4 ms·

Please cite an example.

by JPKab 5mo ago

maxglute 5mo ago
Not sure if serious, you think US doesn't make people surrender passports for NSL investigations, i.e. Supermicro trio surrendered their passports.
- bit-anarchist 5mo ago
  Not comparable. The Supermicro trio wasn't trapped for trying to sell a company to China.
  - maxglute 5mo ago
    Directly comparable, trying to circumvent export controls. One is chips other is algo.
    - bit-anarchist 5mo ago
      As another comment mentioned, comparing "employees trying to selling GPUs to an unauthrorized country" and "CEOs selling a company built on national resources to an outside country" is spherical cows levels of comparison.
      - maxglute 5mo ago
        Another wrong comment doesn't make being wrong less wrong. CEOs/persons trying to sell controlled technology unauthorized for export by origin country. They are direct legal analogs.
        bit-anarchist 5mo ago
        Wrong how? It is your comment that is missing the point. The contention isn't whether USA has export control (you are the one who brought it up), it's whether USA has actually prevented a company from being sold overseas by detaining their owners. Are you trying to push a red herring?
        maxglute 5mo ago
        US export controls prevent companies from selling controlled tech. If US companies tried o circumvent then they would absolutely be denied, if they did secretly anyway, against, the law of course they'll likely have passport surrendered, i.e. exit ban if flight risk. Like this isn't complicated, the difference is Manus was full blown retarded enough to transparently circumvent PRC export controls after PRC closed loopholes and politely signalled them to stop, which they didn't, i.e. they broke actual export control laws. Like Manus didn't try to sell, they fucking sold, sign and dotted, despite being told not to, because its against export control laws. Even US companies rarely this blatantly dense. Americans getting exit banned for selling controlled hardware is LESS serious then what Manus tried to do, i.e. lesser (relative) export control crimes in US getting same treatment.
        reissbaker 5mo ago
        What are you talking about? Here are the concrete differences: 1. The U.S. has had a long-standing, extremely public policy that you Cannot Sell Nvidia Chips to China since 2022. Supermicro is an American company (based in San Jose, California), and they sold chips to China from 2024-2025, and they got caught, so they were arrested. 2. Manus founders created... an agent harness? And their company was incorporated in Singapore, not in China. And after they sold their Singaporean company to Meta, China decided that selling Singaporean agentic software "violated export controls" (and even the CCP representative couldn't list which supposed control it violated), and detained them all in China and is attempting to force the Singaporean company to unwind the sale. These are not really comparable. The Supermicro folks are running a company in America and knew ahead of time, for years, that what they were doing violated American export controls. In the case of Manus, they weren't a Chinese company, no one knew they were supposedly violating unwritten export controls, and China decided post-hoc to detain them all and attempt to force the (Singaporean!) company to unwind the sale. Quite simply this has never happened in corporate America. America is very friendly to corporations and you'd have to be wildly, knowingly in the wrong to get arrested for an M&A deal.
        maxglute 5mo ago
    - jwitthuhn 5mo ago
      Could you cite the specific law that makes it illegal for someone to export their thoughts?
      - rvnx 5mo ago
        Each sectors have their own laws for that (nuclear, defense, dual-use techs, etc). Take any knowledge you’d like with you in your head. Now think what is going to happen if you export these thoughts from your mouth to your North Korean best friend. Now the same with Israeli best friend. Same laws, just one extra entry on the list arbitrarily made by politicians, not independent courts.
      - maxglute 5mo ago
        It's not their thought, it's core technology created under PRC registered entities before Singapore switcheroo, which makes their IP PRC origin and under purview of PRC according to PRC law. For actual law, article 13 of PRC 2020 export control. Basically catchall provision / blanket ban hammer (for cases of new tech like AI agent), i.e. presumption of denial / ban.
      - adrian_b 5mo ago
        USA has banned the export of some EDA software from Cadence/Synopsys to China. Therefore the export-control laws of USA obviously make illegal the export of "thoughts". An even more clear example if that any US citizen who knows classified information or even just a trade secret of some private company and who would tell that information to China would do something illegal. In this case China argues that the IP has been created in China and its transfer to Singapore does not make it eligible for transfer to USA. This is the same argument that USA has used multiple times in the past, e.g. for forbidding ASML to sell equipment to China and for forbidding TSMC to have Chinese customers for its advanced fabrication nodes, despite the fact that in both cases the IP that originated in USA some time ago was only a very small part of the products sold by those companies. If USA may do this, then China is certainly also entitled to do the same. This is not whataboutism, but both countries must be treated equally, either such actions should be forbidden for both under the international laws, or they should be permitted both to do whatever they please. There is absolutely no doubt that USA is the country who has invented this concept that its laws can be applied outside its territory and they can be applied to things that are the property of non-US entities, as long as they have any component, no matter how small, which has originally been sold to them, directly or indirectly, by an US entity. I consider any legal interpretation of this kind as abusive and ridiculous, but no American may criticize a foreign country that does nothing else except imitate what USA does.
mothballed 5mo ago
Philip Agee
burntbridge 5mo ago
Dan Duggan

Please cite an example.

by JPKab 5mo ago

Please cite an example.

