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

31–40 of 184 posts

Re: Nvidia's $20B antitrust loophole

#31

Post by tonyhart7 »

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…

if we use your logic then every law written would be failure since at some point people would discover loophole/flaw that would get abused

the fix is we use more ambiguous words or just stronger government control

see how China "control" capitalist on this case if you want absolute government control

Re: Nvidia's $20B antitrust loophole

#32

Post by dangus »

The part I don’t fully understand is: could this non-acquisition eventually make the deal less than ideal for Nvidia?

Is it really a given that GroqCloud is going to be sunset and the company will die?

Couldn’t this company hire talent and continue to operate and maybe even innovate? Couldn’t Groq even hire back some employees from Nvidia? If any of them live in California there’s nothing stopping them and they have a bunch of cash from Nvidia. There are all kinds of loopholes for that like contracting arrangements.

Nvidia doesn’t really have exclusive access to any part of the company. They didn’t necessarily remove a competitor, though I’ll grant that they likely did in practice.

It’s potentially possible that the regulations did their job and kept a competitor on the market, though again I imagine this is my naevity speaking and that the most likely outcome is that Groq will wither.

I also don’t fully understand if the Saudis are getting cashed out or not. Are they really going to roll over and allow their Saudi AI data center to become worthless? I would think they have a lot of motivation after this deal to make sure Groq still operates and serves their goals.

Re: Nvidia's $20B antitrust loophole

#33

Post by websiteapi »

tonyhart7 wrote: post #31
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…

if we use your logic then every law written would be failure since at some point people would discover loophole/flaw that would get abused the fix is we use more ambiguous words or just stronger government control see how China "control" capitalist on this case if you want absolute government control

isn't it true though that laws that have frequently abused loopholes that effectively go against the spirit of the law are indeed failures? isn't that the entire purpose of having lawmakers who are constantly evaluating such things?

Re: Nvidia's $20B antitrust loophole

#34

Post by saghm »

georgeburdell wrote: post #25

This behavior is extremely damaging to the startup scene. Who would join a startup these days unless it’s run by a close friend or relative? At least in that case, the scorned junior employees would have social recourse.

It's not like larger companies don't also screw over their employees in various ways. After having to leave AWS due to my fully distributed team that was formed during WFH being forced to "return" to an office that most of ever never lived near, I've preferred working for smaller companies not because I care about equity (I'm in the fortunate position that I can survive comfortably and save for retirement on my salary rather than needing to rely on the value from options/RSUs), but because my confidence in my ability to predict where things are headed goes down increasingly with each additional level of management between me and whoever has the power to arbitrarily decide to upend my employment on a whim. In the long run, I'll probably be fine if my employer doesn't make me rich, so as long as my projected retirement age isn't actively getting pushed back based on my current income and spending, I'd rather optimize for minimizing the likelihood I suddenly find myself unemployed due to untenable working conditions or getting unexpectedly laid off. My experience at startups has been that it's a lot easier to tell when things might start to get dicey several months down the line and start to prepare for if I need to find another gig. With a large company, I've seen that happen much more suddenly for people who had no reason to suspect they might need to in advance.

Re: Nvidia's $20B antitrust loophole

#36

Post by 999900000999 »

georgeburdell wrote: post #25

This behavior is extremely damaging to the startup scene. Who would join a startup these days unless it’s run by a close friend or relative? At least in that case, the scorned junior employees would have social recourse.

If you need a job for things like food and housing a startup is cool.

I fully expect to be lied to repeatedly though about my own pay, our prospects, etc. I had to learn the hard way that these lies are defacto legal because employees won't realistically be able to sue.

But hey, the base pay is probably enough.

Re: Nvidia's $20B antitrust loophole

#37

Post by krupan »

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?

Re: Nvidia's $20B antitrust loophole

#38

Post by Arainach »

saghm wrote: post #34
georgeburdell wrote: post #25

This behavior is extremely damaging to the startup scene. Who would join a startup these days unless it’s run by a close friend or relative? At least in that case, the scorned junior employees would have social recourse.

It's not like larger companies don't also screw over their employees in various ways. After having to leave AWS due to my fully distributed team that was formed during WFH being forced to "return" to an office that most of ever never lived near, I've preferred working for smaller companies not because I care about equity (I'm in the fortunate position that I can survive comfortably and save for retirement on my salar…

At larger companies I can sell my stock immediately, and the salary and benefits are better.

Re: Nvidia's $20B antitrust loophole

#39

Post by ALittleLight »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #4
ossa-ma wrote: post #2

No 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…

> Why do I hate Chamath? >Let's look at the sh he dumped on retail with his abysmal SPAC track record I do not see why one would feel animosity towards Chamath for this reason. Was there fraud involved? Otherwise, all investors are liable for doing their own due diligence.

You can feel animosity towards someone without thinking they've met the elements of a crime.

Re: Nvidia's $20B antitrust loophole

#40

Post by tonyhart7 »

websiteapi wrote: post #33
tonyhart7 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if we use your logic then every law written would be failure since at some point people would discover loophole/flaw that would get abused the fix is we use more ambiguous words or just stronger government control see how China "control" capitalist on this case if you want absolute government control

isn't it true though that laws that have frequently abused loopholes that effectively go against the spirit of the law are indeed failures? isn't that the entire purpose of having lawmakers who are constantly evaluating such things?

Yeah that is the point of having law maker

my point is making a law that a "future proof" is impossible, since guess what???? Human just cant account for every possible future scenario

Post reply on HN