Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

European Commission Launches $12 Billion Chip Support Campaign

Posted by timothy on from the there-would-be-this-thing-called-comparative-advantage dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Neelie Kroes, European Commission vice president responsible for the digital economy, wants to use 5 billion euros of European Union tax payers' money, together with matching funds from the chip industry, to recreate European success in semiconductors similar to that of Airbus. Because of its strategic importance to wealth creation Kroes wants Europe to reverse its decline in chip manufacturing and move back up from 10 percent to 20 percent of global production."

62 of 111 comments (clear)

  1. I am willing to go along ... by pablo_max · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Assuming that what comes out of it is able to be used by ANY EU based (i.e. PAYING taxes here) firm. I think another stipulation to using any of the research money or outcome of said research should be that the firm which is also based on EU, must also produce the resulting products inside the EU. Not spending my money to gain a competitive advantage and then turn around and outsource all production to China or Brazil.
    Basically, if we are paying, we better get real benefits.

    1. Re:I am willing to go along ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hi! Are you the guy who will release the 5 billion to the EC? I'm planning to start a new business, can you help me out? I just need a couple of hundred thousand euros. Pleeeeeeeaaase?

    2. Re:I am willing to go along ... by Rockoon · · Score: 2

      Ultimately this costs each EU citizen 10 euros each, on average.

      I always try to consider the scenario where instead of taxation funding it, that the government instead set up a government-managed corporation that issued and sold stock to fund the project, with a share of future profits going to shareholders.

      Some would say that this obviously doesnt work because otherwise a private corporation would already be doing it for the same purposes as the government project, however private corporations like to show actual profit and stuff.. and if it "obviously doesnt work" then its not obviously profitable.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    3. Re:I am willing to go along ... by Teun · · Score: 3, Insightful
      In the light of this proposal profit is more than direct return on investment.

      There might and will be benefits for society at large, people get jobs, knowledge is gained and other new ventures can develop.

      Those benefits don't show up in the books of investment bankers but are still very real.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    4. Re:I am willing to go along ... by pablo_max · · Score: 1

      Hi back, jackass.

      I know it is difficult for you to understand this, but in the EU, things are a little bit different than in the United States. While corporations do have a lot of power here, it is nothing like what you see across the ocean. We, the voters, tend to react more more actively to things which we disagree with. Not in every case of course, but on the whole, this is true.
      So, in a way yes, I am that guy. I am tax paying, voting resident in the EU.

    5. Re:I am willing to go along ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not as simple as that.

      Improved infrastructure provides a moderate benefit to a great many individuals and businesses which can add up to a net profit for the country. This doesn't mean that it would have been a good investment for a private company to build the infrastructure, because it is not possible to capture all the value that the infrastructure creates. For example, a toll road operator doesn't get paid for the reduced pressure on surrounding roads, but the users of those roads still benefit.

      Similarly, this EU investment may make a net profit for the EU but that doesn't mean a corporation would make a profit doing the same thing.

      Or it may be a giant waste of money. But the fact it wouldn't work as a corporation tells us nothing either way.

    6. Re:I am willing to go along ... by SomeKDEUser · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is a really dumb way of thinking about how the government spends money. A corporation does not need to make a profit: it needs to make a profit now. And not just now, but also high enough.

      Governments are special in that they can finance things which bring in enormous profit in the very long run (fundamental research, very large infrastructure projects) or which have very large positive externalities (free roads). Without governments, you could not build dams: large ones become profitable after 50 years. No bank, no insurance company will accept such long-term risks: they may well not exist that long. Only countries can be reasonably certain of existing within such stretches of time.

      TL;DR; it is an essential function of governments to fund long-term, high-risk projects.

    7. Re:I am willing to go along ... by bhima · · Score: 1

      I suspect that if the results of this effort were released with an appropriate hybrid Open-Source license, as well as providing both the Open-Source contributors & corporate funders /contributors with some sort of tax break, that more European people and firms would see more benefits, than if the results were locked up in some sort of Airbus-esque version of Intel. Comparing the business strategy that Intel pursued with Itanium to ARM's, I become more certain in this line of thinking.

