16 Comments
Jan 30, 2023Liked by Dylan Patel

Good note. Thank you.

Expand full comment

There is no long term vision for the sanctions. Do we really think with all the scientists and engineers that China has and will have, they won't be producing all these tools? 2 years ago we didn't imagine they would be producing chips at 7nm. I suspect they've been working on them for several years already.

If they start building these tools, western supply chain will be devastated.

Expand full comment

“Decades of state-sponsored corporate espionage, hacking, dumping, and draconian restrictions including forced tech transfers for market access from China have led to retaliatory sanctions on China’s access to the 21st century’s most important industry, semiconductors“

The official reason for the sanctions is national security not what you wrote. I don’t think what you wrote is correct regardless, this is part of a wider goal to contain China economically so it doesn’t threaten US hegemony. There have been very few proven cases of corporate espionage and the joint venture model which I believe is the source of the “forced tech transfer” complaints is optional. These companies are not being forced to do anything. Also recently Tesla entered into the China market with no joint venture. I believe there are many other companies too (apple, Microsoft?)

Expand full comment

Thanks, this is really useful. I'm a bit confused by this bit:

> The complete lack of restrictions around photoresists represents a significant hole that governmental regulations have not contemplated. [...] Shipment of photoresists must also be stopped as Western governments do not know what process node existing DUV tools are being used.

Doesn't ECCN 3C002 place restrictions on all the relevant photoresists? Or am I misunderstanding something? https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-15/subtitle-B/chapter-VII/subchapter-C/part-774#Supplement-No.-1-to-Part-774

Expand full comment

Placeat quis in eiu

Expand full comment

When will be i phone sold under 100usd?

Expand full comment