
US blocks shipments of semiconductors to Huawei - novaRom
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/15/us-china-tensions-rise-as-trump-administration-moves-to-cut-huawei-off-from-global-chip-suppliers.html
======
VWWHFSfQ
This after previous indictments of Huawei for RICO violations and theft of
trade secrets from USA companies T-Mobile, Qualcomm, and Cisco. Including
theft of 5G technology that is now being used in equipment sold to EU
countries.

[0] [https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/chinese-telecommunications-
co...](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/chinese-telecommunications-conglomerate-
huawei-and-subsidiaries-charged-racketeering)

[1] [https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/chinese-telecommunications-
de...](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/chinese-telecommunications-device-
manufacturer-and-its-us-affiliate-indicted-theft-trade)

Whatever happened to arresting Huawei’s Chief Financial Officer Wanzhou Meng?
Was she ever extradited from Canada after being captured in Vancouver, BC?

~~~
bildung
I will be very surprised if Huawei would be found guilty of anything. The
company plays an important role in actually defining the 5G standard as a
member of 3GPP, and holds 3 times the number of 5G patents than Qualcomm.

I mean, look at the number of contributions to the 5G standards by company in
this document, and compare the positions of Huawei, Qualcomm and Cisco:
[https://www.iplytics.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Who-
Lead...](https://www.iplytics.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Who-Leads-
the-5G-Patent-Race_2019.pdf) (page 9).

What are they supposed to steal there? They literally are defining what 5G is.

~~~
DyslexicAtheist
worked for a main competitor of Huawei building UMTS/LTE base stations which
at the time weren't even properly standardized (early systems design).
Searched for my own name on github. Found source code I wrote for said vendor
which was taken from somebody who worked for our Hangzhou office and had
access to the same internal VCS[1] as me. The guy downloaded anything he had
access to then moved to Huawei and from there to another Chinese state owned
company. He uploaded everything to his own github account (under his real
name). Not even an isolated case. They don't even have to plant a mole in your
org in the West they can simply just coerce Chinese based employees to extract
interesting IP from your sites in China. These guys just don't give a f*ck!
(also Nokia, Ericsson management were never held accountable for enabling this
by opening up sites in China without thinking this won't bite them. they all
did it because of promise of cheap manufacture and they all got rolled.
thousands of jobs lost in Europe and the US as a consequence so it's not just
the Chinese who are to blame here)

note: I was involved in early tech standardization on 3GPP for many years. yes
Huawei contributes a lot. That doesn't mean they also don't steal your shit.
They do it because there literally is no way to hold them accountable. You
just got to make sure you don't travel to a country that may extradite you to
the US. And by the way they are _not_ the leader in 5G. This is constantly
parroted propaganda. You can get the same "mature" Tech for 5G from Ericsson,
Nokia ... yes Huawei might have more patents but you can only sell what the
standard supports in terms of interoperability, and so the constant claim that
the only 5G player is Huawei is plain wrong.

[1] obviously we didn't use github to manage our source code.

~~~
alisonatwork
I don't know anything about telecoms, but I work in a different area of
software development in China and can confirm it is not uncommon for
developers here to bring their whole previous employer's repo with them when
they switch jobs. One of my most cringeworthy moments was when I saw the same
XyzUtil class pop up in two different companies, and both had been sourced
from the same (not open source) third company repo, with the same bug that I
ended up fixing twice.

I suspect this happens in other countries too, but I think elsewhere people
make an effort to be less obvious about it. I get the impression copy paste
programming isn't as looked down upon here as it is in the west.

~~~
toyg
Pretty sure it happened in Europe and UK in early '00s too, from my limited
experience. Sure, not in an obvious way, but it happened - mostly kept as a
reference to go back when you're sure you've already seen/solved this or that
problem before.