      Or to put it another way, an entity which was more like ARM than Intel or AMD but which did not have a foundational priority to maximize shareholder returns (i.e. not a Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung (GmbH)) but instead with the priority to remain non-profit by folding all profits back into development efforts. And which produced and sold IP in similar ways as ARM but with hybrid licensing schemes, Open Source & non commercial projects could have access to certain parts of the IP, while commercial & proprietary projects would be required to buy a license or somehow contribute in kind. If the tax breaks for contributions were designed skilfully enough, then corporations inside the EU and paying taxes to the EU could, in a sense, spend less on R&D than it would cost to develop a new chip, by working on this EU wide collaboration and receive a commercial licence of similar value in return. The EU could protect cases of a 3rd party mass producing these chips as a commercial enterprise without a commercial license, with existing IP, contractual, and tax laws. So all corporations with EU subsidiaries would be obliged to follow these licenses, if they wished to use the chips and all chips or devices with chips would require the correct licensing to be sold in the EU.

      In this way, any company could produce, or have a 3rd party produce, chips based on this IP and include them in their commercial offerings all over the world. However, EU companies who vigorously participated in the development could have advantages when it comes to providing chips to the EU market, while at the time encouraging lower costs for EU consumers by allowing for non-commercial licenses.

      Naturally, this leaves open the possibility of a foreign group making unlicensed chips & devices for markets outside the EU. Essentially, this is a similar problem which ARM faces, but I am not familiar with any large examples of this kind of abuse... but I live in the EU, so it's possible that in various places around the world there are such things... but I guess, if they do exist, they've never become a big enough problem to make the news. Presumably this is due to the limitations that ARM places on their licensing in regards to 3rd party Fabs.

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    8. Re:I am willing to go along ... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      TFA mentioned Airbus. The investment on that had paid off many many times over despite the aircraft design not being public property.

      This should be a conservative wet dream. The government wants a chip manufacturing industry but farms it out to the for-profit private sector.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:I am willing to go along ... by bhima · · Score: 1

      Not every pursuit of man must be directly profitable... and demanding that they all be so, creates failure and market distortion.

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    10. Re:I am willing to go along ... by longk · · Score: 1

      ANY EU based firm.. which then funnels its profits elsewhere. Also to "produce" something in EU means what exactly? Assemble the final product? Solder the motherboards? A EU assembled phone with an EU produced CPU can't use Korean memory- and American graphics chips? The basic chemicals used must all come from Germany and be based on Norwegian oil? How far do you want to take this and to what effect?

    11. Re:I am willing to go along ... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      So you're that Nigerian prince who keeps sending me investment opportunities?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re:I am willing to go along ... by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Private corporations are concerned with immediate success. They need to show something in their next quarter report or their stocks will fall. Things like investment in future endeavors is rare, and only risked if there's a chance to gain some sort of perpetual patent. But why bother with high investments in basic research when it's far more profitable to whip up some trivial patent of something even a dumb fuck in middle management could come up with?

      No, basic research, the research that actually does lead to groundbreaking results and exciting new technology is NEVER conducted by companies. Never. Remember the laser? You know, the thing that drives your DVD and BluRay drives? Think that was what the idea of Einstein when he whipped up the theoretic basis for it in 1917? Hell, even current patent laws don't allow you to milk it for a century. And no, this is NOT the suggestion that we should extend patents beyond the insanity copyright has already reached. But I ramble.

      A lot, and I really mean a LOT, of theoretic and practical research was necessary, from great minds like Ladenburg, Kastler, Basov and Maiman, and still it took the last one 'til the 1960s to produce a working laser, more than four decades after the theoretic foundation.

      You think any company on this planet would think in terms like this?

      You think any investor would invest in something that could take half a century to produce results you can market?

      Hell, it took 'til the 1980s to produce consumer grade lasers. And 'til the 1990s and even 2000s to make them cheap. Today, though, they're everywhere, from consumer electronics to cutting edge science, from micrometer distance measuring to touch-less cutting. And of course playing DVDs and BluRays.

      Think we'd have any of those things if we left innovation to the market?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    13. Re:I am willing to go along ... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Governments are special in that they can finance things which bring in enormous profit in the very long run (fundamental research, very large infrastructure projects) or which have very large positive externalities (free roads). Without governments, you could not build dams: large ones become profitable after 50 years.

