4 ms·
For those US companies it does, but I don't think that would apply here since it would be a japanese company investing in a UK company, of course, I could be wr
by SamWhited 6y ago
For those US companies it does, but I don't think that would apply here since it would be a japanese company investing in a UK company, of course, I could be wrong. Either way the point is "most of the reasons given in this article didn't apply to Softbank which is why it doesn't make sense that they should have argued this when the Softbank investment happened"
- dogma1138 6y agoUS Sanctions are universal they apply to any entity that has dealings with the US, if it violates the sanctions it can be sanctioned itself if it has billions worth of US assets on their books they are especially exposed not that a country like SoftBank would give up the US market to invested in a Pyongyang startup anyhow. As far as ARM specifically well they have already revoked the licenses for Huawei and a few others and now there is the situation where ARM China is essentially a rogue entity being seized by the CCP.
- SamWhited 6y agoFair enough; in that case this reason would apply, except ARM presumably would also already have had to follow these restrictions and the other reasons given in the article wouldn't apply to softbank, so I still don't think it makes sense to say "they should have raised this earlier when softbank bought a chunk of them"