Arm China Goes Rogue, Ex-CEO Blocking the Business

[Pickles von Brine]

Quote

Arm Ltd., owned by Softbank, has a division specially tailored for China, called Arm China. That division used to operate in Shenzen and it cooperated with Chinese customers. Today in a surprising turn of events, we have information that UK-based Arm Ltd. accuses Arm China ex-CEO of blocking its business, as the Chinese division goes rogue. The Arm China division used to have Mr. Allen Wu as its CEO, who was fired back in June. However, Mr. Wu has refused to cooperate and refused to step down from his position, remaining in control of the business without the consent of UK-based headquarters.

 

Quote

Arm’s China boss has been accused of covertly setting up a Cayman Islands private equity fund to raise millions of pounds from Chinese investors, without its parent company’s consent.

It is the latest twist in what has become one of the most gripping boardroom battles of the year. For the past few weeks, Arm, the £24bn Cambridgeshire-based chip designer, has been trying to wrestle control of its Chinese joint venture after trying to oust the chief executive of its Chinese venture.

The battle has turned ugly. On June 4, Allen Wu, the chairman and chief executive of Arm’s China business, was sacked by board members, including Arm and local investor Hopu, The board appointed Ken Phua and Phil Tang as the venture’s interim co-CEOs.

In response, Arm revealed an investigation had uncovered undisclosed conflicts of interest and violations of employee rules. The Chinese venture hit back by calling the allegations groundless and claimed Tang himself had been dismissed May 26 for unspecified “major violations”. Arm China and Wu did not respond to requests for comment.
 

However, local executives were keen to stress their ambition. In an interview last year, an Arm China executive claimed it had designed a local chip encrypted to Chinese specifications for Huawei’s Hisilicon division. And unbeknownst to the UK leadership of Arm, Wu had been further flexing his muscles.

Sources told The Telegraph Wu set up an independent investment fund, Alphatecture, without prior knowledge of Arm, Hopu or SoftBank. Shanghai securities and SEC documents reveal Alphatecture was registered in Wu’s name, had raised at least $10m, and was based in the Cayman Islands.

Source

Some more info on it from the Telegraph

This is just scary. ARM china looks to have been doing some scary things behind everyone's back. Possibly this could be another ploy for china to get more IP? I am unsure. Either way, this is disturbing. 
If this is the case, this spells out to be a nightmare for the sale of ARM by softbank. It doesn't look good when you have rogue execs causing problems. 

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, Pickles - Lord of the Jar said:

He gets fired yet still is in control?

Dude was like

 

[Jurrunio]

When the lower brain doesnt cooperate with the one above

 

[Jurrunio]

19 minutes ago, VegetableStu said:

sadly, not surprising. there's a reason why stories of chinese IP/company shanghaiing still persist

 

not sorry for pun

It's "our" IP, wdym sadly?

[Sauron]

Nobody:

Absolutely nobody:

Me:

Spoiler

JUST ABOLISH COPYRIGHT

 

[Haro]

Wait what?

[Moonzy]

17 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Nobody:

Absolutely nobody:

Me:

  Reveal hidden contents

JUST ABOLISH COPYRIGHT

 

you mean, just be china?

[Sauron]

3 minutes ago, Moonzy said:

you mean, just be china?

Pretty sure there's more going on in China... but instead of whining when they take advantage of copyright law by just infringing it with no consequences we can just abolish it to even the playing field. And also because copyright is a sin against art and progress.

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, Moonzy said:

you mean, just be china?

Even China doesn’t do that.

[mr moose]

7 hours ago, Sauron said:

Pretty sure there's more going on in China... but instead of whining when they take advantage of copyright law by just infringing it with no consequences we can just abolish it to even the playing field. And also because copyright is a sin against art and progress.

 

That won't even the playing field, If the playing field has no rules then there is no winner and there is no way to punish those who are causing more damage than good.    Copyright and IP law are essential for development of technology. Maybe someday in the future when wealth has a different distribution model and is generated through services rather than products,  then maybe it can be abolished, but until then,  no guarantees a company or individual has rights to their own research means no research.

 

 

[dizmo]

You can only go so far by continuously stealing other peoples IP. That will be China's greatest failing; not having people that can innovate, only those that can copy. You'll never get ahead with that mindset. You'll be at best on par.

 

Maybe that's a good thing. China needs to be stopped.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

14 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

Copyright and IP law are essential for development of technology.

