Nvidia's Arm deal sparks quick backlash in chip industry(uk.reuters.com)
uk.reuters.com
Nvidia's Arm deal sparks quick backlash in chip industry
https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-arm-holdings-m-a-nvidia-industry-anal/nvidias-arm-deal-sparks-quick-backlash-in-chip-industry-idUKKBN2650GT
48 comments
The Chinese have shown a willingness to do whatever they want within their own market. The question is the global market. Sure they can pirate intellectual property of ARM for their domestic market all they want, but they won't be able to export it and sell it on the global market.
At a guess I think exports would be the issue. As soon as products containing unlicensed chips leave the country, they could be seized.
It's not about having the designs as you think. It's about the ability to sell products based on ARM IP.
* "rogue agent" can't sell products with ARM based technology inside.
* "rogue agent" can't produce ARM based chips in foreign fabs (TSMC, Samsung)
* "rogue agent" can't sell products with ARM based technology inside.
* "rogue agent" can't produce ARM based chips in foreign fabs (TSMC, Samsung)
With it looking like SMIC will be added to the excluded company list I don't think they'd mind producing unlicensed chips. I doubt the Chinese government would ban their sale either.
What about updates/extensions? They would have to wait till the spec gets released to the public to bring new compatible functionalities to their chip.
With NVIDIA relying on Samsung for fabbing their new Ampere line of GPUs using their 8nm process, and Samsung now relying on NVIDIA for ARM, I wonder how this relationship will develop.
I'm guessing that NVIDIA will try to squeeze value out of this acquisition (though not as aggressively as, say, Qualcomm would), but going too far might backfire on them.
I'm guessing that NVIDIA will try to squeeze value out of this acquisition (though not as aggressively as, say, Qualcomm would), but going too far might backfire on them.
Good time to look at RISC-V . Some companies in chip industry may do it.
Unfortunately, the more Chinese companies complain, the more likely the deal will go ahead unopposed by US/UK/Japanese regulators.
UK or EU?
Could be a nice one for UK regulators to hold over the world, need some ammo for those various trade negotiations that are on going/up coming.
The US have exercised the same form of economic warfare (and when that fails actual warfare) for decades now, might as well take a turn.
The US have exercised the same form of economic warfare (and when that fails actual warfare) for decades now, might as well take a turn.
> "China is going to hate it"
The upside is that when mainlanders are upset, they can use their smarts to push forward RISC-V.
> South Korean chip industry officials and experts said that Nvidia’s Arm buy would intensify Nvidia’s competition with Samsung, Qualcomm and others in self-driving cars and other future technologies, while raising concerns that Arm could hike licensing fees for competitors.
Oh no, more competition! Maybe Samsung can ask its little brother, the South Korean government, to intervene.
The upside is that when mainlanders are upset, they can use their smarts to push forward RISC-V.
> South Korean chip industry officials and experts said that Nvidia’s Arm buy would intensify Nvidia’s competition with Samsung, Qualcomm and others in self-driving cars and other future technologies, while raising concerns that Arm could hike licensing fees for competitors.
Oh no, more competition! Maybe Samsung can ask its little brother, the South Korean government, to intervene.
What we observe right now is the beginning of AI tech wars. I hope it will stay cold and will boost new peaceful applications.
To those of you who haven't made a CPU before: CPU technology is more like a javascript framework than a natural resource. When someone says "block China from US CPU ISAs" think "block China from US javascript frameworks". Then you'll have the appropriate sense of how silly it is.
If javascript frameworks is patented then yes, you can. For reference ARM big little scheduler is patented[1], you need to license from ARM if you use any of their big little design. RISC-V under BSD license might change this.
[1] https://patents.google.com/patent/US9710309
[1] https://patents.google.com/patent/US9710309
If push comes to shove, why would you expect China to respect a set of patents that strangle its economic growth?
Because that would result in a more devastating response from the side that holds patents. If china stops respecting international trade laws and agreements, other nations will hurt china's interests in return. Given the scale of the things, the weak spots will be found inevitably.
Judging from China's policies towards Uighur Muslims and Hong Kong, I think China isn't very worried about foreign censure.
There is a difference. Nobody in the first world really cares about Uighurs or Hong Kong. However, there are quite a handful of parties who do care about patents (and resulting profits).
