Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company suspended shipments to China-based chip designer Sophgo after a chip it made was found on a Huawei AI processor, according to two people familiar with the matter.

Sophgo had ordered chips from TSMC that matched the one found on Huawei’s Ascend 910B, the people said. Huawei is restricted from buying the technology to protect U.S. national security. Reuters could not determine how the chip ended up on the Huawei product.

Tech research firm TechInsights discovered the TSMC chip on Huawei’s Ascend 910B when it took apart the multi-chip processor, a different source told Reuters on Tuesday. Alerted to the finding, about two weeks ago TSMC notified the U.S., the source said.

  • SharkAttak@kbin.melroy.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    Reuters could not determine how the chip ended up on the Huawei product.

    Try to make an educated guess…

  • CosmoNova@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    2 months ago

    B-b-but China said all their chips are self made and that sanctions only accelerate their technological progress. You mean they got caught lying through their teeth again?

    • dontgooglefinderscult@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      34
      ·
      2 months ago

      Huawei stated no such thing. Huawei is also not “China” no matter how much US corporations want to make you believe it is so you can continue to buy NSA backed doored US designed products.

      • jaxxed@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        The CCP definitely have more say in Chinese tech than the US Government has over US tech. In China, the government controls industry, in the US industry controls government. That said, both are likely backdoored.

        • dontgooglefinderscult@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          2 months ago

          You posted three articles of of China using the US’s existing backdoors. This is why Intel was banned in China.

          To your loaded question, because we do audits on hardware (no backdoor) and software (sometimes a backdoor, don’t use wechat).

          We know the CCP isn’t going to backdoor hardware, and it’s really simple why not. Backdoors go both ways. Only the most ridiculously stupidly arrogant country would put in a backdoor assuming they’re the only ones that will ever be able to use it.

  • catloaf@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    2 months ago

    How do US restrictions factor in here? TSMC is a Taiwanese company with only one operational plant in the US, the majority are in Taiwan, China, and Japan.

    • plz1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      75
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      The US is the primary military force protecting Taiwan, by treaty. That’s likely why.

    • misk@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      They could ignore sanctions but that would mean they’d be sanctioned as well. Pretty much every manufacturer and financial institution has to obey laws in multiple jurisdictions if they want to operate within those markets.

      • RobotToaster@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        2 months ago

        Would the USA actually sanction TSMC though? Wouldn’t that be a massive blow to companies like apple?

        • Entropywins@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          2 months ago

          They need asml lithography equipment without which they are a nothing burger and to get that you need to play nice with US and EU.

          • misk@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            18
            ·
            2 months ago

            Lithography but also clients like Apple, Intel, AMD and so on. Without them they’re also toast. World today is so interconnected that at large scale it’s really hard not to be compliant with sanctions.

        • jaxxed@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          You are forgetting that Taiwan has an interest in supporting the U.S. led sanctions.

        • trolololol@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          People talk about Apple only but every competitive chip designer (which Intel is not) depends on TSMC, so they all get set back.

          But TSMC gets to close, and what’s more dangerous for the political stability of Taiwan is that since they don’t have oil they lose West military protection.

    • vinnymac@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      2 months ago

      Your friend knows a secret recipe for the best chocolate chip cookies. Your mother owns the best ovens in town.

      Your friend cuts a deal with your mother to use her oven exclusively. Your mother agrees knowing she’ll get to charge your friend every time they use the ovens.

      This is like that. The main value is in the design (recipe). Modern foundry’s are also complex and difficult to operate affordably, but they exist all over the planet. It’s ultimately the partnerships that makes it all possible.

      • trolololol@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Not all foundries are the same. Taiwan is leading the way for quite a long time.

        There’s a lot of money in both intellectual property and physical manufacturing. Trying to do an analogy with software is unfair because in software most of the costs is labor, and once the first copy is made you can make and sell as many extra copies as you want. Physical manufacturing needs machine maintenance, and expensive materials in this case.

    • realitista@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      2 months ago

      There is likely a lot of US tech in that chip. TSMC is just a fab, they don’t have a lot of their own technology, they buy thousands of pieces of tech from all over the world to make their chips. A lot of that comes from the US.

      • sour@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yes, but it would be an even bigger blow to TSMC if all US companies would stop buying from them. I’m pretty sure nvidia, AMD and Apple make a very sizable part of their customer base.