I mean, in Europe salespeople routinely take customer contact-lists with them
whenever they move, everybody knows it. Developers do the equivalent stuff in
their field. Asians are just a bit more blunt about it, because they have less
to lose. Plenty of Europeans did the same sort of thing when moving to the US
in 18th/19th century - I call it "hungry makes right".

~~~
uranusjr
Asians don’t do it more bluntly. Chinese do. Sorry if I sound pedantic, but
this is just insulting.

------
jrochkind1
> Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross told Fox Business “there has been a very
> highly technical loophole through which Huawei has been in able, in effect,
> to use U.S. technology with foreign fab producers.” Ross called the rule
> change a “highly tailored thing to try to correct that loophole.”

This is very vague. Does anyone understand what they are talking about?

~~~
evancox100
The “loophole” was this:

“Under the new rule, any foreign company that uses American technology to
produce microchips would need a license to sell to Huawei. That makes it
difficult for major chip contract manufacturers like Taiwan’s T.S.M.C. to sell
to Huawei, because its supply chains rely heavily on American manufacturing
tools. It could also clamp down on sales by makers of semiconductor equipment,
like Applied Materials and KLA, and chip design software companies like
Cadence.”

[https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/15/business/economy/commerce...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/15/business/economy/commerce-
department-huawei.html)

~~~
jrochkind1
I don't really understand why they are requiring a license to sell to Huawei
in the first place.

That this is all such a string of vagueness makes me suspect it's a bunch of
bullshit, more about politics (in the 'optics' sense) or business
competitiveness than actual national security.

~~~
billme
Pure speculation...

All of this is about national security. US & Taiwan’s TSMC are in talks to
open a TSMC factory in the US. Chairman of TSMC has publicly stated if the US
gives them enough money, they’ll do it. Appears US (Trump) is telling TSMC if
they do not open the factory for free, they’re going to have trouble making
money at all. Taiwan wants to keep TSMC because it’s an insurance policy,
China & the US both need TSMC. That or it is a plausible way for TSMC to deny
they’re cutting off China.

...any thoughts?

~~~
jrochkind1
Hm, I think you and I mean a different thing by 'national security'. I think
of, like, spying, or trying to insert malicious vulnerabilities in software
(attack), etc.

Like maybe if Huawei were accused of being used by the Chinese government to
spy on America, it would make sense to require a license to sell tech to
Huawei. (I have sometimes seen it accused of such; I have no idea how credible
such accusations are; but this is an example of what 'national security' means
to me, particularly in regard to requiring licenses to do business with a
particular company).

You seem to be talking about whether TSMC gets a federal subsidy or not to
open a factory or not as 'national security'. I mean, I get how the general
economic environment has 'national secuirty' implications; how the future
access to semiconductor market has 'national security' implications. But if
that's "national security" it seems like the _entire_ economy is "national
security", and "national security" doesn't actually mean anything. Especially
when Huawei is being penalized for concerns about a different company?

With that understanding of national security, is there _any_ aspect of
international trade negotiations that isn't "national security", or _any_
international trade measure that can't be said to be "justified by national
security"? Do you have an example of any international trade measure (a
tariff, an embargo, a subsidy, a penalty, a ban, any method of one nation
trying to get an economic/trade advantage over another) that you do not think
would be "national security" related under this understanding? Is there such a
thing?

Among other things, it's another reminder that the era of legal-norms-based
international trade has been brought to an end...

~~~
billme
All national security has a cost, access to TSMC is obviously national
security issue, and appears US is positioning itself to reduce the cost of
access to TSMC and increase it for China.

National security is an ends, not a means; its ultimate form is shapelessness,
not a strict definition.

~~~
jrochkind1
I'll ask again, is there any example of international trade dispute/conflict
that would not be about 'national security' with this understanding? Can you
give one? Or does this intentionally and consciously reconceptualize all
attempts to get advantage in international trade, or a business advantage for
domestic corporations over foreign ones, as 'national security'?