That is, to say the least, highly debatable. It's not something that can be "proved" or "disproved" as it's very general, but it is safe to say that the case against it is very strong. There are both good reasons why copyright and patents (which is not the same as reward to innovation - those are very, very specific forms of linking innovation (or patents) to rents) could have positive, neutral, or negative effects on innovation, as well as evidence that often it is the latter force that dominates

The conviction that the CP/IP system has a net positive effect on innovation is valid to have, but not grounded on solid evidence. The notion that not only it is good for innovation, but also the only way to foster innovation, is much harder to defend.

 

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

That is, to say the least, highly debatable. It's not something that can be "proved" or "disproved" as it's very general, but it is safe to say that the case against it is very strong. There are both good reasons why copyright and patents (which is not the same as reward to innovation - those are very, very specific forms of linking innovation (or patents) to rents) could have positive, neutral, or negative effects on innovation, as well as evidence that often it is the latter force that dominates

The conviction that the CP/IP system has a net positive effect on innovation is valid to have, but not grounded on solid evidence. The notion that not only it is good for innovation, but also the only way to foster innovation, is much harder to defend.

 

 

 

https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/04/03/what-if-we-dont-have-sufficient-intellectual-property-rights/id=56169/

 

I know a lot of people want to debate it, but the reality is we have almost 300 years of IP law and business to look back on and see that where no IP protection exists neither does the money.   Even in china where IP is questionable at best the products rolling out of the factories are all cheaper copies reducing the value of everything.   They only make money because they make in bulk, anyone who can't match their price on manufacturing has no hope.   

[thorhammerz]

1 hour ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

It's not something that can be "proved" or "disproved" as it's very general

Show one the incentives, and one will be shown the outcomes .

 

Humans are self centered first and foremost as a biological instinct.

[Trik'Stari]

It's almost as if doing business in a nation with zero respect for intellectual property rights, is a fucking stupid idea.

 

And yes I realize my own hypocrisy considering my... "downloading" habits. My point still stands.

 

9 hours ago, Sauron said:

Nobody:

Absolutely nobody:

Me:

  Reveal hidden contents

JUST ABOLISH COPYRIGHT

 

Or, just adjust the laws around it to be slightly more reasonable. Rather than destroying all incentive for innovation and the advancement of society as a whole.

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

 

 

And yes I realize my own hypocrisy considering my... "downloading" habits. My point still stands.

 

I don't mind hypocrisy, so long as people are honest about it.  I.E we all have flaws and misgivings because no one is perfect.  Trying to argue the entire system of human development should change so one can keep downloading and not put any effort into considering the the system and what those changes would do, is worse in my mind than admitting to certain behaviors but also understanding why they are generally wrong.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

 

 

https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/04/03/what-if-we-dont-have-sufficient-intellectual-property-rights/id=56169/

 

I know a lot of people want to debate it, but the reality is we have almost 300 years of IP law and business to look back on and see that where no IP protection exists neither does the money.  

The problem is that looking back to those 300 years in fact illustrates the pitfalls of IP and how it has repeatedly stalled innovation.

 

I can provide a reference on the actual arguments against IP in its current form. It's not necessary to agree with it (at least not with everything; facts are facts still), but if you are interested in understanding that side of the argument to then maybe still disagree, I can pass on the link - and it won't come in the format of a lobby's blog post, but straight from two top economists. As you can imagine, it won't be a 5-minute reading either, though.

 

On the other hand, if it's going to boil down to a matter of faith, there's no point in doing so, it would be a waste of time.

[Trik'Stari]

Just now, mr moose said:

I don't mind hypocrisy, so long as people are honest about it.  I.E we all have flaws and misgivings because no one is perfect.  Trying to argue the entire system of human development should change so one can keep downloading and not put any effort into considering the the system and what those changes would do, is worse in my mind than admitting to certain behaviors but also understanding why they are generally wrong.

I do it because I am broke, bored, and honestly not willing to pay full price for some things.

 

Games, for instance. If I like a game I've "downloaded", I'll not finish it, and give myself a reason to buy it in the future. If I don't enjoy it.... I'll just delete it an not buy it.

 

Pretty much the same thing for movies and TV Shows. If I like it, I'll end up buying it so I can have access to it in the future, if not... meh? The only exception I make is exclusivity. For instance, Greyhound. Wonderful movie, but I'm not going to pay Apple for the "privilege" or getting it on only their platform.

 

A shame, because it's an amazing movie. I'd have bought it if it were on Amazon or any other platform.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

32 minutes ago, thorhammerz said:

Show one the incentives, and one will be shown the outcomes .

