News on China's scientific and technological development.


Arcgem

New Member
Registered Member
A milder policy than banning Qualcomm would be something like a mandate that foreign chipmakers must manufacture a certain percentage of sold chips (need not be latest node) at designated "reliable" fabs like SMIC, under penalty of heavy fines or tariffs.

That way, foreign chipmakers at least have the option of complying, incurring minimal changes in costs and revenue (assuming SMIC's services are competitively priced). At the same time, this would funnel money into developing local semiconductor industries, while siphoning business away from TSMC and Samsung.

This can be generalized into a policy that would require foreign companies to source some high-tech parts and services locally in exchange for access to Chinese markets. One benefit to this is that this can be enforced for domestic companies as well, framing it as a matter of national security to minimize disruptions in supply chains.
 

gelgoog

Senior Member
Registered Member
A milder policy than banning Qualcomm would be something like a mandate that foreign chipmakers must manufacture a certain percentage of sold chips (need not be latest node) at designated "reliable" fabs like SMIC, under penalty of heavy fines or tariffs.
...
Except China already tried that. Qualcomm was supposed to manufacture 4G chips at SMIC. But then the US government sanctioned SMIC and Qualcomm pulled out of the contract.

Qualcomm has been under regulator's crosshairs in Europe before. They are a monopolist company and if you look at the actual moves the US government and US enterprises have made, it is quite clear, they seek to boost companies like Qualcomm and Apple at the expense of companies like Huawei and ZTE. The other companies they don't care about. Those either don't design their own chips (think Xiaomi or Oppo) or need to use license their IP. Huawei has its own patents so it is a lot more likely they have cross-licensing deals which enable them to reduce royalty payments to companies like Qualcomm.
 

latenlazy

Colonel
when that "buying" is not an option, what is left for you to do? Living forever at the bottom of the food chain? You won't have a chance to develop your "competing offering" if you don't fight back now because the "today's American banning" is design to prevent your growing competence to ever happen.

I would rather rephrase that China is in no position to ban if China has no credible means to paralyze its attacker. This is a nuclear option that I would not actively push for, but a last resort when pushed to the corner. Only if China is willing to take that path loud and clear would US and any of its possible followers carefully think what they are going to loose. That's what happened in Korea in 1950s and its implication on US' China policy later on. If this works and I believe so, then China does not need to do it, so called 以战止战 (prepared for war to avoid a war).
If open trade were that preventive of industrial development how did China get this far in the first place? Protectionism or economic isolation may certainly produce national champions faster but it does so because your quality and standards for growing are lower. Building national champions is harder in an open system but that’s because you’re being forced to compete with the best, the standard you have to catch up to is higher. One of these has a better material outcome. Ultimately I think China should still be as self sufficient as it needs to be but as open trade as it can.
 

taxiya

Colonel
Registered Member
If open trade were that preventive of industrial development how did China get this far in the first place? Protectionism or economic isolation may certainly produce national champions faster but it does so because your quality and standards for growing are lower. Building national champions is harder in an open system but that’s because you’re being forced to compete with the best, the standard you have to catch up to is higher. One of these has a better material outcome. Ultimately I think China should still be as self sufficient as it needs to be but as open trade as it can.
Because up to the time of Obama's blockade of Intel chip, China was not picked out as the number 1 target. So China had the chance of benefiting in open trade with the US. It was the Soviet Union then 911 that kept US busy having no time to pick on China. Now time has changed.

I must emphasize that I still advocate open trade EXCEPT anyone who put up a blockade. In all my posts on this subject, I have never promoted any protectionism actions against any country that does not put a blockade (out of WTO rules) against China.

To illustrate my idea, once US drops the ban on Huawei and UEV machine to SMIC, China would drop limitations on Qualcomm related things. This is just another tit-for-tat in the ongoing trade war between US and China. My proposal has nothing to do with the idea of free trade.
 

Top