~~~
billme
Here’s a recent example:

[https://www.csis.org/analysis/wtos-first-ruling-national-
sec...](https://www.csis.org/analysis/wtos-first-ruling-national-security-
what-does-it-mean-united-states)

~~~
jrochkind1
Can you explain that example in your own words, and what you think makes it
not an issue of national security? Or is your position just, hard to say,
whatever the WTO says?

What the WTO determines has changed over time, and can depend on the balance
of power. The WTO knows that if it keeps making rulings that countries just
ignore, it loses power and legitmacy, it has to try not to push too hard.

But your opinion is whatever the WTO decides is correct?

To me, if the penalties against Huawei are really about negotiations over a
government subsidy for a TSMC plant, I'd expect the WTO to rule against the
US, if it was playing 'fair'. Which doesn't mean it will.

Here's an example of the WTO ruling against the US in a trade dispute with
China, and the US retaliating to try to weaken the WTO.

[https://www.ft.com/content/131a55ea-a84a-11e9-984c-fac8325aa...](https://www.ft.com/content/131a55ea-a84a-11e9-984c-fac8325aaa04)

Here's an expert writing on "Why Limiting U.S. Tech Exports to Chinese
Companies Like Huawei Is a Risky Strategy",

[https://itif.org/publications/2019/05/23/why-limiting-us-
tec...](https://itif.org/publications/2019/05/23/why-limiting-us-tech-exports-
chinese-companies-huawei-risky-strategy)

China has been working on challenging actions against Huawei specifically at
the WTO; although it has to be careful because they know the WTO's rulings can
be effected by politics, and the US (especially current administration) may
not abide by the WTO ruling anyway, they need to try to remain on good terms
to avoid escalating trade war, regardless of what the WTO might ultimately
rule (which can take a while too).

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2019/05/29/huawei-
go...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2019/05/29/huawei-goes-legal-
again-as-china-tells-its-officials-and-media-back-off-the-u-s/#52b4636b6b3b)

------
intheshadows01
It is very interesting reading all the comments from you guys, some from tech
prospective others from policical ones. But from my angle, a normal Chinese
guy working in the field of material research in China for a decade and deep
inside the system, my points would be:

1\. you guys really worry too much about our ability to innovate, seriously.
There is no room for real innovations. But at the same time the system rewards
stealing and copying. The system, the education, the overall political
environment are not designed with innovations in mind but to help a few to
stay in power. My personal take on this is that Chinese "innovation" is now
built upon: Chinese with foreign education/working background bringing back
technologies, CCP buying foreign companies with OUR everyday people's money,
and of course hacking/stealing directly. I don't believe we have a change
winning the innovation war, not in the long run.

2\. for a "private" company like huawei, isn't it weird that it's always
backed by CCP? Lots of Chinese private companies get balls kicked everyday and
why only huawei get treatment worthy of a state owned business? Even us
Chinese knows better.

3\. please think about us everyday Chinese citizens. we are currently under
direct information warfare and systematic repression waged by CCP for decades,
and our lives/future squeezed out in order to found companies like huawei and
projects like one belt one road, without a f __king vote. It 's much bigger
than us vs huawei, at least from our side.

btw it is not my field of expertise but I'd like to call for experienced
software/hardware engineers from the west, help us bring down the CCP's GFW
system before it's too late. If it is built by man it can be broken.

thanks and apologize for my broken English.

~~~
chance_state
Thanks for you comment. It's too rare that we hear from people with your
perspective.

Is HN not blocked/censored in China?

------
amd-bull
the last time we effectively blocked china from acquiring tunneling machines,
they ended up building their own, a mean feat, and now they're looking to
start exporting them! disrupting the market economy has a vicious way of
getting back at ya [0]
[http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1121448.shtml](http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1121448.shtml)

~~~
gardaani
They are already building their own chips. Huawei has started to use 14nm
chips manufactured by Shanghai-based SMIC. They plan to replace TSMC's chips
with SMIC's chips in their phones. TSMC blocking will just accelerate their
plans.

[https://www.gizmochina.com/2020/05/12/huawei-
kirin-710a-smic...](https://www.gizmochina.com/2020/05/12/huawei-
kirin-710a-smic-mass-production/)

------
luckylion
I guess TSMC got a courtesy call so they were able to announce their intention
of building a new fab in the US?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23187698](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23187698)

~~~
harpratap
TSMC is the golden goose. The entire world will lose if something happens to
them.

~~~
someguydave
Yeah I speculate that tsmc has gotten some sweetheart deals as part of this
policy change.

------
geogra4
How many foreign companies actually use US Chipmaking equipment? Will this
stop european chipmakers like ASML from selling to china too?