China has been pilfering intellectual property from labs & private companies via APTs for the last couple of years: what are the handful of parties who care about patents going to do - write a strongly worded letter? If China decides it wants to get the latest ARM design and/or ISA in the future, do you doubt they can acquire them? Sure, they won't be able to call it "ARM" but you can bet it will be compatible[1].
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Wall_Peri#Fiat_Panda_cop...
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Wall_Peri#Fiat_Panda_cop...
They wouldn't be able to sell products with this 'acquired' architecture to anyone. Just ask how Huawey sales are doing in US and Europe.
For internal market, no, but they will have problems selling the pirate copies to the rest of the world. Most rich states do respect intellectual property.
(1) What you linked does not appear to be an ARM patent. (2) Even if it were, lack of big/little scheduling is hardly going to bring China's homegrown chip market to it's knees. And that's assuming the patent is ironclad and can't be worked around.
The bigger question is more, what use is a homegrown chip market if no countries in the world are buying your chips?
True, if US companies are disallowed from giving licenses to Chinese companies, then likely the US would also block import of competing Chinese CPUs.
[deleted]
I haven't made CPUs before ( I am guessing you have?), so I am not sure of what you are implying. Are you saying that CPU technology is as easy or copy-able like a javascript framework? I can see that ISA would be copy-able. But what about a modern implementation?
CPU design is a mature field that has been studied extensively. I've thrown together a few toy CPUs, and studied some F/OSS RISC-V designs. New tricks are still being developed for modern software workloads and modern constraints (low-power is key now, whereas before other things might have been priority), but architecture things really haven't changed much since the 90s.
My comparison with JS frameworks comes from my perception that CPU designs are all, kinda, the same. There are also a million ways to do things, but the core principles are obvious to people who study CPU design.
My comparison with JS frameworks comes from my perception that CPU designs are all, kinda, the same. There are also a million ways to do things, but the core principles are obvious to people who study CPU design.
Separating the ARM specific concerns could someone shed light on the generalised apprehension around Nvidia?
"...Nvidia took great pains to emphasize that Arm will continue to act as a neutral supplier..."
Yeah, right. Even if by some magic nVidia has this intention (hard to believe) it will only last right up until Trump or his successor decide to use it as a club against whatever country they decide not to like at the moment.
Yeah, right. Even if by some magic nVidia has this intention (hard to believe) it will only last right up until Trump or his successor decide to use it as a club against whatever country they decide not to like at the moment.
> Nvidia will retain Arm’s United Kingdom headquarters - which exempt it from many U.S. export control laws
I was not aware that all it took for a U.S. company to profit from bypassing national security concerns, human rights protections, and weapons proliferation limits[0] was to simply open a foreign HQ or buy a company with one.
Not that Arm or Nvidia plan to do any of those things, but it sounds like a regulatory moat to me.
0: https://2009-2017.state.gov/strategictrade/overview/index.ht...
I was not aware that all it took for a U.S. company to profit from bypassing national security concerns, human rights protections, and weapons proliferation limits[0] was to simply open a foreign HQ or buy a company with one.
Not that Arm or Nvidia plan to do any of those things, but it sounds like a regulatory moat to me.
0: https://2009-2017.state.gov/strategictrade/overview/index.ht...
You make it sound as if the USA has a high standard from any of those topics.
Its national security concerns keep violating laws and even the constitution. Or, take violating laws abroad and numerous international treaties. It doesn't fully implement something as basic as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Or, just take what Amnesty International reported already years ago about all US states violating the country's international obligations regarding accountability for police violence. As for weapons proliferation, that has to be the biggest joke of them all. It blatantly makes false claims about other countries, only to have a justification for unilateral withdrawal from treaties and expand nuclear weapon productions. Or, just take the countless wars it has started around the globe, both to make a killing on weapons sales and cynically use them as testing grounds for new weapons.
But indeed, none of all that is relevant in this particular case. Even thought the deal is bad news for a number of other reasons. Maybe first and foremost because it is a US company getting its hands on foreign assets. nVidea certainly knows how to evade taxes, so who knows how much of the deal money actually shouldn't be theirs in the first place.
