UK government intervenes in Nvidia takeover of Arm, cites 'national security'

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 28
    UK government should buy ARM and put rules in place that 51% must stay in uk ownership. 

    we need capability in Europe to compete and shore up US capability. 

    Also need to maintain fab capability in Europe too else we will fall behind China. 

    It’s interesting that Taiwan wasn’t considered a threat, but there is an organised global effort to ensure continuation of Taiwan capabilities from places other than Taiwan. 

    We will see an interesting next decade. 
  • Reply 22 of 28
    entropys said:

        Peace in our time.
    All we are sayin
  • Reply 23 of 28
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 5,818member
    seanj said:
    avon b7 said:
    dee_dee said:
    Nvidia waited too long to acquire ARM.  There is a glaring spotlight on tech companies getting too big, and this signals the purchase is in jeopardy without concessions from Nvidia probably around keeping R&D in UK etc.  They probably could have gotten away with this 3-4 years ago, but especially now with the M1 breaking ground the UK is giving pause to what they are actually giving up here.
    Definitely. The co-founder of ARM, Hermann Hauser, wrote to the UK government back in October last year highlighting his not unreasonable concerns. De facto new US tech monopoly, possibility of abuse (direct or in direct), possible transfer of physical assets to US soil etc. 

    On top of that we now have first hand experience of US government industrial abuse of third parties in sovereign nations who have been severely impacted by Trump's executive order frenzy. The UK itself and its companies has lost billions after being pressured by the US over Huawei/5G.

    It seems that the government has finally woken up to what might happen here.

    I wasn't aware that it apparently has power to nix the deal, though, which is what I'm guessing is the case from the first steps it has taken.

    The EU will also have reason to be concerned about the deal too.

    I would be surprised if it gets the go ahead.

    The problem is that I can't see a viable solution to the overall situation.

    The U.K. can stop the deal and market regulators in other countries around the world,  could certainly lodge objections to it. With the U.K. government’s new focus on future technologies, I can see them buying a stake in Arm as part of a joint purchase. Something similar to the OneWeb deal but partnering with a British company.
    That was similar to my instinct reaction. A consortium of governments participating equally to avoid 'weaponising' the IP.

    The problem is I can't see any way to protect the IP and future technological direction from 'pressure moves from within' any theoretical consortium. 
  • Reply 24 of 28
    saareksaarek Posts: 1,313member
    qwerty52 said:
    saarek said:
    Interesting, NVidia is a US based company so unlikely to be a threat. Although I suppose they could then sell it to whomever they want in the future.
    NVidia is a US based company in China’s hands 
    Ah, now that does make a difference.
  • Reply 25 of 28
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 9,789member
    avon b7 said:
    dee_dee said:
    Nvidia waited too long to acquire ARM.  There is a glaring spotlight on tech companies getting too big, and this signals the purchase is in jeopardy without concessions from Nvidia probably around keeping R&D in UK etc.  They probably could have gotten away with this 3-4 years ago, but especially now with the M1 breaking ground the UK is giving pause to what they are actually giving up here.
    Definitely. The co-founder of ARM, Hermann Hauser, wrote to the UK government back in October last year highlighting his not unreasonable concerns. De facto new US tech monopoly, possibility of abuse (direct or in direct), possible transfer of physical assets to US soil etc. 

    On top of that we now have first hand experience of US government industrial abuse of third parties in sovereign nations who have been severely impacted by Trump's executive order frenzy. The UK itself and its companies has lost billions after being pressured by the US over Huawei/5G.

    It seems that the government has finally woken up to what might happen here.

    I wasn't aware that it apparently has power to nix the deal, though, which is what I'm guessing is the case from the first steps it has taken.

    The EU will also have reason to be concerned about the deal too.

    I would be surprised if it gets the go ahead.

    The problem is that I can't see a viable solution to the overall situation.


    There are no winners here -- except NVIDIA and future Trumps using private enterprise to expand U.S. hegemony.

    IF it goes through, it will force the world to find alternatives and work arounds to ARM patents.  Which, in that case, EVERYBODY loses.