~~~
adventured
> How many foreign companies actually use US Chipmaking equipment?

In the semi industry, nearly all of them. You can hardly make anything in the
semiconductor industry without using several of the major US companies. The US
still dominates the semiconductor equipment industry. Of the six major
players, half of them are US companies.

> The $412bn global semiconductor industry rests on the shoulders of just six
> equipment companies, three of them US-based. Together, the companies make
> nearly all of the crucial hardware and software tools needed to manufacture
> chips, meaning an American export ban would choke off China’s access to the
> basic tools needed to make their latest chip designs.

> "You cannot build a semiconductor facility without using the big major
> equipment companies, none of which are Chinese," said Brett Simpson, the
> founder of Arete Research, an equity research group. “If you fight a war
> with no guns you’re going to lose. And they don’t have the guns.”

> "ASML cannot do without Applied Materials and the other way around. If you
> take even one out of the value chain, that may hamper Chinese fabs," said a
> former ASML executive.

[https://www.ft.com/content/4a8553a6-f3b2-11e8-ae55-df4bf40f9...](https://www.ft.com/content/4a8553a6-f3b2-11e8-ae55-df4bf40f9d0d)

~~~
brennanpeterson
Mostly true, but you could come pretty close with ASML, ASM, TEL,ebara,
hitachi and a couple others (particularly the Korean companies)

I don't think it is quite so widely understood that there are close seconds in
every market.

It is pretty easy to imagine ASML giving up on Intel, cutting HMI, and all the
chipmakers going outside of Lam, Applied, and KLA for their next tools. The
industry would be a bit disrupted but outside the US...fine. and it would
destroy the US industry.

This will also tend to pressure the Chinese to keep pushing their own supplier
industry, rather than just integrators.

~~~
sabas123
Could you give a layman overview of how ASML is dependent on these companies
and what the geo-political/econmic shifts would be?

~~~
brennanpeterson
That is a big topic.

Basically, though, a process flow is deposition, track, litho, etch, clean,
deposition, cmp, metro, inspect (lots of steps vary, but these are the basics)

You need each of these to work. Deposition: Lam, Applied, TELand then Wonik,
ASM, and others Track: TEL Litho: ASML Etch: Lam, Applied, TEL CMP: Ebara,
Applied Metro: Onto, KLA, Hitachi Inspect: KLa, Applied

There are more, and I missed a bit, but basically, you need to tick off each
of these layers, and quite often with the best at each.

ASML cannot make wafers for anyone without someone doing all the other parts.
And really, that is true for all these companies. There is a best of breed and
selection bias that makes each system imperfectly interchangeable.

But you can also see that ASML is the sole true monopoly. So if they are out,
nothing works. There are plausible workarounds otherwise.not always easy or
cost effective, but plausible in most cases.

ASML needs the rest of the infrastructure to sell tools. And likewise,
everyone needs ASML to deliver, or there is no new node....

------
amd-bull
pretty shocking how biased these hn comments are against china. it's clear the
US has lost leadership in the crucial technology of 5g and is trying
everything it can to stop the leader, huawei. while i'm no china-phile, the US
actions is just silly and will have far reaching consequences that will just
quicken the demise of our technological prowess. and if you're gonna argue
from the point of view that huawei broke the law, then let them have their day
in court. we're acting like judge, jury and executioner. how is that right??
shows up hn as a bunch of biased tech bros! let the downvotes begin

~~~
Udik
> pretty shocking how biased these hn comments are against china.

