
| tmnvix wrote:
| > Some of it is a different nature along the lines of
| "why mine yours when you can buy someone else's". You
| keep yours in the ground until you have to get it.
|
| My understanding is that a large part of the issue is
| processing capacity/ability - not mining of the ore. In
| fact, a significant amount of ore mined in the US is sent
| to China for processing. I don't think it's a simple case
| of the US standing up some processing plants in 1-2
| years. If that were the case, wouldn't you think it
| would've happened by now? Is US leadership that bad that
| they failed to address this risk? Or - more likely - is
| it because solving the issue will take a lot more than
| some quick investment?
|
| This is a huge issue for the US MIC. Plans (e.g. with
| regard to Iran) are going back to the drawing board for
| sure.
| phil21 wrote:
| > Is US leadership that bad that they failed to address
| this risk?
|
| I mean, quite obviously? Borne by the simple fact of...
| here we are discussing it?
|
| It doesn't matter how easy, quick, or hard it is right
| now. What matters is leadership is so bad it was allowed
| to reach this point to begin with, and even a decade ago
| it was immediately obvious that it was a giant
| vulnerability that has not even started on beyond
| corrected in any meaningful way.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| US also needs all those factories and machinery to
| process the stuff.
| fakedang wrote:
| USA does not have the refining capacity which will take
| another 8 years to build out.
| walkabout wrote:
| Probably not an _awesome_ sign if multiple actors are
| invoking never-used laws that were created while WWII was
| still fresh on everyone 's mind.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| Let's hope this one is still cold.
| awesome_dude wrote:
| s/while WWII was still fresh/the cold war was
| trhway wrote:
| I always wondered how the large unified world of Roman Empire
| with running water and sewer fell apart (and backwards) into
| multitude of small feudal pieces with no technology to speak
| of for the 1000 years after Roman Empire. I think our modern
| civilization is probably at the beginning of similar process.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Why stop there why not Indus Valley Civilization
| trhway wrote:
| our knowledge (at least my knowledge of it) is much much
| smaller that that of Roman Empire, and in particular i
| don't know whether the fall of that civilization
| demonstrated the effect of splitting into multitude
| technologically inferior pieces stagnating for such a
| long time after that.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| I think we are fine in term of infra -- I don't work as a
| civil engineer, but considering companies in my city repair
| the roads every year /s they probably retain the knowledge.
| fakedang wrote:
| Exactly. Building roads and aqueducts were empire-level
| knowledge skills in Ancient Rome, performed by the army
| legions. Thankfully they're highly localized skills
| today.
| galangalalgol wrote:
| How easy is the machinery and tools needed to keep all
| the infrastructure running? Earth movers are pretty
| maintainable and barely depreciate. Survey tools though?
| They have gotten famcy right? Water management has gone
| quite high tech in some ways. I could see them falling
| apart kind of like when some hospitals had to revert to
| paper tape logs. It didn't scale anymore.
| trhway wrote:
| The infra today is internet and semiconductors which run
| it, as well as global shipping without each we end up
| without even necessities.
| zigzag312 wrote:
| Aren't you exaggerating it?
| trhway wrote:
| I lived in USSR, and know first hand that it means to be
| separated from common technological space. USSR wasn't
| that small, especially if one adds Eastern Block, yet it
| was falling behind the world becoming fully incapable to
| produce their own comparable computers, cars, etc.. If
| world get to split into such islands, the speed of
| technological progress will fall dramatically while
| social progress may go fully backwards. If you look at
| some ideologies rising around the world - they are
| straight medieval, and in many cases only connectedness
| to outside world has been preventing them from taking
| over their "islands".
| this_user wrote:
| That whole REE thing is more of a scare tactic than anything.
| REEs are really not all that rare, and the current imports of
| REEs into the US are worth around $200-250M annually. That is
| millions, not billions. It's actually a laughably small
| amount.
|
| The main reason that it's mostly China producing them may
| simply be due to the fact that the volumes are so small that
| building your own industry is not really worth it.
| tmnvix wrote:
| Dollar value is not the point. For the US MIC this matters
| a lot. There are not really any ready replacements for some
| vital weapons components at a time when US weapons
| stockpiles have been heavily depleted.
| fakedang wrote:
| This is it.
| infinet wrote:
| Netherlands imported more CeO2 (a rare earth) from China than
| any other country, with 517 metric tons during the first half
| of 2025.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| So what just happened logistically?
