2 ms·

Samsung is a 30% shareholder of Xtal. Xtal became an immediate ASML competitor for Samsung semiconductor using the theft as implied by "our biggest Korean custo

Samsung is a 30% shareholder of Xtal. Xtal became an immediate ASML competitor for Samsung semiconductor using the theft as implied by "our biggest Korean customer" quoted from ASML CEO in interviews. Stating Samsung is the immediate beneficiary of the theft as conjectured (AKA "hinted") by Dutch media based on ASML CEO interview at the time... is not neutral how? Lot's of IP shenanigan in high barrier semiconductor industry and Korean Chaebol industrial policy has history of IP theft to benefit domestic industries. Please explain how any of my claims triggered you so much: >Don't forget to wipe your history so as to make it difficult to guess your national origin (though I didn't have to), because it's so easy to see your ulterior motive through the garbage -- it destroys your credibility. Like what is this even?

yorwba 7y ago
It's not too hard to dig up posts where you use "we" when referring to Canada. If you wanted to hide your nationality, you should have tried harder.
- Thiez 7y ago
  How is their alleged Canadian nationality relevant, and where did they attempt to hide it?
  - yorwba 7y ago
    I don't know, I was just curious once it got brought up.
tooltalk 7y ago
>> Samsung is a 30% shareholder of Xtal. Samsung's 30% share amounts to less than $8M versus Samsung's share in ASML which amounted to about $500+M and $277M in additional funding, or $777+M in total. XTAL had fewer than a dozen employees. I think it's fairly clear where Samsung's "economic interest lies in this case, but Samsung is also known for diversifying their suppliers. The company bought display panels from their competitors Sharp, LGD and even BOE who had been "hinted" as having stolen their flexible displays. As for the CEO's comment, I also posted a link to ASML's official statement denying Samsung's role after the CEO made that statement. And yet you claim that you "didn't mean implicate" the company? > Korean Chaebol industrial policy has history of IP theft to benefit domestic industries can you cite sources for Korean Chaebol's "industrial policy"? Or are you still bitter about Samsung implicating Taiwanese display companies, like AUOptics in price-fixing cases, which resulted in $500M fines years back? >Like what is this even? Sure, read my earlier comment about Taiwanese's collective insecurity or inferior complex which stems from their fear of Samsung (https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/22/technology/taiwan-tries-to-shore-up-its-defenses-against-samsung.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/22/technology/taiwan-tries-t...). See also my comment about Samsung's reporting of price-fixing by Taiwanese companies. I've encountered into others making similar comments about this particular case and they were all predictably of Taiwanese origin.

yorwba 7y ago

It's not too hard to dig up posts where you use "we" when referring to Canada. If you wanted to hide your nationality, you should have tried harder.

Thiez 7y ago
How is their alleged Canadian nationality relevant, and where did they attempt to hide it?
- yorwba 7y ago
  I don't know, I was just curious once it got brought up.

tooltalk 7y ago

>> Samsung is a 30% shareholder of Xtal. Samsung's 30% share amounts to less than $8M versus Samsung's share in ASML which amounted to about $500+M and $277M in additional funding, or $777+M in total. XTAL had fewer than a dozen employees. I think it's fairly clear where Samsung's "economic interest lies in this case, but Samsung is also known for diversifying their suppliers. The company bought display panels from their competitors Sharp, LGD and even BOE who had been "hinted" as having stolen their flexible displays. As for the CEO's comment, I also posted a link to ASML's official statement denying Samsung's role after the CEO made that statement. And yet you claim that you "didn't mean implicate" the company? > Korean Chaebol industrial policy has history of IP theft to benefit domestic industries can you cite sources for Korean Chaebol's "industrial policy"? Or are you still bitter about Samsung implicating Taiwanese display companies, like AUOptics in price-fixing cases, which resulted in $500M fines years back? >Like what is this even? Sure, read my earlier comment about Taiwanese's collective insecurity or inferior complex which stems from their fear of Samsung (https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/22/technology/taiwan-tries-to-shore-up-its-defenses-against-samsung.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/22/technology/taiwan-tries-t...). See also my comment about Samsung's reporting of price-fixing by Taiwanese companies. I've encountered into others making similar comments about this particular case and they were all predictably of Taiwanese origin.