9 ms·
Monopoly supplier of critical Pentagon semiconductors shuts down its production
- black_13 5y agoIBM and their shitty software sold to DOD. The stopped improving and having decent training RHAPSODY a hundred years ago.
- setpatchaddress 5y agoWhat happened to the requirement to second-source semiconductors?
- mpyne 5y agoSame thing that happened to the requirement to code DoD software only in Ada: the requirement was scrapped when it became obvious the marketplace had shifted so much that the DoD would have to choose between second-sourcing obsolete gear or staying current with technology the market was postured to deliver.
- bsvgywer 5y agoThere is absolutely no legal reason that the DoD can't take Intel/AMD/Whomever's designs to alternative manufacturers. Unfortunately in the name of making the richest among us richer, our leadership hardly exercises the DoD's blanket license of all things patented. Along the same lines, we no longer break up companies that dominate their industry, giving us fewer choices for alternative manufacturers.
- ectopod 5y agoDoes the DoD have the right to demand designs and knowhow from Intel and AMD? Patents alone are really not much use.
- Supermancho 5y agoIn the name of national security, I would hope so. Why wouldn't it? US Companies don't mean much if there's no US behind it. The issue is there is no overt war to drive the nationalism support necessary to push people into freely transferring knowledge. It seems to magically appear, when there's a feeling of imminent danger but ppl question it in times of peace.
- xxpor 5y agoAre you sure they still do? Since 2015, patents are property for 5th amendment purposes: https://cip2.gmu.edu/2015/06/22/supreme-court-recognizes-that-patents-are-property/ https://cip2.gmu.edu/2015/06/22/supreme-court-recognizes-tha...
- wmf 5y agoMaybe no legal reason but there is a technical reason: a chip designed for a specific manufacturing process (e.g. IBM Cu-32) can only be made on that process and there may only be one fab that can run the process. The chip would have to be somewhat redesigned to be manufactured elsewhere.
- a9h74j 5y ago> ADA IIRC (from the days of Electronics magazine) VHDL was also defined for the purpose of allowing US DOD to be manufacturer-independent.
- moring 5y agoWhat parts of a modern system can even be second-sourced?
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y agoDeath by 1000 greedy cuts.
- atonse 5y agoCan’t they use the defense production act or something to take over the company or the factory?
- wildrhythms 5y agoI don't think that works when the companies aren't in the U.S. >the Pentagon relied on one production line for key chips, and that production line, owned by Abu Dhabi-controlled Global Foundries, just sold it off to a firm that will shut it down.
- atlasunshrugged 5y agoYes, I don't think it works for foreign owned entities although I guess they could basically use the DPA as more of a carrot for an Intel or someone to have a guaranteed purchase order for X# years at a certain price for these chips at a level that would be profitable for them
- mrtnmcc 5y agoGlobalism, why war is obsolete.
- atlasunshrugged 5y agoKinetic conflict anyways. Economic warfare seems alive and well
- BeFlatXIII 5y agoSanctions are a euphemism for economic warfare.
- LogonType10 5y agoFunny, that's what they said before WW1.
- seanw444 5y ago
- iamshs 5y agoIntel chief: Too many chips made in Asia, 7 months ago. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26573236 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26573236
- ecf 5y agoNobody cares what the CEO of Intel thinks. They can’t come in and start spewing nationalist ideology after they were a primary factor in the outsourcing of a chip manufacturing to begin with. Out of 10 of their fabs, only 4 are in the US. [1] 1. https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000 https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000...
- NonEUCitizen 5y agoI believe Intel owns (did not outsource) its overseas fabs. Like everyone else, they probably outsource some parts of the manufacturing process (e.g. packaging).
- dade_ 5y agoMassive consolidation is happening in every industry, IT distribution to cabinet parts to industrial equipent. I think it is from cheap debt allowing private equity to buy up a bunch of companies, smash them together, cut the duplication and lower margin parts of the business, hiking margins as they eliminated competition, and then spinning them off. Debt has been so cheap, they don't even need to have up front capital, just borrow and profit off the deal. However, it is eliminating useful and valuable products & tools, disrupting lives, and making it very difficult to run a business that relies on those parts. This is one of the many ways endless years of emergency low interest rates are destroying the economy and the livelihood of many people.
- spaetzleesser 5y agoThat’s just the natural way of capitalism if you allow companies to get bigger and bigger. They can buy up any upcoming competition for good money so most startups are being built to be bought and not as standalone businesses. You see that and also in medical devices where I work. Seems most industries will evolve into a state where you have 2-4 competitors that suppress all competition by building up regulatory hurdles and by their ability to buy small companies. I would be in favor of massively progressive taxation of large companies. I just don’t see the value of them beyond a certain size but I see a lot of danger accumulating so much power in their hands.