|
| I assume this is an entirely independent Chinese company
| without some Dutch sponsor or something. That conforms to local
| regulations. But now The Dutch government says "we have this
| new power over you" and that is that. With the consequence
| presumably being export control on dutch tech, banning from
| their market, etc? Or were there any more hooks planted that
| make it easier to force compliance? For example -- and I assume
| this is not the case in the Netherlands -- in China there is a
| 51% ownership of the foreign company by a local company (which
| is more or less state controlled).
| q3k wrote:
| > I assume this is an entirely independent Chinese company.
|
| It's worth noting that Nexperia is a spin-off of NXP (Dutch
| company) which itself is a spin-off of Philips' (Dutch
| company) semiconductor division.
|
| It's also worth noting that Nexperia's Chinese owners
| (Wingtech) are at least partially state controlled.
| teekert wrote:
| Perhaps also worth noting that ASML is also a spin-off of
| Philips.
| jacquesm wrote:
| And that the two collaborate closely on all kinds of
| projects, and that NXP (the former owner of the business
| unit that became Nexperia) and Nexperia (the company that
| is the focus of this action) are both customers of ASML.
| khuey wrote:
| Nexperia was also spun off to placate Chinese regulators
| back when Qualcomm wanted to acquire NXP, and then after
| the spin off the Chinese regulators still refused to
| approve the acquisition.
| galangalalgol wrote:
| Does that mean teensy mcu are now chinese owned? That was
| one of the last non chinese mcu available.
| nudgeee wrote:
| Teensy is based on iMXRT which are NXP, not Nexperia.
| Denvercoder9 wrote:
| > I assume this is an entirely independent Chinese company
| without some Dutch sponsor or something.
|
| It's not, it's a Dutch company, formed according to Dutch
| law, with headquarters in the Netherlands, that was bought by
| another Chinese company a few years ago.
|
| Dutch law sets rules on how any company, but especially
| public companies (so-called _naamloze vennootschappen_ ) must
| be governed. Even if you own all the shares, by law you don't
| have unlimited and unchecked power in the company, you have
| to abide by governance rules.
|
| Seemingly simultaneously with the government order, a suit
| was brought to the court enforcing these laws (the
| _Ondernemingskamer_ ) alledging that the CEO and owner were
| not abiding by them. The court documents are a bit weird to
| me as a non-lawyer, with Nexperia named as both plaintiff and
| defendant, so I'm not sure who brought it, but it might've
| been the government, who are named as a party.
|
| The court agreed that the suit could have merit, and as an
| interim measure while the legal proceedings play out, has
| suspended the CEO and named a temporary director. It also
| suspended the authority of the owners over their shares
| (except for one), and assigned a trustee to manage them
| temporarily. The court did not actually rule on the contents
| of the suit yet, it only issued interim conservatory
| measures. We'll likely hear more about how the suit plays out
| over the next few months.
|
| An interesting matter of contention in the suit is that the
| CEO/owner want the CLO to be suspended, while the other side
| asks the court to prohibit firing of the CLO. I presume there
| has been a conflict in the board, either leading to or caused
| by the government order.
|
| The court documents are public by the way (in Dutch,
| obviously): https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/resultaat?zoekt
| erm=nexperi...
| niels8472 wrote:
| From what I've read it was the company's own board that
| asked for the ceo (Wing) to be removed.
| consp wrote:
| Sounds like the OR (ondernemingsraad) apparently wants to
| get rid of the CEO for incompetence which is very
| interesting. It is extremely hard to prove (in a court of
| law) but a valid reason. I assume they were doing all kind
| of shady things if they go that route. (Havent read the
| Court Docs, it is a guess)
|
| OR vs CEO also explains the duplicate entries as they are
| both representatives of the company.
| NicoJuicy wrote:
| Germany implemented something similar like this after China
| took over Kuka (industry leading robotics) and practically
| build an entire industry of robotics in China after that.
|
| And of course, the jobs disappeared from Germany.
| q3k wrote:
| Did they? As far as I know Kuka is still fully controlled by
| Midea.
| NicoJuicy wrote:
| The regulation was created after that
| em-bee wrote:
| the jobs didn't disappear (yet). they grew from 13.000 in
| 2014 before midea took over to 15.000 in 2024. maybe they
| could have grown more in germany if midea hadn't taken over.
| who knows.
| NicoJuicy wrote:
| There are only about 3200 jobs in Augsburg (Germany), it's
| HQ?