Its national security concerns keep violating laws and even the constitution. Or, take violating laws abroad and numerous international treaties. It doesn't fully implement something as basic as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Or, just take what Amnesty International reported already years ago about all US states violating the country's international obligations regarding accountability for police violence. As for weapons proliferation, that has to be the biggest joke of them all. It blatantly makes false claims about other countries, only to have a justification for unilateral withdrawal from treaties and expand nuclear weapon productions. Or, just take the countless wars it has started around the globe, both to make a killing on weapons sales and cynically use them as testing grounds for new weapons.
But indeed, none of all that is relevant in this particular case. Even thought the deal is bad news for a number of other reasons. Maybe first and foremost because it is a US company getting its hands on foreign assets. nVidea certainly knows how to evade taxes, so who knows how much of the deal money actually shouldn't be theirs in the first place.
Which is interesting, because the US regularly enforces their own law outside its own borders.
Or they just want to protect themselves and their customers from an US administration gone off the rails.
And so they have an office in a politically stable region: The UK!
That site phrases it as "US-origin dual-use goods".
It's not enough to have a foreign HQ, but if you have a separate development organization abroad and a clear delineation between their technology and your US-developed technology, this seems very workable.
It's not enough to have a foreign HQ, but if you have a separate development organization abroad and a clear delineation between their technology and your US-developed technology, this seems very workable.
It's also an attempt to not give reasons to the British government to red-light the acquisition. If you read the BBC, lots of British personalities (including the founders of Acorn and ARM themselves) have been extremely critical about the whole deal and are vehemently lobbying the UK government in order to stop it and bring back the company into British hands. If they let slip that they considered moving even a single job out of the UK, they would have basically confirmed what everybody was saying. Probably the UK government won't do anything because due to Brexit they desperately need trade deals and new partners, so they need to lick the US's arse and avoid angering Donald Trump, but still, it wouldn't be wise nevertheless.
> Probably the UK government won't do anything because due to Brexit they desperately need trade deals and new partners, so they need to lick the US's arse and avoid angering Donald Trump
That doesn't mean they need to approve the purchase - it just means they have to stall until they know the outcome of the election.
There's no chance of a trade deal being done before the election, and waving the sale through to earn Trump's favour is pointless if it's Biden they're making a trade deal with.
That doesn't mean they need to approve the purchase - it just means they have to stall until they know the outcome of the election.
There's no chance of a trade deal being done before the election, and waving the sale through to earn Trump's favour is pointless if it's Biden they're making a trade deal with.
What's the point? They've already proved they didn't care when they let it be sold to Softbank. That ship has sailed.
It was clear SoftBank didn't give a damn about ARM, they only bought it to grab some of the sweet monies they were raking up and pretty much left everything as-is. Not so much for NVIDIA, which is a big player in the industry and is American.
Just think about the meaning of your comment. US law isn't universal. The UK and every other nation has its own independent government and laws. Every country decides for itself what a national security concern is, what human rights protections its citizens have and what weapons proliferation limits should be enforced. Enforcing US laws in a foreign country against the will of that foreign country is only possible by occupying it via military and stationing US law enforcement in it. Such a country would just be a colony of the US and last time I checked the UK isn't part of the US.
Yes, exactly. Perhaps you're not familiar with the term "regulatory moat" but basically I'm saying that these types of laws are nearly unenforceable on big players, so really the only purpose they serve is to limit competition rather than any of their stated purposes.
But how do you define a US company? In a globalized world it is very difficult to pin point a company to a country, so the headquarter is one way to defined it. Though it is not going to prevent the US to impose sanction to whoever they want.
pjmlp(1)
Practically speaking, aren't ARM designs so widely used among the major chip manufacturers that Chinese companies/agencies are likely to have copies of important stuff anyway?
Or does the implementation of ARM designs work somehow more proprietarily (or opaquely?) than just the customers receiving files full of chip designs?
Because I imagine that the prohibition against being able to use ARM is really only meaningful to legal and royalty-paying law-abiding customers. If a rogue agent has the designs already, what's to stop them from using them?
I'd be curious to know how ARM protects the designs from just being copied, or what the mechanism here is. Or maybe their designs are useless without the supporting software, etc. ? ARM's value is the licensing of the designs and that they hold patents/copyrights, not the absolute knowledge of the designs -- is that right? Are their designs themselves that hard to copy?