AMD Cites 'Factual Errors', 'Omissions' in Critical Report on Its China Venture (forbes.com) 69
Thursday the Wall Street Journal wrote a piece about AMD's joint venture with Chinese holding coming THATIC -- titled "How a Big U.S. Chip Maker Gave China the 'Keys to the Kingdom'." The article argues that AMD "essentially granted China access to advanced processor IP that could be used to threaten U.S. national security," reports Forbes.
But they add that the same day, AMD executive Harry Wolin wrote an angry blog post in response, complaining that the story "contains several factual errors and omissions and does not portray an accurate picture." Forbes reports: From Wolin's post, "Starting in 2015, AMD diligently and proactively briefed the Department of Defense, the Department of Commerce and multiple other agencies within the U.S. Government before entering into the joint ventures. AMD received no objections whatsoever from any agency to the formation of the joint ventures or to the transfer of technology -- technology which was of lower performance than other commercially available processors. In fact, prior to the formation of the joint ventures and the transfer of technology, the Department of Commerce notified AMD that the technology proposed was not restricted or otherwise prohibited from being transferred. Given this clear feedback, AMD moved ahead with the joint ventures."
Not only does AMD claim it had the green light from multiple government entities to enter into the deal, the post claims that the WSJ article is simply wrong. "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."
But they add that the same day, AMD executive Harry Wolin wrote an angry blog post in response, complaining that the story "contains several factual errors and omissions and does not portray an accurate picture." Forbes reports: From Wolin's post, "Starting in 2015, AMD diligently and proactively briefed the Department of Defense, the Department of Commerce and multiple other agencies within the U.S. Government before entering into the joint ventures. AMD received no objections whatsoever from any agency to the formation of the joint ventures or to the transfer of technology -- technology which was of lower performance than other commercially available processors. In fact, prior to the formation of the joint ventures and the transfer of technology, the Department of Commerce notified AMD that the technology proposed was not restricted or otherwise prohibited from being transferred. Given this clear feedback, AMD moved ahead with the joint ventures."
Not only does AMD claim it had the green light from multiple government entities to enter into the deal, the post claims that the WSJ article is simply wrong. "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."
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that it should be reported.
All the mainstream non-tech news is reporting it, and he was specifically a tech reporter at a media outlet popular among slashdot readers.
Sit back, crack one open or light one up... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Piledriver I guess, but basically that. WSJ guys are definitely out of the tech loop.
Did Obama's government ever object to China? (Score:1, Insightful)
"Starting in 2015, AMD diligently and proactively briefed the Department of Defense, the Department of Commerce and multiple other agencies within the U.S. Government before entering into the joint ventures. AMD received no objections whatsoever from any agency to the formation of the joint ventures or to the transfer of technology"
This sounds quite consistent with other information about the Obama administration's approach to China and IP.
Re: (Score:2)
I know, right? A 64 core tower, best on the block, easy.
Sounds like Intel has been crying to the press (Score:4, Insightful)
And buying lots of ads in places they usually don't buy. Same old Intel shenanigans, when they can't win on tech they send out the lawyers and marketeers with the monopoly money.
Concerted disinformation camapaign by US Gov (Score:5, Interesting)
Free-market capitalism is an amazing thing. Too bad we're not giving it a chance.
Re: (Score:2)
I can tell you which workers do the chiseling ;) It turns out the Asians are ahead in technology.
For the latest generation (7nm technology node, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_nanometer [wikipedia.org]), there are not many manufacturers and most are in Asia. The Wikipedia site has TSMC in Taiwan and Samsung in South Korea as currently making chips in that technology.
Intel is halfway there, they have a "10nm" process that is supposed to be about equal according to Wikipedia. But so far, they still struggle with manufa
Burden of Proof (Score:1)
Fact is, AMD has been extremely secretive about what exactly was and wasn't transferred, and what restrictions if any, apply, and how those restrictions are enforced. They can't fault us for not believing their side of the story if they refuse to tell us their side of the story.
So you say "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"
So what are those significan
Re: Burden of Proof (Score:1)
The accuser described rather accurately their claim. The rebuttal, however, has no details.
Re: (Score:2)
This analogy doesn't hold. This isn't just a blind accusation. We know AMD did a deal with the Chinese, because they told us this.
What we don't know is what the deal was.
So you don't even know if there was an accusation, much less what it was, but you want the accused to offer proof? That's just dumb.
Re: (Score:2)
Fact is, AMD has been extremely secretive about what exactly was and wasn't transferred, and what restrictions if any, apply, and how those restrictions are enforced. They can't fault us for not believing their side of the story if they refuse to tell us their side of the story.