|
| https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/KUKA-
| AG-436260/ne...
|
| Note: Looking for more information about the distribution
| of jobs atm ( countries). But it's hard to find. Any
| resources?
|
| But you're right. They still have jobs there, I didn't knew
| that.
|
| Note: This is about the law Germany created afterwards:
| https://www.akingump.com/en/insights/alerts/germany-
| tightens...
| miohtama wrote:
| Could be worse. Could be TikTok and threat to national
| security.
| javiramos wrote:
| nincompoops... learned a new word today
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| It has an interesting etymology: https://nydamprintsblackandw
| hite.blogspot.com/2014/09/words-...
| itopaloglu83 wrote:
| Everybody is a fan of free access and capital markets, until a
| foreign entity purchases something of importance.
|
| It's a continuation of recent trends and closing markets.
|
| Nobody in their sane mind would allow a company like ASML or
| the likes to be purchased by competitors.
|
| But the irony is that when a non-European entity were to do
| something like this, e.g. nationalize their oil or mining etc.
| industry or a firm, the whole hell would brake loose.
| HPsquared wrote:
| "For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law."
| itopaloglu83 wrote:
| I wonder how this would affect patent applications, since
| after such an event, some countries might not respect
| patents for their internal markets.
| incompatible wrote:
| This has always been the case, to some degree, but I think it
| will be a much bigger factor now that so many have accepted
| that Neoliberalism is dead and no longer give it lip service.
| like_any_other wrote:
| > But the irony is that when a non-European entity were to do
| something like this, e.g. nationalize their oil or mining
| etc. industry or a firm, the whole hell would brake loose.
|
| As far as I understand, Samsung, TSMC, and SMIC are all
| closely guarded by their respective governments. And China
| doesn't (didn't?) allow foreign companies to operate in China
| without a local partner at all. So I don't see the irony -
| everyone practices protectionism, some are just more subtle
| about it than others.
| mc32 wrote:
| Of course the preferred option is what the Chinese do which
| is to never let that happen in the first place or if you do
| allow foreign investment always keep a 50.1% stake in the
| entity and filtrate any tech from the venture you need .
| 1oooqooq wrote:
| thanks for the context.
|
| any idea what we the rationale/reason to pass that law in the
| first place? any specific endangered war resource at the time?
| piskov wrote:
| > extraordinary move to ensure a sufficient supply of its chips
| remains available in Europe amid rising global trade tensions.
|
| It's like they beg China to do something with Taiwan.
| piskov wrote:
| Also real kicker from 2022:
|
| The UK used its National Security & Investment Act (2021) to
| order divestment of Nexperia's Newport Wafer Fab in Nov 2022. The
| UK ordered them to sell 86% of the stake due to National Security
| concerns
|
| https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/acquisition-of-ne...
| masfuerte wrote:
| There was also some drama around British Steel back in April
| with the government seizing control from China:
|
| https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg17g39x41o
| lawlessone wrote:
| afaik there was the added danger there that if the blast
| furnaces are turned off its very difficult /impossible to
| start them again.
| brazukadev wrote:
| This excuse could be used by many countries to seize European
| companies controlling strategic national resources
| justinclift wrote:
| And it might even be valid too.
| octo888 wrote:
| Let's hope so
| jsiepkes wrote:
| Let's be real here, a European company wouldn't even have been
| allowed to buy a Chinese company in China and have the level of
| control as in this case in the first place.
| tartoran wrote:
| This is it pretty much, not sure why it took so long to come
| to this realization. Was it greed that caused a warp in
| rational and common sense?
| q3k wrote:
| Just the religious belief that The Free Market will solve
| everything on its own and there should be no attempt to
| interfere with it.
| jaccola wrote:
| I never understood this, I believe very strongly in the
| free market, but only where there _is_ a free market. Of
| course you can let the free market run free up to the
| border of e.g. the US but surely it won 't solve
| international trade since many countries do not have a
| free market. Unless we agree some international rules
| such that the boundary of the free market "sandbox"
| becomes the earths borders.
|
| It's why I also think it is possible to hold a pro-free-
| market pro-tariff position simultaneously without
| contradiction. Tariffs could be used to "level set"
| manipulation from foreign governments and make the
| incoming goods behave as if they were not manipulated
| (thus also reducing the incentive to manipulate in the
| first place).
|
| Not sure this is how tariffs are being used in reality.