And it took only a few years of media campaigns- the first one I remember was
the announcement of spy chips in China-made boards, which turned out to be
fake. It's scary how quickly you can steer public opinion to suit your needs.

~~~
whytaka
It's actually been a long time coming: Tiananmen, South China Sea, Hong Kong
protests, threats against Taiwan, Uyghurs, Tibet, Surveillance State,
Authoritarian ruler for life, IP thefts, currency manipulation, shooting down
satellites, lop-sided market access and more.

------
Udik
This is nothing else than the US panicking over losing their technological and
economic supremacy, and using brute force to damage a competitor. Disgusting
and very dangerous for the whole world.

~~~
AndyMcConachie
Don't know why you're downvoted given that you're correct. The end result of
this is to ensure that China develops their own semi conductor industry.
Besides the short term loss of sales, in the long term new companies will
emerge that compete with the American semi conductor industry.

It's just a dumb move all around.

~~~
ericmay
> The end result of this is to ensure that China develops their own semi
> conductor industry

Seems to me that's happening either way and probably always was. Why wouldn't
they?

~~~
rjzzleep
It actually was fast tracked by the trade war. Government mandated domestic
development of certain things after the US made it clear to China that they're
not trustworthy trading partner. Not that China is, but kind of besides the
point.

Similar to how the google ban fast tracked Huawei working on google free
systems e.g. buying third party map services like TomTom. Bad for Google good
for competition.

Basically the US has lost its standing thanks to Trumps bully diplomacy[1].

“Some if not all regional countries may harbour concerns about the security
ramifications of using Huawei, but there are real pragmatic considerations,”
said Collin Koh Swee Lean, a research fellow at the S Rajaratnam School of
International Studies in Singapore. “Cost-wise in particular, Chinese offers
for infrastructure development present more attractive propositions.”

[https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeast-
asia/article/301282...](https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeast-
asia/article/3012820/huawei-ban-why-asian-countries-are-shunning-trumps)

~~~
ericmay
> It actually was fast tracked by the trade war. Government mandated domestic
> development of certain things after the US made it clear to China that
> they're not trustworthy trading partner. Not that China is, but kind of
> besides the point.

I'm not sure why that's besides the point? The U.S. for years worked to invest
in China and build them as a great trading partner and the CCP continued to
just steal trade secrets and do everything in their power to undermine the
U.S..

And it's probably true that this development was fast tracked by the trade
war... but so what? This was coming since the CCP didn't want to be a partner
with the West, so why wait around to cut the ties? It's going to happen either
way, why not happen on your terms?

W.r.t Trump's "bully" diplomacy - I mean, playing nice certainly didn't work.
We don't need to and shouldn't be trading partners with China so long as
they're acting against U.S. and western interests in general. The U.S. tried
to engage and endured years of malevolent activity by the CCP only to have the
actions worsen over time. So... I'm not really sure what the advantage to the
U.S. is besides having a big market. Ban Chinese products in the U.S. and
China can ban U.S. products. Whatever.

> Cost-wise in particular, Chinese offers for infrastructure development
> present more attractive propositions

Sure. For now. And if you only want to look at cost. Maybe you want to look at
other factors, like maybe you're Vietnam and concerned about the Chinese
ramming your fishing boats? [1]

[1] [https://www.news.com.au/world/south-china-sea-tensions-at-
ne...](https://www.news.com.au/world/south-china-sea-tensions-at-new-high-
after-vietnamese-boat-rammed-and-sunk/news-
story/10188f3d7c1d7336bcaffafd742defab)

~~~
Udik
Let's put it this way: China is a huge country, that has been very well
governed in the past 30 years. Its people are proud, smart, ingenious, and
they're working a lot for a lot less than their western counterparts. Given
this, and given it lasts, it was inevitable for China to overtake the US in
technology, economic power and importance on the world scene. Sooner or later,
even playing by all the rules.

Was the US prepared to accept that? What do you think happens when the world's
only technological, economic and military superpower is about to be overtaken
by a competitor? Did you think the US was going to lose its supremacy without
trying everything it could to prevent it? Of course not.

