I didn't keep up with this at the time, but in reading replies to the original story, it was pointed out that Chinese capital propped up AMD when it needed cash. If AMD was so crucial to American interests, how come no US investors stepped up? And, what did we think would happen?
AMD Responds to WSJ ‘Keys to the Kingdom’ Story
21–30 of 61 posts
Re: AMD Responds to WSJ ‘Keys to the Kingdom’ Story
#22>The Wall Street Journal story omits important factual details, including the fact that AMD put significant protections in place to protect its intellectual property (IP) and prevent valuable IP from being misused or reverse engineered to develop future generations of processors. Without knowing what those protections are, I'm not sure we have learned much. Also the US government not objecting, I'm not sure changes t…
Eh, the lean of the article and the comments on the original HN thread were knocking AMD for it as if they were going against American interests by being successfully bullied by China into giving up valuable IP. AMD is saying that a) the IP was not of the highest value or performance, and b) it's unlikely to go against American national security interests when DoC and DoJ both give explicit sign-off. Remember too tha…
I think you’ve got it backward. The likelihood is that the Obama administration treated China more like an ally and less as a hostile power than Trump has treated them.
Re: AMD Responds to WSJ ‘Keys to the Kingdom’ Story
#23AMD “laundered” IP through Chinese partnerships. The fact that the legal goalposts have moved since their partnership began does not absolve them of this fact. If China suddenly becomes massively more capable in X86 CPU’s, it will be obvious why
Re: AMD Responds to WSJ ‘Keys to the Kingdom’ Story
#24Hypothetical question: Let's say a news source writes a story that tanks a company's stock price and then, over the course of time the company is able to prove the story is false and/or the news source is unable to back up the story. Can the company sue the newspaper for damages?
Re: AMD Responds to WSJ ‘Keys to the Kingdom’ Story
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
Conspiracies, eh https://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49#49 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc._v... . Full disclosure, I'm long $AMD ;)
Unless I'm misunderstanding aren't you just proving the point / following the usual example of proof people give of a conspiracy? Every conspiracy claim has some related story people point to and draw a line from. The claim is that the article was FUD. The fact that companies who are competitors can compete fiercely doesn't prove anything.
So basically: fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Learn your lesson, it's a conspiracy theory.
Also, calling it "fierce competition" is a mischaracterization of their actions. They have been fined by countries for these practices, and have done what they could to keep the evidence from public view. Intel deserves the suspicion they get.
Re: AMD Responds to WSJ ‘Keys to the Kingdom’ Story
#26Hypothetical question: Let's say a news source writes a story that tanks a company's stock price and then, over the course of time the company is able to prove the story is false and/or the news source is unable to back up the story. Can the company sue the newspaper for damages?
I work in the law and I'm not 100% sure what the case law is on this but my guess is that if you could prove that they knew (or should have known) what they were publishing was false, then yes. First amendment lawyers please correct me if I'm wrong.
Re: AMD Responds to WSJ ‘Keys to the Kingdom’ Story
#27Hypothetical question: Let's say a news source writes a story that tanks a company's stock price and then, over the course of time the company is able to prove the story is false and/or the news source is unable to back up the story. Can the company sue the newspaper for damages?
Even if the company can prove that the newspaper engaged in libel it would be difficult to establish compensatory damages. Regardless of stock price changes, the company hasn't lost any assets. They might have a shot at getting legal fees plus some punitive damages depending on how egregious the newspaper's conduct was.
Re: AMD Responds to WSJ ‘Keys to the Kingdom’ Story
#28Transferring lower speed tech still could be a huge jump from what China had, the main point is architecture is hard to put a value to it. For what is known, maybe slower means lowering the hertz
> "could be a huge jump" ... "maybe slower means lowering the hertz" This is so painfully obvious it's sad that it has to be said out loud. There is no credible information about exactly what AMD means when they claim lower performance. Nothing meaningful is said about the nature of their 'protections.' And the fact that everything was supposedly blessed by all the various US government TLAs under the Obama administr…
>that this was yet another backdoor sellout of US tech to China
what does this mean? It does not seem to be something secret or illegal.
Re: AMD Responds to WSJ ‘Keys to the Kingdom’ Story
#29Hypothetical question: Let's say a news source writes a story that tanks a company's stock price and then, over the course of time the company is able to prove the story is false and/or the news source is unable to back up the story. Can the company sue the newspaper for damages?
AMD in this case would likely have to meet the public figure standard of proving defamation, which would mean proving the WSJ was grossly negligent or knowingly published false claims.
Re: AMD Responds to WSJ ‘Keys to the Kingdom’ Story
#30Hypothetical question: Let's say a news source writes a story that tanks a company's stock price and then, over the course of time the company is able to prove the story is false and/or the news source is unable to back up the story. Can the company sue the newspaper for damages?
Oh, like Bloomberg's The Big Hack?