D
Deleted member 15949
Guest
No, not really. The main problem is that older nodes have gotten progressively more capital intensive and have seen a bunch of firms leave the space including the two main US fabs: Intel and GloFo
Chinese semiconductor industry
- Thread starter Hendrik_2000
- Start date
- Status
He's totally wrong. The only article I can find from back then about that lawsuit is this.
Does this seem like parity to you?
Then there's this.
So in 2002 SMIC was ramping up 250nm and had initial 180nm capability. While TSMC had 180nm in 1998.
This chart shows TSMC's process introduction by year.
Does this seem like parity to you?
Then there's this.
So in 2002 SMIC was ramping up 250nm and had initial 180nm capability. While TSMC had 180nm in 1998.
This chart shows TSMC's process introduction by year.
Last edited:
Export license control isn't the same as the US arbitrarily attacking the rest of the world for doing business with Huawei, or whoever they don't like, like in "Huawei's 3nm design will be basically illegal to manufacture anywhere in the world", or sanctioning European firms for participating in Nord Stream 2, or sanctioning Iranian oil, or blocking other countries from selling their own uranium to China.
US origin components? Legally subjected? The US has been illegally seizing and stealing other nations' properties all along. "Legally" doesn't mean "decided by US".
The US has no legitimacy over "anywhere in the world". It's a propaganda to say as if the US owned the entire world.
Iranian oil isn't designed/manufactured in the US and has zero US origin components yet the US still claims it's illegal that Iran is selling 100% their own oil to other countries.
D
Deleted member 15949
Guest
Yeah, secondary sanctions are an annoying hellscape
You still believe that? Russia has been getting hit by US sanctions on the MC-21 airplane project for quite some time. Initially the US had that defined percentage at a certain level, then they kept decreasing it until right now on certain components the percentage of US origin content sanctioned, the threshold, is zero. Which means you can't even have a US origin screw or bolt in it. Then there's the chilling effect something like this produces. Other partners on the MC-21 project in Europe are telling the Russians unoficially they won't supply them due to fear of being sanctioned themselves.
Plus, like others said, the US can simply keep ratcheting up the sanctions as they want. They threatened to sanction AllSeas for building Nord Stream 2, by cutting their monetary transactions on the dollar, they sanctioned the Venezuelan oil company by seizing their US assets, even assets outside the US were seized. Plus like others said, Iran is supposed to not even be able to sell its own oil. Just look at what they did to Iraq when Saddam was in power as an example. At one point Iraq couldn't sell their own oil, not purchase food, or medicine.
Last edited:
According to , TSMC's 1st 180nm production was in 2000. IBM had its first production in 1998 and Intel in 1999.
However, this is besides the point. The US government assessed in 2002 that China was a mere 2 years behind. What other company in China back then was more advanced than SMIC?
, they offered 180nm in 1998, which I assume is the year when they qualified the process. In 2001, SMIC qualified its 180nm node process. That's a 3 year gap. Therefore, the US government assessment sounds plausible.
Last edited:
I am debating only the effectiveness of US export control regulations in holding China back, not their ethics.
D
Deleted member 15949
Guest
Please get these details right. The de minimis for commercial aerospace items to Russia is 25%. The de minimis for all arms (ITAR) items to anywhere in the world is 0%. The MC-21 is fairly clearly commercial aerospace. The informal effects are knottier but there's still significant European participation in the MC-21 project.
CAATSA sanctions for Nord Stream 2 and Magnitsky sanctions for Venezuela are fairly clearly defined. CAATSA and Magnitsky are fairly clear statutory law though the Citgo case was due to debt and the Iraq sanctions were under the UNSC (and thus had China's and Russia's approval).
Please, if you are going to comment on sanctions, learn some of the mechanics of the sanctions and the underlying legal regimes.
It is way more complicated than what you think @SleepyStudent
AeroComposit (who makes the MC-21 wings), and Aviadvigatel (who makes the PD-14 engine) were put under the Entity List.
The US can just keep squeezing the Russians more and more.
The United Aircraft Corporation is one of the enterprises sanctioned under CAATSA for example.
With regards to Venezuelan Citgo, the debt is bullshit. Their asset seizure in the US happened around the same time the gold reserves the Venezuelan government had in the Bank of England were frozen. They even intercept Iranian tankers in the open sea headed to Venezuela.
AeroComposit (who makes the MC-21 wings), and Aviadvigatel (who makes the PD-14 engine) were put under the Entity List.
The US can just keep squeezing the Russians more and more.
The United Aircraft Corporation is one of the enterprises sanctioned under CAATSA for example.
With regards to Venezuelan Citgo, the debt is bullshit. Their asset seizure in the US happened around the same time the gold reserves the Venezuelan government had in the Bank of England were frozen. They even intercept Iranian tankers in the open sea headed to Venezuela.
Last edited:
- Status