121–130 of 365 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not comparable. The Supermicro trio wasn't trapped for trying to sell a company to China.
Directly comparable, trying to circumvent export controls. One is chips other is algo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Somehow I think there is a real possibility more will happen. Barring them from leaving the country feels a bit sinister for people who haven't been accused of committing any crimes. I don't claim to know what's going on outside of what's being reported, but I'm reminded of other individuals who have "stepped out of line" (as determined by Beijing) and were also either barred from the country or mysteriously disappea…
> Barring them from leaving the country feels a bit sinister for people who haven't been accused of committing any crimes I don't think it's actually that uncommon in China, especially with high profile people. To China's credit, we often bar people from leaving the country if they're charged with a crime but not convicted of anything. While it's certainly scary and authoritarian, I think it's par for the course in C…
This seems like a side issue from the question of whether the charges are legitimate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's interesting, because recently China is definitely trying to paint themselves as the reasonable, stable partner, commited to upholding international law (unlike the US, which is ruled by a madman) . Trying to block this aquisition without good legal argument goes directly against that strategy.
They're doing a lot that goes against that strategy, you just don't see it in the headlines except in cases such as these or when you dig into how they conduct international negotiations or business deals involving the Chinese market. Not to mention how they are openly expansionist in the SCS and obviously wrt Taiwan. Of course they want to be seen as reasonable, their ideal is to control the international narrative…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect this is more of a warning shot to others attempting the same playbook ("Singapore-washing", as I've heard folks call it): the state is watching, and shifting geopolitics means it's in their interest to retain successful talent and entities at home rather than let opposition have them. If anything, I'm genuinely surprised it took them this long. America's been doing this for decades without much in the way o…
I don't know if America has done anything quite like this. The example I'm looking for is where a company starts in the US but leaves and incorporates outside the US and then the US attempts to block acquisition by a foreign company. Also, the enforcement mechanism while vague seems un-American. America might tax the company upon exit but it wouldn't hold the founders hostage in America. If you have examples I'd be c…
For instance US Steel acquisition by Nippon Steel(japanese) is one such example. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2vz83pg9eo
More examples,
Ant Group(chinese) tried to buy MoneyGram (blocked in 2018) https://www.reuters.com/article/business/us-blocks-moneygram...
Xiamen Sanan Optoelectronics tried buying Lumileds, blocked again by US. Also Chinese ofc.
Broadcom and Qualcomm deal was also blocked, Broadcom was then Singapore based in process of moving to US I believe... (very sus happened in 2018 too, someone didn't pay Donald enough)
https://thediplomat.com/2014/02/india-inc-and-the-cfius-nati... Indian company forced to divest from US tech firm... (2013)
I am certain there must be European examples as well but smaller ofc, AI companies are over valued these days, most acquisitions were never this big in the olden days of pre 2020s...
I know for a fact that most folks don't want to invest in US for this reason other than in public equities or bonds ofc. Private foreign investment in US has been high only due to European pensions and Middle-eastern money going into it.
I don't know about how fair, far, or right it was compared to these were, detaining founders is also not confirmed, but sure let's assume it's true still...
Only difference in US is perhaps foreign folks can sue over it. Sometimes, if they are lucky and if the deal is worth it.
I find it strange people of HN being based in US can be so ill informed of what their country, does to foreign companies but be mad about things foreign companies do to them?
I mean sure rest(96%) of the world doesn't really exist, it's but a myth or a land the better folks of US only want to take value when needed?
Unsure what this comment meant, this has happened before as well btw, these are just post 2010s examples because they are relevant. Russians and US used to do this too, India and US were worse of pre-2000s, Japan and US were at their throats in 1980s, in terms of trade and acquisition...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residential_Surveillance_at_a_...
This seems like, to be very very VERY generous as per the guidelines, a case of limited superficial similarities being blown out of proportion. Assuming the best of intentions.
https://thediplomat.com/2018/01/michael-caster-on-chinas-for...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Directly comparable, trying to circumvent export controls. One is chips other is algo.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect this is more of a warning shot to others attempting the same playbook ("Singapore-washing", as I've heard folks call it): the state is watching, and shifting geopolitics means it's in their interest to retain successful talent and entities at home rather than let opposition have them. If anything, I'm genuinely surprised it took them this long. America's been doing this for decades without much in the way o…
I don't know if America has done anything quite like this. The example I'm looking for is where a company starts in the US but leaves and incorporates outside the US and then the US attempts to block acquisition by a foreign company. Also, the enforcement mechanism while vague seems un-American. America might tax the company upon exit but it wouldn't hold the founders hostage in America. If you have examples I'd be c…
Funny when you consider the world owes a lot of AI advancements to both Meta and Google, their open releases really did shift things, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, especially for China, which as far as I know were not releasing as much in AI as they have been beforehand. I remember when Meta released Llama originally people were speculating about it, but it wound up producing a lot of projects that used it, I…
Wasn’t Llama a leak that got so popular meta decided to change their whole approach? I was working at Google at the time. Before Llama, releasing weights was not even worth a discussion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
Are you trying to push a red herring?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Barring them from leaving the country feels a bit sinister for people who haven't been accused of committing any crimes I don't think it's actually that uncommon in China, especially with high profile people. To China's credit, we often bar people from leaving the country if they're charged with a crime but not convicted of anything. While it's certainly scary and authoritarian, I think it's par for the course in C…
Shouldn't every country be barring people from leaving the country if they've been charged with a crime? At least if there's a good chance they will flee justice. This seems like a side issue from the question of whether the charges are legitimate.