And then, what kind of actions do you think it would take to prevent it? For
example, the US could start a very aggressive trade war with China. They could
try to justify it in various ways, for example by saying that China is a risk
to the world, that its technology is tainted by some issue (maybe it could be
used for spying). They could try to isolate China, advising all its partners
not to trade with it. And so on.

And this is exactly what we're seeing. It would have happened anyway,
independently from China's behaviour. Because the only variable is how close
they are to threatening the US's power. And they're close.

~~~
ericmay
Oh no doubt about that. It's just sad for the whole planet that they've chosen
the path they've chosen (genocide, etc.) inb4 "but the U.S." .

Given that, I just don't think it makes much sense to engage with China unless
the calculation is strictly that it benefits the U.S. (and the west in
general). Like, if U.S. companies don't get access to the Chinese market then
that means Chinese companies don't get access to the U.S. market, for example.
To put it another way, from my current understanding I would say we should
maintain U.S. hegemony at all costs short of nuclear war (or anything
atrocious like that). Despite recent setbacks and general anxiety about U.S.
actions over the last however many years, The U.S. has proven since WWII that
it's a trustable world leader.

Although I'd certainly counter your claim that a "rise" is inevitable. Being
large doesn't necessarily translate into anything. I think it's only a matter
of time before the U.S. global reach is diminished, and China will certainly
fill that void, but it won't solely be filled by China, especially in the
Pacific.

Countries in Europe will also have to make tough choices. Is NATO still
viable? Is it outdated? Should the U.S. pull out? For now those are easy
decisions, but when push comes to shove the U.S. is strong-willed enough to do
something like back out of NATO if they insist on integrating with Chinese
systems. I don't think there will be a lot of having your cake and eating it
too for the continent. Yet another disappointment.

From a tech perspective this will have quite the impact. China will eventually
develop viable operating systems, but will you buy a laptop with one? Some are
concerned about the NSA, but at least I can sort of fight the system. What if
I'm from Cambodia? Do I want the Chinese spying on me instead or do I have
more faith in the Americans?

Lots of questions and uncertainty here, in my view, except that the U.S. needs
to pick up its toys and go home when it's being put at a disadvantage.

------
bergstromm466
I implore anyone to check out ‘Trade is War’ by Yash Tandon:

“ Globalization has reduced many aspects of modern life to little more than
commodities controlled by multinational corporations. Everything, from land
and water to health and human rights, is today intimately linked to the issue
of free trade. Conventional wisdom presents this development as benign, the
sole path to progress.

Yash Tandon, drawing on decades of on-the-ground experience as a high level
negotiator in bodies such as the World Trade Organization, here challenges
this prevailing orthodoxy. He insists that, for the vast majority of people,
and especially those in the poorer regions of the world, free trade not only
hinders development—it visits relentless waves of violence and impoverishment
on their lives.”

~~~
luckylion
Can we please stop flagging comments like these? It's annoying and imho should
lead to revoking flagging privileges for everyone part of the "ring".
Deplatforming by mass-flagging is shit on Twitter and it's shit on HN as well.

------
simonblack
Very dumb move by the US.

In business, there is the perennial question of "Do I "buy built" thus taking
advantage of economies of scale within the supplier while at the same time
making myself dependent on the good intentions of that supplier? Or do I "go
to the cost and effort and time wasted in making it myself", which means I
don't get dependent on that supplier, puts me behind for a year or two, and
then possibly may be able to take away his business and keep it for myself in
the future?

Most administrators find it's better overall to "buy built". But if forced to,
they will "roll their own".

If Huawei starts making its own semiconductors, the US can wave goodbye to its
own semiconductor companies like Intel, AMD, Radeon and Nvidia. Just like GM,
Ford and Chrysler are there in name only today- when once they made over 50%
of the entire world's cars back in the 1960s.

In the words of that famous hair product: "It may not happen overnight, but it
_will_ happen!"

------
ilaksh
What is it that is actually preventing this from escalating to a hot war? It
feels like we are just waiting for China to manufacture enough warships and
nukes or killer drones or AGI with spiking neural networks or whatever can
give them an edge so that a real war can start.