      Governments are also special in that they can finance things with your money, the collection of which is backed by threat of violence. They're special in that they control media (at minimum by granting licenses) and thus have an unparalleled ability to influence public opinion. They can thus not only tell you what you are permitted to think, but they can influence most people into thinking it. For example, they've convinced you that building dams is a good idea in spite of the environmental impact, instead of increasing efficiency and getting the power from other genuinely more sustainable sources, like offshore wind.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:I am willing to go along ... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I think that raw materials can be excluded simply on the basis that not all of them can be mined in Europe in the first place.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    15. Re:I am willing to go along ... by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

      in the EU, things are a little bit different than in the United States. While corporations do have a lot of power here, it is nothing like what you see across the ocean

      That must explain why in the EU insolvent banks were taken into receivership instead of bailing them out to the detriment of citizens (e.g. Ireland).

    16. Re:I am willing to go along ... by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      Because Quaero, which was born out of this exact same idea and thought process, also which cost in the 12 digits, was such the raving success that politicians said it would be.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    17. Re:I am willing to go along ... by LongearedBat · · Score: 1

      True. And that why it's a pity that modern democratic systems encourage the current party in power to focus no further than winning the next election. :/

    18. Re:I am willing to go along ... by SomeKDEUser · · Score: 1

      Interesting, you compound your misunderstanding of the structure of government as understood since the Enlightenment with a misunderstanding of energy infrastructure, as understood from the early 20th and of the formation of public opinion (mid-twentieth).

      Governments, not democratic ones, and even not most autocratic ones are not sustained (only) by the threat of violence. The situation in Syria is illustration of that: although it is not actually possible to overthrow Assad, as he is ready to go to any extremity to hold onto power, he still does not rule Syria anymore. Government are truly sustained by the implicit will of the people: they may not like you, but they realise that given a minimum amount of competency in the administration, order is better than chaos.

      You may think people hate paying taxes, but in fact people just dislike paying in general, and accept taxes as necessary. You will even find that even direct democracies increase taxes :)

    19. Re:I am willing to go along ... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Governments, not democratic ones, and even not most autocratic ones are not sustained (only) by the threat of violence.

      That is a load of dingo's kidneys. They are sustained against those who would tear them down only by the threat of violence, which underwrites all their other threats. It's not an unassailable position, but it's still how they work.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  2. Planned economy rarely works by Hentes · · Score: 1

    If keeping our chip production costs more than losing it, then overally this is a bad investment. You could argue that electronics manufacturing is a strategic sector, but in this case we should simply make it a rule to only accept European electronics for security sensitive apllications. That would create a market for domestic production, and keep it alive at a much lower price.

    1. Re:Planned economy rarely works by Bender_ · · Score: 1

      The semiconductor industry is a bit different. No fab is ever build without massive government subsidies. Just google about globalfoundries in new york.

    2. Re:Planned economy rarely works by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      South Korea and Samsung would probably disagree with you.

  3. ARM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I know they don't do the fabrication, but how much EU tax payer money did ARM need? 50% of this will go to Brussels admin, 25% will go to local pork barrelling, and maybe 25% will end up in subsidising German engineering, which probably funds 50% of these Quangos to begin with.

    1. Re:ARM? by Coeurderoy · · Score: 1

      Nope Brussels admin is actually somewhat cheaper, although US based lobbying is significantly adding to the cost. Most probably 20% will go into various random FP8 projects. And close to 80% will go to STMicroelectronics, Infineon, Accent, NXP, Inside Secure, etc... And of course ARM Holdings (a British company)... And the products will find their way into Automotive, Aeronotics and various other industrial domains. With a little bit of luck some of the funds will be used to do fundamental research in the basic technology (how to draw really small pictures on bizarre materials, preferably in three dimentions since it would seem to be the best way to really boost the power of individual chips). And if we do not do this, then whenever we develop any high tech product whatsoever our "competitors" can skew the prices just by deciding if yes or now they'll be willing to provide enough chips.... So although in general I'm not a big fan of Ms Kroes, in this case, even knowing all the risk for leakage, I'm all for it.

