America's Commerce Department is Reviewing China's Use of RISC-V Chips (reuters.com) 17
An anonymous reader shared a report this week from Reuters:
The U.S. Department of Commerce is reviewing the national security implications of China's work in open-source RISC-V chip technology, according to a letter sent to U.S. lawmakers...
The technology is being used by major Chinese tech firms such as Alibaba Group Holding and has become a new front in the strategic competition over advanced chip technology between the U.S. and China. In November, 18 U.S. lawmakers from both houses of Congress pressed the Biden administration for its plans to prevent China "from achieving dominance in ... RISC-V technology and leveraging that dominance at the expense of U.S. national and economic security."
In a letter last week to the lawmakers that was seen by Reuters on Tuesday, the Commerce Department said it is "working to review potential risks and assess whether there are appropriate actions under Commerce authorities that could effectively address any potential concerns."
But the Commerce Department also noted that it would need to tread carefully to avoid harming U.S. companies that are part of international groups working on RISC-V technology.
The technology is being used by major Chinese tech firms such as Alibaba Group Holding and has become a new front in the strategic competition over advanced chip technology between the U.S. and China. In November, 18 U.S. lawmakers from both houses of Congress pressed the Biden administration for its plans to prevent China "from achieving dominance in ... RISC-V technology and leveraging that dominance at the expense of U.S. national and economic security."
In a letter last week to the lawmakers that was seen by Reuters on Tuesday, the Commerce Department said it is "working to review potential risks and assess whether there are appropriate actions under Commerce authorities that could effectively address any potential concerns."
But the Commerce Department also noted that it would need to tread carefully to avoid harming U.S. companies that are part of international groups working on RISC-V technology.
Now this one is wrong (Score:2)
This isn't "they have a major agitprop channel to our population", it's not "they have a major electronic spy network deployed", and it's not "they can compromise our infrastructure".
This one is, "they might start building their own and stop paying us royalties, so we need to hamstring them ASAP".
I mean, it's historically accurate American foreign policy, but it's still wrong and a lot more difficult than the TikTok ban to justify while claiming the high road.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, that was just a flex so Ivanka could get a patent deal on the cheap.
Re: (Score:2)
They probably cannot do it. RISK-V is under a free license. They are trying to control something they do not own.
Also, these attempts to restrict China seem to be more and more desperate.
Re: Now this one is wrong (Score:2)
...and it shows that the other instances are wrong/bogus too, and the moral standing is totally manufactured.
At least they now separate national security and economic security. Previously, they were conflated. Really the USA is resisting its decline by squashing others, China in this case, down, rather than competing more fervently.
Also, I've heard that China is a significant contributor to risc-v, so everyone would lose out. Though, I guess the sinophobic USA would claim those contributions are attempts to
Re: (Score:2)
There are some legitimate complaints for both sides - China is not a free country and can compete in many areas with a manufactured advantage. The US is not known for honesty and integrity in trade, and will often use political, economic, or military muscle to dominate rather than try to compete compete on a level playing field.
If I'm going to choose one over the other, it is going to be the US, but neither one is 'the good guy' here.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, the USA, among other Western nations of course, made use of that cheap manufacturing advantage by having moved a lot of domestic production to China for so many years.
Great idea, corporate capitalism. Who would have guessed there'd be consequences to squeezing every dime out of production.
You can look at it all you want, Commerce Dept. (Score:2)
But there's limits to what you can do if it's a multinational open-source design.
Nobody's exporting anything to China in this case. Nobody's exfiltrating data to China. You can't call the RISC-V CEO in for questioning any more than you can the Bitcoin CEO [imgflip.com]. Yes they could possibly harass members of the RISC-V working group(s) and punish them for science in the name of the public good (which, hate to say it, benefits everyone whether or not they're your geopolitical enemies).
I'm not even a big fan of RISC-
Re: (Score:2)
Guess it depends on your definition of Open Source but the one I'm familiar with requires that the license used doesn't discriminate against a individual or a group of people and that it must not discriminate against fields of endeavor
May as well face it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why the hell would you want a 486 handheld mini PC? You can emulate one on an ARM chip instead, and get better performance and battery life.
All IP was transferred to RISC-V International (Score:3)
That's the whold point, isn't it ? (Score:1)
Isn't this the whole reason to use RISC-V? Being open and free?