It's even a war in the comments section.

I don't think it's safe. How do we really know it can't progress to some kind
of overt military activity?

Why are people not more concerned about this?

I get the impression that people think the best way to prevent a war is to
keep doing things to hold them down. But that seems to be escalating tensions
and not actually limiting them.

What is the plan for getting out of this? I hope that Elon hurries up with his
Mars rockets so I can emmigrate before the whole planet turns into a complete
bloody (literally) science fiction nightmare.

~~~
logicchains
>What is it that is actually preventing this from escalating to a hot war?

The same thing that's always prevented nuclear-armed countries from going to
war:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction)

~~~
jotm
Uh, yeah, as long as it's not on their own lands, they could fight some real
wars...

------
madengr
Huawei is screwed for RF front end components, specifically integrated PA,
switching, and BAW filtering. I don’t believe there is a domestic supplier of
those.

~~~
jotm
Yet. That's the good news about this. New competition will just bring
affordability and innovation.

------
logicchains
I wonder if this will be good for open source. Is there a RISK-V-like
equivalent of whatever it is that's being blocked?

~~~
evancox100
No, free/open-source semiconductor design software and equipment is non-
existent, especially for modern nodes.

~~~
MayeulC
Well, that's definitely not the case, a lot of labs are on this (including
Berkley's hammer/chisel [1]).

I've seen some tools presented at RISC-V conferences, but the major closed-
source component nowadays is the PDK, I'm afraid.

Hopefully, inkjet-printed transistors or some other fabless technology will
make open source ICs a lot more feasible. One of the major issue is costs,
when you look at more than 40k/mm² for multiproject wafers in advanced nodes
and contrast that with the anemic budget most open source software has to do
with. You don't need to be on the very latest node, if you can afford going
slower, on bigger, cheaper dies.

A lot of open source "hardware" project seem to focus on FPGAs, since that's
more approachable, and the costs are nowhere as high.

[1]: [https://github.com/ucb-bar](https://github.com/ucb-bar)

~~~
MayeulC
Just something I didn't make clear in the above comment: I expect that
Hardware-description-language-to-layout pipelines will improve a lot in the
upcoming years, so if a process becomes viable for open hardware, projects
that were developed on an FPGA (here is a wi-fi chip, for instance:
[https://github.com/open-sdr/openwifi](https://github.com/open-sdr/openwifi))
might be transferable with a lot less effort than doing everything from
scratch.

I would also like to point out that these tools will likely help us juice up a
bit more performance from the existing processes, but we aren't really likely
to see a lot more of Moore's scaling, going forward. So the door is open to
new processes, that may or may not be open hardware-friendly. And current,
top-end processes might also become cheaper over time. While I doubt a lot of
new foundries will catch up with the end of Moore's scale, it might actually
become easier to get there, while disruptive technologies get some time to
play catch-up. Together with innovative synthesis tools.

------
predictmktegirl
I think we should all keep something in mind before we go celebrate the end of
globalization. If we go on a rampage pulling manufacturing and capital out of
China while simultaneously blaming them for the pandemic, in a few years we’ll
end up seeing a nation with a shattered economy, a pissed off populace, and
the largest and most well supplied army on Earth. Rhetoric tends to devolve
into a limited decision matrix when we should be trying to expand the tree
instead. Diplomacy works, anger doesn’t.

~~~
spangry
On the other hand, it's difficult to be diplomatic when one side is so
belligerent, sensitive and petty. China has started imposing trade sanctions
on my country (Australia) because our Prime Minister had the audacity to
suggest there should be an independent inquiry into the origin of COVID-19.
Meanwhile, they see fit to interfere in our domestic and political affairs
through various front organisations, bribery and even directly through their
embassy and ambassador in Australia.

People are fast growing tired of China's aggressive and abusive approach to
'diplomacy'.

~~~
luckylion
That's fair-ish for Australia (but then again, Australia is part of the five
eyes, so essentially a part of US global policy), but less so for the US.

