[flagged]
Nvidia's $20B antitrust loophole
161–170 of 184 posts
Re: Nvidia's $20B antitrust loophole
#162[flagged]
That is the entire point of the FTC. To decide what actions are fair to the free market and enforce it.
You can disagree with khans take on it but it is the stated purpose of the FTC to dictate that.
Re: Nvidia's $20B antitrust loophole
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
And then capitalism crumbles because the delicate bargain between labor and capital it was predicated on has been destroyed.
And if my cat was an eldritch god in disguise life as we know it is in danger because I forgot to feed him this morning and surely he'll take revenge by destroying the universe. That's what y'all sound like.
"creative regulatory evasion".
Credit where credit due: "creative regulatory evasion" was first attributed to Professor Michael P. Fleming of the University of Cincinnati College of Law to describe the tactics employed by the small loan industry to circumvent early 20th-century usury law.
Seems this would likely be one of the most salient terms the DOJ would use at trial.
Re: Nvidia's $20B antitrust loophole
#164I actually managed to find video of Jonathan Ross discussing how GroqCloud was moving forward with Simon Edwards. It puts everything in proper perspective: https://youtu.be/rurhk1hadp8?si=pnKrF7w48NhChK2r&t=253
LMAO you got me
Re: Nvidia's $20B antitrust loophole
#165No shade but most other coverage will focus on whether this signals an AI bubble. That's missing the story. Nvidia explicitly did NOT acquire Groq. They licensed the IP and hired the talent. This structure dodges CFIUS review (Groq had $1.5B in Saudi government contracts), antitrust scrutiny, and years of regulatory delays. The $13B premium over the September valuation was the cost of regulatory arbitrage. Announced…
Trump Jr. also got in in September via 1789 Capital, where he is partner. After that Nvidia got permission to export GPUs to China.
In the meantime, Musk and Chamath have the gall to complain about the kleptocracy in democratic states and the poor suppressed billionaires:
https://xcancel.com/elonmusk/status/2005287147507769442#m
I wonder when Chamath will sit again on Tucker Carlson and tell a sob story about having self doubts.
Re: Nvidia's $20B antitrust loophole
#166No shade but most other coverage will focus on whether this signals an AI bubble. That's missing the story. Nvidia explicitly did NOT acquire Groq. They licensed the IP and hired the talent. This structure dodges CFIUS review (Groq had $1.5B in Saudi government contracts), antitrust scrutiny, and years of regulatory delays. The $13B premium over the September valuation was the cost of regulatory arbitrage. Announced…
It will be interesting to see if this is an exit for investors and which ones. Given it wasn’t an acquisition but licensing.
Axios claims that the $20B in cash will be paid out proportionally, so Trump Jr. will have his September investment tripled. The article looks AI assisted but claims "according to sources":
Re: Nvidia's $20B antitrust loophole
#167Re: Nvidia's $20B antitrust loophole
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
My assumption is employees are mostly out on holidays since the deal was known widely only on Christmas, and so they’re busy with their personal lives, quietly discussing this issue with trusted coworkers, and if there are serious problems, they are coordinating a lawsuit instead of saying something they shouldn’t in public. You should be asking why no one has dispelled the criticisms of how employee equity is treate…
So your belief is that the FTC should not only have control over corporate acquisitions but also over where people work and what they can be paid, got it. We are all at will employees in tech and you and only you are responsible for where you choose to work. Most startups fail. This one didn't. Good on them.
Straight from a groq employee:
https://www.teamblind.com/post/first-windsurf-now-groq-p8jey...
"all groq employees got cashed out, no one is getting screwed here. windsurf is different."
But wait, wait, don't tell me... How do we KNOW this REALLY is a groq EMPLOYEE? It COULD be a PAID shill blah blah blah WINDSURF! WINDSURF! You can't hide the TRUTH forever!
Re: Nvidia's $20B antitrust loophole
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
So your belief is that the FTC should not only have control over corporate acquisitions but also over where people work and what they can be paid, got it. We are all at will employees in tech and you and only you are responsible for where you choose to work. Most startups fail. This one didn't. Good on them.
Straight from a groq employee: https://www.teamblind.com/post/first-windsurf-now-groq-p8jey... "all groq employees got cashed out, no one is getting screwed here. windsurf is different." But wait, wait, don't tell me... How do we KNOW this REALLY is a groq EMPLOYEE? It COULD be a PAID shill blah blah blah WINDSURF! WINDSURF! You can't hide the TRUTH forever!
Well it’s an anonymous account - could just be the founder or someone who got special treatment. The rest of the comments are skeptical and for good reason, which is that there is no official disclosure of how employees got their due based on the ownership implied by their options. “Got cashed out” may just mean they got $100 each. Why are you hostile to seeking the truth here or creating pressure on founders and investors to come clean?
Re: Nvidia's $20B antitrust loophole
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
> fiduciary duty to the common holders? as long as the transaction is reasonable, they've held up this fiduciary duty. And the minority holders will need to sue for damages in any case, it's not an "automatic" crime. The cost of that suit will be more than the value of the gains and damages awarded. Therefore, minority shareholders in a startup are highly likely to get screwed - not to mention they don't get a say in…
> The cost of that suit will be more than the value of the gains and damages awarded. In many cases this is so, but here we are talking about tens of billions in value. Even a few percent of value won is worth lawyering up to the hilt for. > as long as the transaction is reasonable What does “reasonable” mean? If the OP is correct and selling the IP guts the company then it seems hard to justify. I also don’t think y…
There was a report groq missed revenue targets by 75%. It wouldn’t move hard for the board to conjure a “dire” sell or die story. As it’s not an acquisition, they are somewhat freed from proving market value.