Businesses are extremely secretive about what exactly was and wasn't transferred to any partner in any industry at any time.
That's like pointing at their feet and complaining that socks are suspicious.
You admit to having beliefs even when you don't have data. In fact, you take it a step further and point at your own lack of data as the source of your beliefs. You're like, the ultimate ignoramus.
several factual errors... (Score:2)
...none of which he identifies.
Also, "AMDâ(TM)s belief is that it did everything correctly". Belief? There is no belief. There is broke the law, or did not.
Re:several factual errors... (Score:4, Insightful)
No, that isn't how law works. You try to do your best and if the government agrees in court, then great. If they agree and then change their mind, that is a question of the courts. If you read all the laws and interpret them the best you know how, that is also a question for the courts. When it comes to federal regulations in business, you are guilty until proven otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
If it works like the BATFE or IRS, then following advice given by the government which turns out to be wrong is not a defense in court.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, "AMDâ(TM)s belief is that it did everything correctly". Belief? There is no belief. There is broke the law, or did not.
The law isn't a BASIC computer program. It is absolutely NEVER that simple.
Re: (Score:2)
...none of which he identifies.
Also, "AMDâ(TM)s belief is that it did everything correctly". Belief? There is no belief. There is broke the law, or did not.
If a basic word like "belief" causes you such grief, how could you possibly hope to understand something like this where everything is narrowly parsed?
WSJ lies? (Score:3)
Someone must be shorting AMD.
Re: (Score:2)
Hope so. I'd like to buy some more.
Re: (Score:3)
Soon they will contribute "cripple AMD" code into GCC and other open source compilers (because their compiler is no longer relevant), and they will illegally pay retailers to not sell AMD chips.
Before anyone goes there, each of these things Intel has already been found guilty of in a court of law, either here in America or across the pond in the EU, and it happened to be when AMD was killing them on single core performance, had real dual cores, and were absolutely
Re: (Score:1)
"when they were gaming benchmarks"
You're saying it like they have stopped..? "Benchmarks" are completely useless, unless they are your own. Commercially or "freely" available are ridiculously doctored. Just look at the differences between different versions, and you'll see how tests which favours AMD just.. vanish, while tests which favour Intel gets repeated through the suite, over and over again, and are given undue weight on top of it in the summary. One pretty obvious example would be how compression be
Re: (Score:2)
Commercially or "freely" available are ridiculously doctored. Just look at the differences between different versions, and you'll see how tests which favours AMD just.. vanish, while tests which favour Intel gets repeated through the suite, over and over again, and are given undue weight on top of it in the summary.
Except for Cinebench, weirdly. It's been showing results favorable to AMD since Zen was released, but still hasn't been "adjusted". Maybe its author is independently wealthy...
Re: (Score:2)
Before anyone goes there, each of these things Intel has already been found guilty of in a court of law, either here in America or across the pond in the EU, and it happened to be when AMD was killing them on single core performance, had real dual cores, and were absolutely crushing Intel on 64-bit.
Intel was only found guilty in the 1991 lawsuit from AMD. The 2005 lawsuit you are referring to eventually resulted in a settlement.
Both viewpoints could be right (Score:2)
1. AMD could have done everything legally by the book, crossed the ts and dotted the is, and did everything in its power to protect its IP. And:
2. China could have still stolen all the IP it needs because the chips were fabed in China and there's always ways to steal IP [battleswarmblog.com], even if it means stealing each variable in each machine in each process step, each mask, etc.
Building anything in China is basically asking that your technology be ripped off.
Re: (Score:1)
About 2:
Duplicating the masks and processing steps does not mean understanding the technology in detail. But then again, perhaps the idea is not to pirate chips for immediate sale in the market, but to have a domestic production capacity in case of sudden new sanctions.
If I was in place of the Chinese I would seriously consider that, even if it only gave me the current generation of chips. It would mean a reprieve of a few years if the USA suddenly try to cut off China from modern CPU technology, before sai
Re: (Score:2)
If I was in place of the Chinese I would seriously consider that, even if it only gave me the current generation of chips. It would mean a reprieve of a few years if the USA suddenly try to cut off China from modern CPU technology, before said chip generation is hopelessly obsolete.
This whole story is about chips that are already obsolete, but still useful for many applications.
The original story is just vapid bullshit. The only new thing that happened to result in a story is that the joint venture was placed on the "entities list" and AMD had to cut off their own joint venture. Which they have done. There is nothing else "new" here to be "news," the technology was already generally available when it was transferred in 2015.
China's American Arsenal (Score:2)
let's see...
[China's American Arsenal — Steemit](https://steemit.com/china/@corbettreport/china-s-american-arsenal)
POA (Score:1)