I believe most people see US <=> China in conflict, they don't really consider
China <=> Australia, Vietnam or Japan.

~~~
ladyanita22
The world (and the west) is not us only

~~~
luckylion
Absolutely, I just wanted to point out that e.g. China <=> Australia is most
likely not considered it's own conflict, but rather a subconflict of China <=>
US, as Australia is part of the US bloc, just like every other Western nation
and close allies in Asia.

China <=> Russia would be considered a different conflict, as few people
believe that Russia would be acting as a proxy for the US.

------
roenxi
I doubt this will be my most popular comment on HN but Trump really has to be
congratulated for being the first President to actually _do something_ about
the growth in strategic strength of the absolutely terrifying regime that
currently controls China. I know the Obama administration made some noises but
I don't recall them actually inconveniencing China in a serious way.

To me this is all naked geopolitics, hardly fair and extremely risky. But
finally America is transitioning to worrying about real problems rather than,
say, the policy of treating shepherds in Afghanistan as a major threat in the
Bush era.

~~~
krapp
>Trump really has to be congratulated for being the first President to
actually do _something_ about the growth in strategic strength of the
absolutely terrifying regime that currently controls China

He might deserve congratulations if his strategies made sense, but they seem
more likely to hurt the US than China in the long run.

~~~
corebit
There are no sure things. We don't like the current situation because its
risky. But no risk no reward. If we wanted less risk our only option was to
have done it way earlier - under Bush 1 or Clinton.

~~~
krapp
I'm fine with risks, so long as they're calculated from a position of
expertise. I don't trust Trump to take smart risks, given his business
history, narcissism and well documented disdain for expert advice. Someone who
ignores intelligence briefings because he thinks he's too smart to need them
shouldn't be acting like a maverick on the world stage.

Simply doing something, anything, for the sake of having something be done is
even worse than the status quo.

~~~
dredds
I think this is why ppl (msm) should tune out the "Obamagate" nothing-burger,
cos it's potentially less dangerous than anti-asian sentiments given the
population demographics in the US. Who's next after; Muslims, Blacks,
Mexicans, Jews, Asians??

------
LatteLazy
Trump is starting to drum up campaign "donations"...

------
theredbox
As someone who is not an american nor a chinese nor from a big European nation
this is all frightening to watch.

It's an invisible war of nations and we dont really have a clue about
allegiances nor what is right or wrong.

Sure as a european I feel more connected to the US but at the same time I feel
very much excluded from that larger sphere protection and benefits.

The US needs a framework for smaller nations where we can build better
relations.

~~~
cryptonector
Between the end of WWII and now, Western Europe, and now Eastern as well, have
enjoyed American defense and economic benefits. Europe almost as a monolithic
whole has been fixated on a different economic model than the American model,
but that's its own choice -- the U.S. did not impose its model on Europe.

> The US needs a framework for smaller nations where we can build better
> relations.

What could that be? We've had the U.N., NATO, the WTO, and what not.

------
fallingfrog
It’s pretty hilarious that the grounds for the block is that China will use
the chips to spy on people, given that the United States is certainly doing
that already.

~~~
jaywalk
Yeah, US spying and Chinese spying are totally the same and used for the same
purposes.

I don't like spying period, but to try and equate what the US does to what
China does is simply ludicrous.

~~~
shmel
It might feel different depending where you live. If one lives in Europe, I
don't see why US or Chinese spying should be perceived differently.

~~~
isatty
Maybe because there are human rights in the US?

~~~
zadokshi
No, there are no ‘human rights’ in America. There are only ‘American rights’.
Non US citizens are not protected by the Constitution. Do not have free
speech, etc...

~~~
logfromblammo
Noncitizens are protected by the Constitution. It's just that those who are
blithely violating the rights of noncitizens simply don't care about obeying
the laws themselves.

A document without maintainers is dead.

~~~
dragonwriter
Those who are blithely violating the rights of noncitizens are also doing so
for citizens (most obviously, those suspected of being noncitizens due to skin
color, use of foreign language, etc., but it doesn't stop there.)