| corimaith wrote:
| You are 100% correct. Free Trade hasn't been disproven,
| only the inane notion that one should pursue unreciproval
| free trade with a countries that perform mercantalism
| against them.
|
| The consumer isn't everything, the worker does matter
| just as much.
| stackskipton wrote:
| Greed. When China was becoming manufacturing powerhouse, it
| was incredibly cheap, and Chinese government seemed
| extremely willing to play ball by making sure there was no
| government caused slowdowns. This obviously worked until it
| didn't but even now, it's so expensive to change,
| corporations are screaming about their quarterly stock
| price and US being so financialized, US in a real gordian
| knot.
| array_key_first wrote:
| Greed sure, but also optics. In the US at least, we love to
| condemn China for being "communist" and not a real
| democracy. Remember, for the US, communist has been the
| number one enemy for a long time. Obviously, we can't do
| what they do.
|
| But we do what they do, and China isn't even communist.
| Longlius wrote:
| And which firms in China are controlled by European entities?
| constantcrying wrote:
| There are _many_ companies which the Chinese government could
| target in retaliation. In China foreign companies are usually
| minority partners in some ventures with some Chinese company.
| klooney wrote:
| > foreign companies are usually minority partners
|
| So, uh, none?
| DiogenesKynikos wrote:
| European companies have had massive investments in China for
| decades now.
|
| Many people in the West have no idea what's going on in
| China. Western brands and investments are all over the place.
| Half the cars on the streets used to be European or American
| (and that has only recently changed, due to the rise of EVs).
|
| Yet Europeans and Americans often complain, "Why can't
| Western companies operate in China?" Excuse me?
| grues-dinner wrote:
| Sell your industry to private equity, this is what happens.
| Someone who values it will take it up. Many such cases.
| isaacremuant wrote:
| It's ok. It's fine when the EU does it. It's only wrong and
| against capitalism when others do it. Like protectionism.
| saubeidl wrote:
| Why is "against capitalism" == wrong? Maybe it's right
| _because_ it 's against capitalism.
| VagabundoP wrote:
| I think its fine to have national and strategic interests.
| China isn't someone that you can just trust, they are exporting
| to Russia on the sly and therefore supporting war in Europe
| because it suits them.
| dylan604 wrote:
| > they are exporting to Russia on the sly
|
| is it really on the sly though?
| dmix wrote:
| > and therefore supporting war in Europe because it suits
| them.
|
| FWIW, EU countries are still sending more money to Russia for
| oil than they send Ukraine in aid.
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/24/eu-spends-
| more...
|
| Modern global economies are complicated.
| corimaith wrote:
| This is a tired talking point. If the EU stopped those
| imports abruptly they'd blow up their own economies and
| there would be chaos on the streets.
|
| It is stupid that they put themselves in that position, but
| they've also greatly reduced their dependency as the war
| progressed.
|
| With the current trade war and their own domestic troubles,
| China cannot afford to alienate other foreign markets,
| hence why this is the prime time to drive concessions
| against them.
| holoduke wrote:
| The Euro stance on buying US weapons for Ukraine is probably
| the most dumbest strategic move or the century. Europe is
| losing at an alarming rate in many ways. I would be more
| concerned about the US if I were Europe.
| corimaith wrote:
| Well clearly clinging free trade while others pursue
| protectionism/industrial strategy at massive scales against you
| isn't sustainable.
|
| Is it hypocrisy of you decide to punch back after getting
| punched? Not really. And China certainly was the much more
| protectionist than the EU for the three decades.
| constantcrying wrote:
| Great. Absolutely outstanding from the Dutch government, to not
| let China dominate Europe however it wants.
|
| Securing a Chip industry independent from China, Taiwan and the
| US has to be the top long term security interest. I only hope
| that the EU can use it's power to make things like this more
| feasible and to keep Europe independent from US/Chinese
| interests.
| thewebguyd wrote:
| > Great. Absolutely outstanding from the Dutch government, to
| not let China dominate Europe however it wants.
|
| Arguably the time to do that was in 2018, they could have
| blocked Nexperia from being aquired by Wingtech in the first
| place. But I supposed the second best time is now.
| bgnn wrote:
| The same government forced NXP to sell its RF power division to
| Chinese JAC in 2015 due to NXP and Freescale merger. Isn't that
| great?
| binarymax wrote:
| I'm currently blazing through "Chip War" and can't put it down.
| This news is fascinating in that context. I highly recommend the
| book to anyone who hasn't read it.