Not sure if serious, you think US doesn't make people surrender passports for NSL investigations, i.e. Supermicro trio surrendered their passports.

bit-anarchist 5mo ago
Not comparable. The Supermicro trio wasn't trapped for trying to sell a company to China.
- maxglute 5mo ago
  Directly comparable, trying to circumvent export controls. One is chips other is algo.
  - bit-anarchist 5mo ago
    As another comment mentioned, comparing "employees trying to selling GPUs to an unauthrorized country" and "CEOs selling a company built on national resources to an outside country" is spherical cows levels of comparison.
    - maxglute 5mo ago
      Another wrong comment doesn't make being wrong less wrong. CEOs/persons trying to sell controlled technology unauthorized for export by origin country. They are direct legal analogs.
      - bit-anarchist 5mo ago
        Wrong how? It is your comment that is missing the point. The contention isn't whether USA has export control (you are the one who brought it up), it's whether USA has actually prevented a company from being sold overseas by detaining their owners. Are you trying to push a red herring?
        maxglute 5mo ago
        US export controls prevent companies from selling controlled tech. If US companies tried o circumvent then they would absolutely be denied, if they did secretly anyway, against, the law of course they'll likely have passport surrendered, i.e. exit ban if flight risk. Like this isn't complicated, the difference is Manus was full blown retarded enough to transparently circumvent PRC export controls after PRC closed loopholes and politely signalled them to stop, which they didn't, i.e. they broke actual export control laws. Like Manus didn't try to sell, they fucking sold, sign and dotted, despite being told not to, because its against export control laws. Even US companies rarely this blatantly dense. Americans getting exit banned for selling controlled hardware is LESS serious then what Manus tried to do, i.e. lesser (relative) export control crimes in US getting same treatment.
        reissbaker 5mo ago
        What are you talking about? Here are the concrete differences: 1. The U.S. has had a long-standing, extremely public policy that you Cannot Sell Nvidia Chips to China since 2022. Supermicro is an American company (based in San Jose, California), and they sold chips to China from 2024-2025, and they got caught, so they were arrested. 2. Manus founders created... an agent harness? And their company was incorporated in Singapore, not in China. And after they sold their Singaporean company to Meta, China decided that selling Singaporean agentic software "violated export controls" (and even the CCP representative couldn't list which supposed control it violated), and detained them all in China and is attempting to force the Singaporean company to unwind the sale. These are not really comparable. The Supermicro folks are running a company in America and knew ahead of time, for years, that what they were doing violated American export controls. In the case of Manus, they weren't a Chinese company, no one knew they were supposedly violating unwritten export controls, and China decided post-hoc to detain them all and attempt to force the (Singaporean!) company to unwind the sale. Quite simply this has never happened in corporate America. America is very friendly to corporations and you'd have to be wildly, knowingly in the wrong to get arrested for an M&A deal.
        maxglute 5mo ago
  - jwitthuhn 5mo ago
    Could you cite the specific law that makes it illegal for someone to export their thoughts?
    - rvnx 5mo ago
      Each sectors have their own laws for that (nuclear, defense, dual-use techs, etc). Take any knowledge you’d like with you in your head. Now think what is going to happen if you export these thoughts from your mouth to your North Korean best friend. Now the same with Israeli best friend. Same laws, just one extra entry on the list arbitrarily made by politicians, not independent courts.
    - maxglute 5mo ago
      It's not their thought, it's core technology created under PRC registered entities before Singapore switcheroo, which makes their IP PRC origin and under purview of PRC according to PRC law. For actual law, article 13 of PRC 2020 export control. Basically catchall provision / blanket ban hammer (for cases of new tech like AI agent), i.e. presumption of denial / ban.
    - adrian_b 5mo ago
      USA has banned the export of some EDA software from Cadence/Synopsys to China. Therefore the export-control laws of USA obviously make illegal the export of "thoughts". An even more clear example if that any US citizen who knows classified information or even just a trade secret of some private company and who would tell that information to China would do something illegal. In this case China argues that the IP has been created in China and its transfer to Singapore does not make it eligible for transfer to USA. This is the same argument that USA has used multiple times in the past, e.g. for forbidding ASML to sell equipment to China and for forbidding TSMC to have Chinese customers for its advanced fabrication nodes, despite the fact that in both cases the IP that originated in USA some time ago was only a very small part of the products sold by those companies. If USA may do this, then China is certainly also entitled to do the same. This is not whataboutism, but both countries must be treated equally, either such actions should be forbidden for both under the international laws, or they should be permitted both to do whatever they please. There is absolutely no doubt that USA is the country who has invented this concept that its laws can be applied outside its territory and they can be applied to things that are the property of non-US entities, as long as they have any component, no matter how small, which has originally been sold to them, directly or indirectly, by an US entity. I consider any legal interpretation of this kind as abusive and ridiculous, but no American may criticize a foreign country that does nothing else except imitate what USA does.

mothballed 5mo ago

Philip Agee

burntbridge 5mo ago

Dan Duggan