5 ms·

They blatantly ought to have done this for the original sale. Better late than never, I suppose.

by bencollier49 6y ago

jonplackett 6y ago
They were too scared of looking 'closed for business' in the middle of the disaster that was/is Brexit.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  It's the ditch that keeps on giving. I think we are on transition slogan number 3, quite the compensation to being cut off from your customers for many businesses I'm sure. Edit: Is the HN hive telling me Brexit is a good thing then?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- tokyojoe 6y ago
  You might be right here.
- thu2111 6y ago
  Brexit only fully happened a few months ago, so it is hardly related to this. Any considerations w.r.t. looking 'open for business' would certainly still apply. But sure, make everything about Brexit, why not.
  - SirHound 6y ago
    That's true, consequences of actions are only ever felt within a very limited timeframe.
  - Twirrim 6y ago
    Brexit took close to 5 years from vote to implementation, during which there was lots of noise from all sides. The Softbank deal came after the Brexit vote, once the Sterling had dropped sufficiently (~30%) to make it additionally enticing. Among articles from the time, https://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2016/07/18/arm-softbank-bargain-britain/?sh=140961ef3bc1 https://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2016/07/18/arm-softb..., complete with government spin. It's hard not to make something about Brexit, when the government explicitly chose to make the thing about Brexit. The Softbank deal was disastrous for UK tech, and if the government really was interested in national security grounds (which is what they're claiming this time around), it would have intervened in that deal. NVIDIA isn't likely much more of a risk from a national security perspective than SoftBank. But it had to sell Brexit, and a massive foreign investment in a UK company was an opportunity for spin too enticing to give up.
  - rcxdude 6y ago
    The full legal consequences of brexit have still not fully come into force yet (there are various grace periods still to elapse: the most recent was the start of this month and there is still another extended to 1st October). And the secondary effects will likely take years to become apparent.
mrweasel 6y ago
I understand objecting, but for security reasons? A better argument would be that Nvidia gains serious power over companies who are currently ARM customer and Nvidia competitors. Perhaps the UK want to be able to use ARM designs for domestic chips in the future, without being dependent on an American company, but yeah, then they should have objected when a Japanese company bought ARM as well.
- throwaway3699 6y ago
  Not only that, but I'd be surprised if the military didn't make heavy use of Nvidia cards for ML workloads, CAD design or god knows what. I could definitely see a way to frame this as a security threat if either company were to stop selling to them.
- ericmay 6y ago
  > but for security reasons? Seems to be the strongest/easiest route to go to justify blocking it. The whole national security angle and all. > then they should have objected when a Japanese company bought ARM as well I have to imagine this was a bit of sleeping at the wheel. I'm not sure though.
  - tester34 6y ago
    >Seems to be the strongest/easiest route to go to justify blocking it. The whole national security angle and all. What makes you think so? So Intel - US / TSMC - Taiwan can be considered as national security, but ARM not?
    - ericmay 6y ago
      Could you elaborate? I guess my thinking is similar to if someone wanted to try and buy Intel. The U.S. would probably stop it on national security grounds. I hope that makes sense - at least where I was trying to go with that comment. Maybe it's incorrect or not well thought out but I'd at least like to make my point clear :)
      - 6y ago
mytailorisrich 6y ago
The only thing it currently means is that the CMA will investigate and prepare a report. On the face of it the difference with Softbank is that Nvidia is a big semiconductors player and thus that this acquisition can have a material impact on competition in the industry and the UK, which was not the case with Softbank. In addition, since the UK is now "properly independent" the government is probably keen to show it by doing what the US and EU competition regulators do.
Mindwipe 6y ago
I'm not sure late is better than never in this case. The horse has literally bolted. Shutting the door now does literally nothing other than show you cocked up by not locking it in the first place.
cma 6y ago
How are there security reasons when their foreign licencees already get complete and modifiable designs? It's only an IP protection at that point enforceable through friendly relations, not anything immune to adversaries. I can see all the anti-competitive concerns though.
skywal_l 6y ago
But what are the consequences exactly? The deal will be stopped and ARM still belongs to a foreign company. Why not follow this to its logical conclusion and nationalize ARM if it is so important? You can't prevent someone to sell something if it doesn't want to keep it.