| rdl wrote:
| I don't understand why this suddenly happened (except if asked by
| the USG in response to the recent scare/reality over rare
| earths).
|
| The 50% ownership by a sanctioned entity was a reality for a
| while, and was an issue as soon as the purchase. This didn't
| change recently. So, this action should have been part of the
| pre-purchase review (CFIUS in the US...I assume there is an
| equivalent in China). On the face of it, this all could have been
| avoided by having a non-sanctioned entity (including another
| random Chinese company) own enough of the company to get
| sanctioned entity ownership below 50%.
| tnt128 wrote:
| Negotiation leverage. Had they prevent the purchase in the
| first place, they won't have anythings to negotiate now.
| bsder wrote:
| > I don't understand why this suddenly happened
|
| I could easily see Nexperia chips appearing in Russian
| munitions in Ukraine setting this off.
|
| It would also match charging the CEO with "incompetence". It
| would be pretty easy to win that in court if the chips are
| appearing in Russian weaponry.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| Time to quote one of my favourite lines in the Godfather
| franchise. Probably totally unrelated.
|
| "We gladly put you at the helm of our little fleet, but our ships
| must all sail in the same direction. Otherwise, who can say how
| long your stay with us will last. It's not personal, it's only
| business. You should know, Godfather"
|
| -- The late venerable Don Lucchesi
| dcrazy wrote:
| I couldn't place this quote, so I googled it and learned it's
| from Godfather Part 3. Bold choice to take your favorite quote
| from that particular movie. :)
| mmaunder wrote:
| Oh lord no. Pacino's Scream made acting history and is of the
| finest scenes to come out of the Strasberg acting ecosystem.
| Critics gonna crit, but there are some remarkably good things
| about that film.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| Yeah there are so many memorable quotes.
| Luker88 wrote:
| I don't know if something similar was feared, but I would like to
| remind people of what happened in 2020 with China and ARM.
|
| You don't get into the China market without losing control.
| jauntywundrkind wrote:
| Nexperia makes quite a line-up of parts. Huge range of pretty low
| level things, various logic and bus small devices, mountains of
| transistors.
| https://www.mouser.com/manufacturer/nexperia/featured-produc...
|
| They have a not huge but very nice line-up of GaN fet devices
| too. I'd been looking through their line-up here just lack week!
|
| Just fun to see what's on offer here. I couldn't find a latest
| listings by manufacturer for Nexperia, which is one of my
| favorite Mouser views.
| h45gJaqk wrote:
| The timing is weird, just after Trump's latest escalation with
| China. Using The Netherlands to fall into the sword would fit
| with the general tactics of dumping the Ukraine war on the EU and
| trying to sour their relations with China.
|
| That way, the U.S. is free to control all oil resources in the
| Middle East and conquer new ones in Venezuela. The EU gets
| nothing but enemies and higher oil and gas prices.
|
| In principle I'm against outsourcing or technology transfers to
| China, but please do it on you own schedule.
| Denvercoder9 wrote:
| > The timing is weird, just after Trump's latest escalation
| with China.
|
| The news is coming out now, but it actually happened September
| 30th.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Correlation != causation.
| misiek08 wrote:
| 50 years of sending all the knowledge to China and now sudden
| realization that ,,data is the value". Work was cheap, but we
| paid in IP and tech as a whole. It's great to see how long term
| is China strategy and how well they execute it.
|
| Good luck for us all being ,,independent". We can make processors
| out of attached plastic bottle caps...
| brazukadev wrote:
| It is funny that there are more people blaming China than the
| shareholders that made trillions of dollars.
| bgnn wrote:
| A bit of history:
|
| Nexperia was formed because back in 2017 (if I remember
| correctly) Qualcomm wanted to buy NXP. So NXP wanted to look more
| attractive to Qualcomm shareholders and sold its more low-tech
| business unit to Chinese investors. That acquisition didn't go
| through because of the tensions between US and China during the
| first Trump admin.
|
| NXP has been trimming fat since its formation from Philips
| Semiconductors and American or Chinese companies are buying
| whatever business unit they can grab. They pretty much buy it for
| the IP and the customers. Once they get the IP they usually fore
| the whole team and shut dient operations in NL.
|
| Nexperia wasn't doing this though. They had no interesting
| technology to steal oe transfer to China to begin with.
| derelicta wrote:
| Okay. Now do that for most major Dutch companies please.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-10-13 23:00 UTC)