    ARM was successful partly because they had a great product and partly because the world of tech knew that they could rely on them to be fair, honest business partners.   That would no longer be the case if NVIDIA takes them over:  The world of tech would have to worry about both NVIDIA and the country they operate out of.
    edited April 20
  • Reply 26 of 28
    mpantonempantone Posts: 1,572member
    elijahg said:
    crowley said:
    5 years too late. The sale to SoftBank shouldn’t have been allowed.
    That seemed to take pretty much everyone off-guard. I think if it was publicised a bit more at the time it never would have happened. These massive acquisitions by holding companies rarely turn out well for anyone except a couple of execs.

    Equating the sales to Softbank versus NVIDIA is a False Analogy.
    Softbank is a neutral Japanese holding and investment company.
    NVIDIA is an aggressive U.S. tech company that, if they do not abuse the patents themselves, could be used as a tool to weaponize those patents in the name of "National Defense".
    Softbank is NOT "neutral" [sic]. Its founder is Masayoshi Son who is ranked in the top 50 richest people on this planet. No one on the world's richest list is "neutral." They all have their own interests and motivations.

    Softbank Mobile is a major telecommunications carrier in Japan. They also own a substantial portion of T-Mobile US because they acquired Sprint (before the merger). Softbank holdings are diverse but they most certainly aren't some faceless holding company.

    Softbank is Masayoshi Son.
    APPLE2c-1984
  • Reply 27 of 28
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 9,789member
    mpantone said:
    elijahg said:
    crowley said:
    5 years too late. The sale to SoftBank shouldn’t have been allowed.
    That seemed to take pretty much everyone off-guard. I think if it was publicised a bit more at the time it never would have happened. These massive acquisitions by holding companies rarely turn out well for anyone except a couple of execs.

    Equating the sales to Softbank versus NVIDIA is a False Analogy.
    Softbank is a neutral Japanese holding and investment company.
    NVIDIA is an aggressive U.S. tech company that, if they do not abuse the patents themselves, could be used as a tool to weaponize those patents in the name of "National Defense".
    Softbank is NOT "neutral" [sic]. Its founder is Masayoshi Son who is ranked in the top 50 richest people on this planet. No one on the world's richest list is "neutral." They all have their own interests and motivations.

    Softbank Mobile is a major telecommunications carrier in Japan. They also own a substantial portion of T-Mobile US because they acquired Sprint (before the merger). Softbank holdings are diverse but they most certainly aren't some faceless holding company.

    Softbank is Masayoshi Son.

    So, because the main owner is wealthy he isn't "neutral"?
    And because Softbank owns a number of tech oriented companies they are not "some faceless holding company" (meaning they too would act with bias and malice)?

    Sounds like you are more biased than those you accuse.

    For myself, I'll stick to reality.   Softbank ran ARM in a neutral way making their patents available to any and all comers without bias -- whether it be political or self-promoting.   Few believe that NVIDIA would follow that model.
  • Reply 28 of 28
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 9,789member
    mpantone said:
    elijahg said:
    crowley said:
    5 years too late. The sale to SoftBank shouldn’t have been allowed.
    That seemed to take pretty much everyone off-guard. I think if it was publicised a bit more at the time it never would have happened. These massive acquisitions by holding companies rarely turn out well for anyone except a couple of execs.

    Equating the sales to Softbank versus NVIDIA is a False Analogy.
    Softbank is a neutral Japanese holding and investment company.
    NVIDIA is an aggressive U.S. tech company that, if they do not abuse the patents themselves, could be used as a tool to weaponize those patents in the name of "National Defense".
    Softbank is NOT "neutral" [sic]. Its founder is Masayoshi Son who is ranked in the top 50 richest people on this planet. No one on the world's richest list is "neutral." They all have their own interests and motivations.

    Softbank Mobile is a major telecommunications carrier in Japan. They also own a substantial portion of T-Mobile US because they acquired Sprint (before the merger). Softbank holdings are diverse but they most certainly aren't some faceless holding company.

    Softbank is Masayoshi Son.

    So, because the main owner is wealthy he isn't "neutral"?
    And because Softbank owns a number of tech oriented companies they are not "some faceless holding company" (meaning they too would act with bias and malice)?

    Sounds like you are more biased than those you accuse.

    For myself, I'll stick to reality.   Softbank ran ARM in a neutral way making their patents available to any and all comers without bias -- whether it be political or self-promoting.   Few believe that NVIDIA would follow that model.
Sign In or Register to comment.