  4. wealth is going elsewhere for a reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If people are not allocating money to chip production it's because they can create more wealth DOING OTHER THINGS.

    All he will do is in a wholly unimaginative way is force wealth allocation back to a less productive industry because he can't imagine there might be something else which is even better.

    1. Re:wealth is going elsewhere for a reason by Coeurderoy · · Score: 1

      Part of what "freemarketeers" do not understand, is that a big chunk of the market is managed by the chinese comunist party. They are happy to see "red" when anybody insinuate that "self regulating", "invisible hand of the market", etc does not work that well, but they see no issue in sending a large part of their own production capacity and control of it into the hand of a bunch of people who does not believe in "free market" at all, but in having a small group managing by force an "harmonious society" (a large part of being harmonious is do not complain about the boss....) So what do we do when for example china decides that it does not really need the money from a very small chip controling the average laptop keyboard and prefers to export their own brand in order to capture much more value out of their production. At any time with the current structure of the market the PRC could make some strategic descisions and just by limiting the transfer of very cheap pieces completelly disrupt the production of HP, IBM, Apple and Oracle....

  5. Ask IBM why they left . . . ? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    IBM used to produce chips in Sindelfingen, Germany. They shut it down a long time ago. On the other hand, Mercedes Benz automobiles are still rolling off the Daimler assembly line in Sindelfingen. So it's not like it's the location or lack of skilled workers or anything like that.

    So why is that . . . ? Of course, cars are not chips, despite the Slashdot penchant for car analogies. But it would be interesting to know why someone like IBM pulled out, before dumping a bunch of money on the problem . . .

    And what about Siemens . . . ? Do they still make chips . . . ?

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:Ask IBM why they left . . . ? by Nimatek · · Score: 3, Informative

      Infineon Technologies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infineon_Technologies), a Siemens spin-off do. They actually even have more facilities than listed on the wiki page.

    2. Re:Ask IBM why they left . . . ? by Bender_ · · Score: 1

      I am pretty sure IBM did not leave due to any reason directly related to the location. Semiconductor fabs can have a relatively short lifetime, depending on the technology. The IBM fab had been in operation for decades, if I am not mistaken.

      If you want a leading edge fab, it is quite possible that some technology changes (e.g. wafer size conversion) make it uneconomical to upgrade an existing fab. In that case you need to build a new shell. Locations for new fabs are often significantly influenced by incentive payments from the local government. For example the new globalfoundries fab in new york state got billions of incentive payments. IBM most likely decided to discontinue the site after moving the products to a more modern fab that was build somewhere where they got more money...

    3. Re:Ask IBM why they left . . . ? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      One of the reasons the high-end luxury car brands have lower quality scores is because their owners have higher expectations, and complain more about minor problems. If there's a squeak or rattle in your new $100k Mercedes, you take it back to the dealership for warranty repairs. If there's a squeak in your $15k Ford, you just live with it. So Mercedes looks bad because it has an incident of a warranty repair, whereas Ford doesn't.

      Also, Mercedes is not a luxury brand in Europe, only in the USA.

    4. Re:Ask IBM why they left . . . ? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Yeah and then NCR grew irrelevant while SGI went bankrupt.

    5. Re:Ask IBM why they left . . . ? by tlambert · · Score: 1

      I am pretty sure IBM did not leave due to any reason directly related to the location. Semiconductor fabs can have a relatively short lifetime, depending on the technology. The IBM fab had been in operation for decades, if I am not mistaken.

      If you want a leading edge fab, it is quite possible that some technology changes (e.g. wafer size conversion) make it uneconomical to upgrade an existing fab. In that case you need to build a new shell. Locations for new fabs are often significantly influenced by incentive payments from the local government. For example the new globalfoundries fab in new york state got billions of incentive payments. IBM most likely decided to discontinue the site after moving the products to a more modern fab that was build somewhere where they got more money...

      The German, French, and Irish foundries Are losing on feature size. X-Fab is limited to around 180nm features, and the most recent French STMicroelectronics plant can barely do 32nm for relatively small die sizes. Most design houses these days are fabless, and the feature size is a determining factor on cooling requirements and power consumption. Frankly, Intel makes better chips, and they are pretty much willing to fab for anyone these days, If you don't care because you're doing a slower ARM design, then TSMC, UMC, or Samsung is good enough.