They blatantly ought to have done this for the original sale. Better late than never, I suppose.

jonplackett 6y ago

They were too scared of looking 'closed for business' in the middle of the disaster that was/is Brexit.

mhh__ 6y ago
It's the ditch that keeps on giving. I think we are on transition slogan number 3, quite the compensation to being cut off from your customers for many businesses I'm sure. Edit: Is the HN hive telling me Brexit is a good thing then?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
tokyojoe 6y ago
You might be right here.
thu2111 6y ago
Brexit only fully happened a few months ago, so it is hardly related to this. Any considerations w.r.t. looking 'open for business' would certainly still apply. But sure, make everything about Brexit, why not.
- SirHound 6y ago
  That's true, consequences of actions are only ever felt within a very limited timeframe.
- Twirrim 6y ago
  Brexit took close to 5 years from vote to implementation, during which there was lots of noise from all sides. The Softbank deal came after the Brexit vote, once the Sterling had dropped sufficiently (~30%) to make it additionally enticing. Among articles from the time, https://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2016/07/18/arm-softbank-bargain-britain/?sh=140961ef3bc1 https://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2016/07/18/arm-softb..., complete with government spin. It's hard not to make something about Brexit, when the government explicitly chose to make the thing about Brexit. The Softbank deal was disastrous for UK tech, and if the government really was interested in national security grounds (which is what they're claiming this time around), it would have intervened in that deal. NVIDIA isn't likely much more of a risk from a national security perspective than SoftBank. But it had to sell Brexit, and a massive foreign investment in a UK company was an opportunity for spin too enticing to give up.
- rcxdude 6y ago
  The full legal consequences of brexit have still not fully come into force yet (there are various grace periods still to elapse: the most recent was the start of this month and there is still another extended to 1st October). And the secondary effects will likely take years to become apparent.

mrweasel 6y ago

I understand objecting, but for security reasons? A better argument would be that Nvidia gains serious power over companies who are currently ARM customer and Nvidia competitors. Perhaps the UK want to be able to use ARM designs for domestic chips in the future, without being dependent on an American company, but yeah, then they should have objected when a Japanese company bought ARM as well.

throwaway3699 6y ago
Not only that, but I'd be surprised if the military didn't make heavy use of Nvidia cards for ML workloads, CAD design or god knows what. I could definitely see a way to frame this as a security threat if either company were to stop selling to them.
ericmay 6y ago
> but for security reasons? Seems to be the strongest/easiest route to go to justify blocking it. The whole national security angle and all. > then they should have objected when a Japanese company bought ARM as well I have to imagine this was a bit of sleeping at the wheel. I'm not sure though.
- tester34 6y ago
  >Seems to be the strongest/easiest route to go to justify blocking it. The whole national security angle and all. What makes you think so? So Intel - US / TSMC - Taiwan can be considered as national security, but ARM not?
  - ericmay 6y ago
    Could you elaborate? I guess my thinking is similar to if someone wanted to try and buy Intel. The U.S. would probably stop it on national security grounds. I hope that makes sense - at least where I was trying to go with that comment. Maybe it's incorrect or not well thought out but I'd at least like to make my point clear :)
    - 6y ago

mytailorisrich 6y ago

The only thing it currently means is that the CMA will investigate and prepare a report. On the face of it the difference with Softbank is that Nvidia is a big semiconductors player and thus that this acquisition can have a material impact on competition in the industry and the UK, which was not the case with Softbank. In addition, since the UK is now "properly independent" the government is probably keen to show it by doing what the US and EU competition regulators do.

Mindwipe 6y ago

I'm not sure late is better than never in this case. The horse has literally bolted. Shutting the door now does literally nothing other than show you cocked up by not locking it in the first place.

cma 6y ago

How are there security reasons when their foreign licencees already get complete and modifiable designs? It's only an IP protection at that point enforceable through friendly relations, not anything immune to adversaries. I can see all the anti-competitive concerns though.

skywal_l 6y ago

But what are the consequences exactly? The deal will be stopped and ARM still belongs to a foreign company. Why not follow this to its logical conclusion and nationalize ARM if it is so important? You can't prevent someone to sell something if it doesn't want to keep it.