        • HighlyRegardedArtist@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          Not really. China would just buy it all if given the chance and the US companies would be fucked, since TSMC is practically a monopoly within its field at the moment.

          • sour@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            2 months ago

            It’s not as easy, as TSMC needs ASML hardware, which wouldn’t sell it to TSMC anymore because they also want to sell to US companies.

            • HighlyRegardedArtist@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 months ago

              I didn’t say it would be easy, but anything TSMC currently produces would likely find a new buyer even with no US customers, so in the short run the loser would not be TSMC. In the long run, it’s pointless to speculate, since US would probably try to level Taiwan down rather than let China have the semiconductor sector to itself… Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that, though.

          • jaxxed@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Do you think China could soak enough capacity to get TSMC to turn away from all of its major customers? Isn’t most of their industrial design focused on consumer products with automaton, not high end chips? Are there many high end Chinese chip designs?

        • realitista@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          I’m sure TSMC would become untenable if either the US stopped buying or selling to them, though I tend to disagree and think that not licensing US tech would kill them faster. I’m pretty sure that much of that tech is not available from anywhere else and would just cause a full stop of their business, at least for some time. It’s easier to survive on lower revenue than it is on a fully shuttered assembly line.

    • Khanzarate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Countries willing to pass on a US patent to China stop getting the chips (or, in this case, chip-making jobs, realistically, but that still hurts)

      Also Taiwan doesn’t wanna help China and even if a US sanction was just an excuse to hurt China and get away with it they’d probably do it.

      Edit: in this case, this chip is “foreign-produced items […] that are the direct product of U.S. technology or software”, according to the article. I feel it was implied but clarity is always good. US technology, used with permission in a Taiwanese good, and that permission could be retracted.

    • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      2 months ago

      US law permits US control over any company in the world that uses US technology.

      • jaxxed@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        US legal mechanisms for internationally enforcing US law are not like domestic enforcement mechanisms. The scenarios that the pro-China folks here are talking about involve a (completely unrealistic) switch in Taiwanese allegiance, that would make US economic enforcement less relevant, and US military enforcement a serious international risk.

        There are just a lot of tankies commenting, and you have to be able to interpret their logic.

        • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          The US claim on TSMC, are based on it using ASML (Dutch) equipment which has patent licenses from US. I was just answering the puzzling US colonial power roots. There may come a point of challenging the colonial patent power, while still attempting to pay for the patent, or China’s “delete America” program may get more allies or rebellion from the colonies.

          China/BRICS is a much bigger market than US, and economics means figuring out a way to earn from all sides is motivated. US promises to isolate itself even more under Trump, and there is a limit to how much it will be respected.

  • 0x0@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    32
    ·
    2 months ago

    Taiwan-based firm stops shipments to China-based firm due to US-says-so? Maybe Taiwan should join BRICS.

    • Vilian@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      Taiwan-based firm stops shipments to China-based firm due to US-says-so?

      Because the only one impeding China to genocide Taiwan is the US

  • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    34
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    When I read “processor” in this context, I’m usually thinking of a discrete component. Wat?

    I could understand being surprised to find a certain processor in a chip, but how y’all fitting chips in processors? I’m guessing that this is just another tech “journalism” failure.

      • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        33
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        You don’t seem to understand what I’m saying.

        I’d be surprised to find a Cortex M0 in an SoC that billed itself as having a Cortex M33, for example.

        A System on a Chip can often have a CPU, GPU, and other subprocessors all on one die, but multiple chips on a processor is backwards.

        • catloaf@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          28
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          So… you’re saying calling a productized die a “chip” is inappropriate? I think you’d be in the minority.

            • Bezier@suppo.fi
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              That is not very friendly.

              Anyway, here’s a picture of what I believe is a multi-chip processor.

              • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                14
                ·
                2 months ago

                That’s something else entirely. It literally even says “chiplet” at the top. It is a collection of discrete processor chips.

                • Adanisi
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  11
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  These have existed before the term “chiplet”.

                • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Seems my other, completely reasonable retort was removed 🙄

                  So all I’ll say is: based on you seemingly not understanding what a chip is, it seriously brings into disrepute your claim that you are a professional in the semiconductor industry.