Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nvidia's $20B antitrust loophole

ossa-ma.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 184 posts

Re: Nvidia's $20B antitrust loophole

#171

Post by danaris »

bilbo0s wrote: post #159
danaris wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, exactly. Unfortunately, the time to be having these conversations was 40 years ago. But you know the old saying: the next best time is right now. It is, sadly, a near-impossibility that we could get decent antitrust under the current administration. But if we techies, as a sector, were able to pull ourselves together, genuinely recognize that the level of consolidation we have is very bad , and start collective…

Here’s the thing, this isn’t an acquisition. This is Nvidia hiring a few guys. What’s the government supposed to do? Tell those guys they can only work for one startup and they can never leave it? You can’t tell people what jobs they can and can’t take right now. (Probably not ever in the US given our history with slavery.) Now, how do you stop that? Companies don’t need to buy startups, they just need the expert tha…

No; they're supposed to tell Nvidia they can't hire those guys.

This isn't about the people being hired; it's about the company that's trying to headhunt them.

And, once again: robust, sane antitrust would never have let one company get as big, as vital to the tech sector, and wielding as much power as Nvidia does in the first place. If there were 8 companies that do what Nvidia does, letting one of them hire these guys wouldn't be nearly as much of a big deal.

> Point is, antitrust works fine.

Not the way we've been doing it, it doesn't. Like I said, that's the whole point.

Re: Nvidia's $20B antitrust loophole

#172

Post by LogicFailsMe »

SilverElfin wrote: post #169
LogicFailsMe wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 inv…

OK, so you're a troll, got it.

Re: Nvidia's $20B antitrust loophole

#173

Post by notTooFarGone »

colechristensen wrote: post #103
websiteapi wrote: post #27

I wonder how the startup scene will adjust to this if it becomes mainstream. can employee contracts be modified to force compensation even in this case? seems difficult to write one up without weird second order effects. if this does end up being something that is legal and successfully circumvents anti trust, does it mean antitrust actually is a failure in practice? 2026 hasn't even begun and more shenanigans are in…

This won't last. It's just creative regulatory evasion and the loopholes will get closed.

By which administration exactly?

Re: Nvidia's $20B antitrust loophole

#174

Post by shimman »

notTooFarGone wrote: post #173
colechristensen wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This won't last. It's just creative regulatory evasion and the loopholes will get closed.

By which administration exactly?

Most likely the next democratic administration. Antitrust actions are wildly popular and are also things the executive can act upon without the need for Congress or the courts. I mean this is what the current administration has taught the public, now rather than aiming the state at the people it'll be aimed at the corporations hopefully.

Re: Nvidia's $20B antitrust loophole

#175

Post by burnerRhodov2 »

whatevertrevor wrote: post #86

> Groq built the region's largest inference cluster in eight days in December 2024. From that Dammam facility, GroqCloud serves "nearly four billion people regionally adjacent to the KSA." This isn't API access. This is critical AI infrastructure for a nation-state, funded by the Public Investment Fund, processing inference workloads at national scale. Maybe I'm just completely out of touch, and hardware has never be…

Well, you have different players now... working at a different scale.

They are purchasing crypto infrastructure for a huge premium, importing massive turbines from old generation facilities, making huge personal investments in nvidia stock for "preference", and acquiring companies that happen to have an order.

It went from we need to make a data center as cost efficient as possible to we need a data center at all costs.

Re: Nvidia's $20B antitrust loophole

#176

Post by OGEnthusiast »

Analemma_ wrote: post #63
tbrownaw wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought this was always the case? Hearing about examples certainly isn't new.

It has always been the case, but each year there’s a fresh crop of new, bright-eyed 20-year-olds who haven’t learned it yet. The entire startup ecosystem essentially depends on the fact that some people haven’t yet internalized that options are worthless and working 80+-hour weeks if you’re employee #3 or higher never pays off, because even in the slim chance your company has a successful exit you’ll get fucked over…

> options have an EV of 0, startups aren’t worth it, join a FAANG

Is FAANG even still hiring en masse? The sense I get is that FAANG hiring rates, especially for new grads, are very different pre- and post-ZIRP.

Re: Nvidia's $20B antitrust loophole

#177

Post by irishcoffee »

tomhow wrote: post #120
irishcoffee wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure thing. Was the comment so grotesque?

It doesn’t have to be “grotesque” to be in breach of the guidelines. The guidelines ask us to be kind, to avoid swipes and sneers, and to converse curiously. If it was a one off we’d be content to leave it flagged and move on but we’re talking about a pattern from years ago that seems to be resuming, and we need you to end that pattern now, thanks.

It’s pretty neat to know there’s a list.

Re: Nvidia's $20B antitrust loophole

#178

Post by tomhow »

irishcoffee wrote: post #177
tomhow wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn’t have to be “grotesque” to be in breach of the guidelines. The guidelines ask us to be kind, to avoid swipes and sneers, and to converse curiously. If it was a one off we’d be content to leave it flagged and move on but we’re talking about a pattern from years ago that seems to be resuming, and we need you to end that pattern now, thanks.

It’s pretty neat to know there’s a list.

The only list is your list of past comments which is there for anyone to see. There’s no need to evoke spooky atmospherics when you can just observe the guidelines that apply equally to everyone. It’s not hard to be a positive contributor here.

Re: Nvidia's $20B antitrust loophole

#179

Post by krupan »

ossa-ma wrote: post #42
krupan wrote: post #37

Read the article and where it talks about accelerated vesting of Groq shares for both the leadership team that goes to Nvidia and the regular employees that stay at Groq. Is that even guaranteed? It's not an IPO or an acquisition, so why would vesting schedules change?

Very interesting would love to read about this, do you have a link to the article?

It's in the article that we're all discussing here

Re: Nvidia's $20B antitrust loophole

#180

Post by theptip »

lumost wrote: post #170
theptip wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It’s a good point, if they are actually struggling then a fire sale is justified.

The counterpoint would be that 3 months ago they raised $750m at a $6.9B valuation. Unless they are burning through that cash so fast that they need to start raising immediately, the missed target shouldn’t be an existential blow.

Post reply on HN