- LogonType10 5y ago>I would be in favor of massively progressive taxation of large companies Say goodbye to electric cars.
- fabianhjr 5y ago> As of December 2020, China had the largest stock of highway legal plug-in passenger cars with over 4.5 million units, 42% of the global plug-in car fleet in use.[10][20] China also dominates the plug-in light commercial vehicle and electric bus deployment, with its stock reaching over 500,000 buses in 2019, 98% of the global stock, and 247,500 electric light commercial vehicles, 65% of the global fleet.[21] Source: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/New_energy_vehicles_in_China https://www.wikiwand.com/en/New_energy_vehicles_in_China The difference isn't on taxation but investment; China invests way more in infrastructure and development. > Tesla Motors Inc., SolarCity Corp. and Space Exploration Technologies Corp., known as SpaceX, together have benefited from an estimated $4.9 billion in government support, according to data compiled by The Times. The figure underscores a common theme running through his emerging empire: a public-private financing model underpinning long-shot start-ups. Source: https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-201...
- i_am_proteus 5y agoThe fab was sold to ON Semiconductor, a US concern. The US government could invoke the defense production act. More likely, the fab can more-profitably produce some other product, and the United States would have to offer a higher price to restart production.
- strstr 5y agoSlightly off-topic, but I think you mistranslated the word for corporation. I suspect you translated “Konzern” from german to english’s “concern”. But I’m honestly unsure. In context the word concern could almost work.
- Amezarak 5y agoIt is less common nowadays, but that is one of the definitions of “concern” in English: a company or a corporation. So it’s entirely correct as is.
- i_am_proteus 5y agoCurious indeed! Merriam-Webster tells me that one definition of "concern," as a noun, is `an organization or establishment for business or manufacture.` But perhaps this is not in common use amongst native English speakers!
- TomAbel 5y agoThe Asianometry newsletter wrote a really insightful newsletter about the US Government's Semiconductor Chip Buying Problem[1] (He also has Youtube video[2] you can watch on the same newsletter) In the newsletter and video he talks about the US's Trusted Foundry Program and the different pitfalls and challenges that came with the program. [1]https://asianometry.substack.com/p/the-government-semiconductor-chip https://asianometry.substack.com/p/the-government-semiconduc... [2]The US Military's Semiconductor Buying Problem https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSNhk4TflKA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSNhk4TflKA
- dmingod666 5y agoVery smart and in-depth content, people here would love it.
- a9h74j 5y agoAnd so thoroughly researched, every episode.
- andromeduck 5y agoI think the USG could definitely do at least the design side of a M1 like series of chips that cover 80-90% of their needs but yeah idk how we could make the US industry competitive again when Intel has dropped the ball so hard.
- dmingod666 5y agoSo Huawei was a national threat but Abu Dhabi owned company supplied chips on GPSs are business as usual. Its think it's probable (may not be the case) the whole 'security risk' think was a ploy to get them ousted at the behest of thier competition..
- winternett 5y agoNon Technical (IT & Infrastructure) people making technical decisions is what may destroy the pentagon if you ask me. Fraud and waste is always a concern in Government operations, but if you take a real look at who is leading decision making, people in those positions (including in private companies) are often completely unaware of the impacts of their decisions, while their advisory staff is often a team of people from a private (shareholder owned) company focused on billing their clients advantageously at every opportunity they get, and providing advice that maintains a "constant stream of revenue". It's not technology we need to fix first, it's the lack of integrity and the focus on opportunistic profit applied to the vary basis of the organization. The method in which contracts are managed, administered, and regulated needs a major overhaul to address the changing landscape of business. Many mission-critical manufacturing and information service operations that the military runs simply should not ever rely (in any way) on privately owned and profit/shareholder-driven companies because it breaks integrity and accountability.
- ecf 5y ago> Non Technical (IT and Infrastructure) people making technical decisions is what may destroy the pentagon. Care to elaborate on what you mean? Surely you don’t consider all IT and Infrastructure employees to be “non-technical”.
- 323 5y agoPentagon should just order it's chips from China. It should also move vehicle assembly there, it's much cheaper. In fact, they should outsource everything outside it's core competency - strategy.
- MeinBlutIstBlau 5y agoDon't worry, the USA will soon have TM at the top of it with an "Owned by China" so we won't even need to do it. We'll just be forced to!
- rvba 5y agoDeath by PowerPoint?
- Shadonototra 5y agoBut Mr Spencer is now billionaire, who cares!
- mealkh 5y agoThis is very interesting in the context of increasing US-China tensions over Taiwan. https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/red-line-us-dangerous-ploy-against-china/news-story/55187d52501a68f1d283e5f24691fd8e https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/red-l... I wonder just how much more important Taiwan will be getting to the West if we lose even more of our SC capabilities.