      Given their relative production volumes from the European fabs that are out there, this is more or less a subsidy for X-Fab. Here is a nearly identical article from June of last year:

      http://www.euractiv.com/innovation-enterprise/eu-eyes-airbus-chips-amid-market-news-513171 ...basically, they call for chip fabs every year, and it mostly goes to Germany.

  6. Intel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    don't forget Intel in Leixlip, Ireland - they seem to be doing ok

  7. What about STMicroelectronics, NXP, LFoundry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Lots of them in places such as Grenoble valley ... (One of the IT historical grounds in the world)

    There used to be there labs from IBM, Bull and all those behemots from IT pioneer ages ;-)

    1. Re:What about STMicroelectronics, NXP, LFoundry... by Bender_ · · Score: 2

      They are still there. As well as several Infineon Fabs in Germany (Dresden, Regensburg, Warstein) and Austria (Villach), a massive fab by Globalfoundries in Dresden and a large fab by Intel in Ireland.

  8. Re:I have a better idea by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    amend/abolish ridiculous labor laws which are killing startups

    I'm just curious; what kind of labor laws do they have which are killing startups? Over here in the US, hiring isn't that hard when you only have a few employees, and even asl long as as it's under 40 I hear the labor laws aren't too hard to keep up with. Over 40, however, it starts getting really complicated, at least that's what a small company I used to work for told me.

  9. Re:Rare Earth Element Mining by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    Assuming that's true, how does it help the EU?

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  10. Good idea by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

    Because an Intel monopoly is the worst of all possible outcomes

  11. Not Comparable by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    The internet was started by the Defense Department, and other government entities expanded it. Eventually it was commercialized, grew greatly, and the government portion of the hardware has become an insignificant portion or decommissioned. The internet's hardware today is almost all paid for by non-tax money.

    Semiconductor manufacturing is older than the internet and has always been dominantly commercial. Putting government money into semi mfg today is not seed money, it's "industrial policy" (a part of fascism).

    The cases are not similar enough to provide guidance.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    1. Re:Not Comparable by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      "Are agricultural subsidies part of fascism also..." Yes, fascism, socialism, communism, take your pick. They are part of those systems.

  12. IBM don't make stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    IBM left lots of market, at the root of the problem is IBM's patents, they found it easier to make patents of things than the things themselves and just become a big parasitic patent troll. This is why they announce battery initiatives (their Battery 500), not to make batteries, but to make plausible sounding patents in the field of batteries.

    IBM leaving a country doesn't mean anything, they've been pulling back from lots of real world projects and I doubt their fab work would continue without the supercomputer subsidy it gets.

    I don't think these EU Subsidies work, I remember their Google competitor, the money went to Thomson who spent it on Thomson, and the little money that was available in private funding for search dried up, as nobody wanted to compete with the EU. It had the opposite effect of the intended effect. Thomson canned the project after the German end plugged the plug. They delivered nothing much.

    IBM incidentally are the first in line for any EU money, because they know the processes to apply, have the people in place in Brussels and the contacts to set up the meetings and jump the hurdles. Often the people in the departments deciding on the bids are ex-IBM'ers or from the other big lobby groups. So these subsidies usually send money out to big lobbying companies, often American, not the actual EU development companies.

    The biggest problem with these EU subsidies is they need to be cross border, to target an EU wide project. So only a few companies need apply, and those companies usually have the fake projects already set up ready to receive the money. So Kroes gives the nod and wink to semiconductors, Nokia, Philips, ST Micro etc. will already know about this due to the close lobbying, will already have the projects that can receive that money split across borders and ready for the subsidy.

    1. Re:IBM don't make stuff by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      IBM used to manufacture disk drives but they sold that off a long time ago.

  13. Re:I have a better idea by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    Like what? I'm just curious. For instance, suppose I have a small family (mom-n-pop) business here in the USA (that sells on the internet, rather than being tied to a specific locale), and decide I want to move to Europe. What would I be in for?

