It's hard to tell what deals were cut by the Feds to get Bankman-Fried. Sometimes people get a relative slap on the wrist and it's because they provided a bunch of ammunition the government needed for its case to get the top target/s.
It wouldn't be half the local profits, it would be the whole thing in the end.
They start with the scenario you mention, then they push the weakened foreign entity out of China entirely. They did that to numerous, huge US brands/companies, including McDonalds and AWS. They make it inhospitable to continue to exist at all in China, then a ditch sale becomes the only viable option for the US company.
TikTok is heavily a trade matter with regards to China blockading (or heavily restricting) US companies out of having access to their economy. That spans from Facebook to McDonalds to AWS to Disney (Disney isn't even allowed to outright own its parks in China).
The US has been far too lenient in the past with responding to China's hyper biased, anti-trade policies. If US social media companies can't operate in China, then Chinese social media companies shouldn't be allowed to have access to the US economy.
Sure if they want to. And then they have trade issues with the US, which is what that becomes: an economic conflict (which can easily become a military conflict).
The US economy is drastically larger than the EU economy at this point (soon to be double the size), we control the global reserve currency, and provide a very large military shield across the EU (currently keeping Russia from attacking numerous smaller European nations). The US can do a lot more damage to Europe than the other way around, if it's conflict that Europe seeks with the US (whether economic or military). The same is true with US allies in Asia (particularly Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia).
All the US has to do is look the other way and Russia and China will get to work destroying the status quo, which includes ripping apart Europe and Asia. The US can feed Asia to China anytime it wants to, that includes Australia + New Zealand; it obviously doesn't want to do that. I think US allies want to keep the US an ally for all the right reasons, both economically and militarily.
That kind of thinking is a good way to ensure that the US will lose influence globally as it assumes a weird lack of agency in others in the face of threats by what used to be an ally.
Anything large and successful in the US economy should be forced into the public domain. /s
When do we break up ASML and Taiwan Semiconductor and force them to give all of their technology to the US with no compensation? They're large, successful, de facto monopolies. All of their IP should be forced into the public domain across the board.
The US needs to start hitting ASML with massive fines. 1/4 of their earnings perpetually should be a good start.
We should also very clearly be allowed to utilize all trademarks for any purpose and at any time, since we're obliterating intellectual property. I should be free to use the BMW and Mercedes names for anything I like, including in the auto sector to compete with them. They should not be allowed to have a monopoly over those brands, it restricts competition.
All IP is a deal with society. If it's not serving society, the rules should be changed. In trademarks, the benefit is very clear - consumers do no do well from an entity passing off their product as someone else's.
It's particularly egregious given AT&T fought an infamously protracted legal battle against the United States Government to try to avoid being forced to be broken up (entirely against their will). They exhausted a lot of money and time trying to avoid the scenario the op is claiming they were trying to intentionally execute.
The comments you are responding to aren't referencing AT&T as egregious, but the misrepresentation of AT&T's intentions, given that AT&T desired the polar opposite of what the court ordered them to do, which was to split up. The above commenter was trying to portray AT&T as getting their way by splitting up, as if that was their devious intention all along.
The sentence before allowed had a bunch of stuff about Ronald Reagan and I wanted to avoid the political aspect.
In any event, the whole thing went down and was determined long before Reagan took office. The case was filed under the Ford administration and prosecuted mainly by the Carter administration. By the time Reagan took office the case had been in progress for nearly a decade, and he had been president for barely a year when the final decision was handed down.
OP just has so much confused about this chapter of history.
They already have a massive moat. Try competing with them, let me know what the bill looks like. Only a few companies on the planet can realistically attempt it at this point. Let me know how many GPUs you need and where you plan to get them from.
They have the same moat that Google search has. Including as it pertains to usage and data.
You also can't train a new competitor like OpenAI was able to jumpstart GPT, the gates have already been raised on some of the best data.
Very few companies will be able to afford to keep up with the hyper scale models that are in our future, due to the extreme cost involved. You won't be able to get enough high-end GPUs, you won't be able to get enough funding, and you won't have a global brand that end users recognize and or trust.
The moat expands as the requirements get ever larger to compete with them. Eventually the VC money dries up because nobody dares to risk vaporizing $5+ billion just to get in the ring with them. That happened in search (only Microsoft could afford to fund the red ink competition with Google), the exact same thing will happen here.
Google search produces $100+ billion in operating income per year. Venture capital to go after them all but dried up 15+ years ago. There have been very few serious attempts at it despite the profit, because of the cost vs risk (of failure) factor. A lot of people know how Google search works, there's a huge amount of VC money in the tech ecosystem, Google mints a huge amount of profit - and yet nobody will dare. The winner/s in GPT's field will enjoy the same benefit.
And no, the open source at home consumer models will not come even remotely close to keeping up. That'll be the latest Linux consumer desktop fantasy.
The US was one of the the leading inventors of the industrial revolution among nations and there's no evidence to suggest that the US stole more from Europe than Europe stole from the US leading up to the 20th century.
People never provide more than a tiny number of examples while making that outlandish claim (that the US became a superpower heavily in part due to technology piracy). Which stacks against the vast scale of the US economy over time and its gigantic demonstrated inventiveness.
By the time the US economy was the size of China, it had already given the world an absurd number of prominent technologies and scientific achievements. That happened in part due to the renowned productivity of the US university system, which the world has been trying to copy since WW2.
China has given the world what compared to Apollo, the Internet, the transistor, microprocessor, GPU, Hubble, GPS, powered flight, or cracking the human genome? Nothing, crickets.
How about something comparable to inventing the first video game, which is courtesy of the US? Nope.
All that economic output, where's their Internet equivalent contribution?
> China has given the world what compared to Apollo, the Internet, the transistor, microprocessor, GPU, Hubble, GPS, powered flight, or cracking the human genome?
Paper, the compass, gunpowder, paper money, porcelain, tea, and a bunch of other stuff.
China was poor and rural in recent times, so it wasn't at the forefront of technological development, but now it's back at the forefront. Just to give one example, China develops some of the world's most advanced batteries nowadays.
You're making an extreme claim without extreme amounts of evidence to back it up.
Even if one were to buy into your claim, you ignored the further, rather critical point.
By the time the US was the size of China economically, it had already given the world a vast number of prominent contributions in the realm of technology and science. Where is China's equivalent with all that economic output?
The center of the CRISPR revolution is in Boston, not China. The center of the mRNA revolution is in the US and Europe, not China.
Even Tesla fled to the US, where he did most of his work; by intent he did not want to be in Europe. If the industrial revolution was powered by one man, it was that one and he didn't do it in Europe.
Well sometimes it's fun to rattle chains so let's continue the argument.
Tesla only moved to the US in 1884. This article is talking about events that happened 70 years before, even before the civil war, when half of the US economy was cotton farming.
You still haven't demonstrated the industry isn't based on IP theft :)
The solution to that is to strip out the profit, Wikimedia style.
Building review sites is the easy part of it, that isn't preventing anything due to competition (like a programmer creating blog software to compete with Wordpress, building it is the easiest part; or creating an online store / shopping cart service to compete with Shopify). Building it does nothing of consequence. Acquiring hundreds of thousands of high quality product reviews is extraordinarily difficult, and then you have to keep them coming in forever at that high quality.
That these things are easy to build at a basic level, poses absolutely zero challenge to Wordpress or Shopify et al. I'm not exaggerating, it threatens them not in the least, because it's meaningless. It doesn't matter if someone can build an Uber clone in N months, they won't be able to do the actual hard part of competing with Uber.
reply