Exactly, and that's why you don't need patents to have innovation (there are incentives to innovation without patents), and why the patent system does indeed harm innovation (it disincentives innovations blocked by patents and encourages rent-seeking stagnation - see for example the history of the steam engine).

[Trik'Stari]

5 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Exactly, and that's why you don't need patents to have innovation (there are incentives to innovation without patents), and why the patent system does indeed harm innovation (it disincentives innovations blocked by patents and encourages rent-seeking stagnation - see for example the history of the steam engine).

I agree to an extent, but the issue is more stupid business executives and less IP law.

 

Example:

 

This was an amazing fan project, that CBS hit with a cease and desist, because they were worried it would out-compete STD. The issue here is that CBS executives are fucking morons, not that intellectual property law enabled them to do what they did.

 

What reason would anyone have, to come up with something new, if anyone else could just steal it for themselves?

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

The problem is that looking back to those 300 years in fact illustrates the pitfalls of IP and how it has repeatedly stalled innovation.

 

I can provide a reference on the actual arguments against IP in its current form. It's not necessary to agree with it (at least not with everything; facts are facts still), but if you are interested in understanding that side of the argument to then maybe still disagree, I can pass on the link - and it won't come in the format of a lobby's blog post, but straight from two top economists. As you can imagine, it won't be a 5-minute reading either, though.

 

On the other hand, if it's going to boil down to a matter of faith, there's no point in doing so, it would be a waste of time.

I can think of plenty of examples the look that way, but they don't exclude the fact that the existence of that patent still drove humanity forward.  Best example in my mind is James Watt, his patents and control over steam in the late 18th century held back the evolution of the steam train a good 20 years in my reckoning. however that patent was also immense in propelling the industrial revolution forward.   

 

Please PM them, if I haven't already read them I'll read them later.  BTW, nearly everyone is a lobbyist when it comes to discussions on economies.

 

 

 

 

[thorhammerz]

19 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

What reason would anyone have, to come up with something new, if anyone else could just steal it for themselves?

What many from the consumer POV generally do not acknowledge, is that those who start businesses, innovate, and continue to innovate, do so as primarily a means to an end (that is, the construction of personal wealth not otherwise obtainable from a 9-5 job). Moving the world forward is a welcome byproduct, but a byproduct it remains so long as the financial incentives (to the degree they exist in our current economic structure) exist.

 

The more cynical would call this "reaching for yield" by (primarily) the GenX'ers and older millennials as a function of the demographics structure (T-bills into bonds, bonds into stocks, stocks into private equity / venture capital / self-startup, etc).

 

Quote

Exactly, and that's why you don't need patents to have innovation (there are incentives to innovation without patents), and why the patent system does indeed harm innovation (it disincentives innovations blocked by patents and encourages rent-seeking stagnation - see for example the history of the steam engine).

Hey, if you choose to believe humans prioritize the good of the whole versus the good of the self, you are most welcome to. The European experiment has been useful in many regards on that front - a shame it's about to implode .

[SpaceGhostC2C]

2 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

What reason would anyone have, to come up with something new

There are definitely profits to be made by innovating, because it gives you an edge, even if temporarily, and boosts your brand image. This puts you on a better position to further innovate and stay ahead. It's something that happens more often than people thinks. And that's besides any other non-monetary incentives, just purely from a business perspective.

On the other hand, if you can patent-block competitors from catching up, you lose your incentive to continuously innovate, as extracting rent form the existing product is more profitable. It also discourages potential innovators from entering the industry.

Once you take that into account, it become clear that the current IP system can only be good in a quantitative sense, i.e., the positive effects in soem cases outweighing the negatives in other cases. That rules out clear-cut, ex-ante dismissals of the case against it.

I find the opposite view, that the negatives outweigh the positives, to be better founded. Either way, discarding the debate cannot be an informed opinion.

 

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Please PM them, if I haven't already read them I'll read them later. 

Sure. In fact I'll leave it here in case someone else is interested - and then I'll stop derailing already, gone too far  They'll do a better job than me anyway 

Reference: Against Intelectual Monopoly, by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

Just now, thorhammerz said:

Hey, if you choose to believe humans prioritize the good of the whole versus the good of the self, you are most welcome to.

I don't think you understood a word I wrote.

 

 

[thorhammerz]

2 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

I don't think you understood a word I wrote.

The sentiment is mutual, but I digress. Have a great evening (or morning / afternoon) .