  14. Re:I have a better idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    how is VAT worse than sales tax?

  15. Profits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A lot of these chip manufacturers build commodity products that don't make much (if any) money. Most of the profit is concentrated at the top of the food chain with Intel, IBM, etc.

  16. Re:Rare Earth Element Mining by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    They just need to find a lode of rare-earth elements somewhere in their borders.

  17. Re:The problem w/ manufacturing in the EU by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    Literally hundreds of chemical species are in their lists of banned substances it's amazing that anything can be made or grown there.

    That shouldn't be a problem for growing things; you just wouldn't use any pesticides or artificial fertilizers. Farmers got along just fine hundreds of years ago before all these substances were invented. Considering how much food the EU produces (and exports), they don't seem to be having a problem there.

    But yes, for modern manufacturing, having a lot of banned toxic substances would be a problem. It just isn't possible to make most manufactured goods without handling toxic or hazardous substances at some point.

  18. Re:Rare Earth Element Mining by fritsd · · Score: 1

    Somewhere like Ytterby, perhaps..

    Problem with rare-earth elements is not that they are rare, but that there are not really lodes (same for Indium IIRC), so that it becomes cheap to get a bulk of ore but expensive to refine.

    E.g. Neodymium (I suspect it's needed for wind turbine magnets made of NdFeB, which we Europeans are going to need a lot more of very soon) was apparently mined from some kind of beach sand (Monazite).

    --
    To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
  19. Creating a corporation is EASY (Germany) by mha · · Score: 1

    I created a "GmbH" (a limited liability corporation) at no time (1 visit to a notary) and very little cost (the "full" version, not the "1€" version) - and that is what you want for a "real" business. This kind of legal entity can be used for businesses worth hundreds of millions, I use it only for my freelancer business. Costs are accounting (fully outsourced), I have to publish a limited version of my yearly balance sheet, and some taxes. Even with accounting 100% outsourced I consider having this possibly quite "oversized" legal entity (for my business purposes) quite cheap, which is why I decided to get it.

    So don't tell me creating businesses (in Germany at least) is "difficult" or "expensive" - you obviously don't know what you are talking about.

    1. Re:Creating a corporation is EASY (Germany) by Coeurderoy · · Score: 1

      Same in France, I created three different companies in France over 20 years, the first one in the bad old days took me 2 weeks, then one week, then 2 days, apparently it's faster now. I also created one in Spain, and that was a pain, and way to expensive, but thei're just changing the law to make it easier. And if you are creating a startup the real cost of firing is not the 1 to three month of salary that you might need to pay to get rid of the person, but the fact that you lost time with him or her in the early nimble stage of the your company. So if you are unable to plan three month in advance and know who you'll need, and if you will be able to pay them or not, including : are they able to pivot if needed ? Then you've got nothing to do in a startup go waste the time of some big behemot when the inertia will keep them going even if you screw up...

  20. You would probably go to the UK by mha · · Score: 1

    Coming from the US you would probably want to have a "Ltd" in the UK, because UK and US law are very similar (since US law is based on UK law, surprise). Since it's the EU you would then be able to do business in any EU country using that UK business. It is a simple operation (founding a UK "Ltd"). Advice can be found on lots of web pages.

  21. Case in point by ndverdo · · Score: 1

    I was at an EU company which built a worldwide massive business based on what was in-house developed silicon - a chip - as crystallization point. The semiconductor capability was consecutively sold and innovations of a similar kind did not happen as far as I know thereafter.

  22. 5 billion euros is a pittance in this sector by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

    As an example NY State gave $1.37 billion in financial incentives to GlobalFoundries in order for them to locate a plant there. These included $665 million in capital. That was one plant. Semiconductor manufacturing plants typically double in price with each manufacturing node generation. The commission wants to fund 450mm plants which will be a helluva more expensive. All those billions will probably only be enough to fund 2-3 leading edge fabs.

    Most of the money will likely go to GlobalFoundries and Siemens in Dresden and STMicro in Grenoble. My guess is the EU Commission will grant the funds to any corporation willing to erect a manufacturing plant in those places. It does not necessarily need to have their corporate headquarters in the EU.

    The rest of the money will likely go to the Netherlands in order for ASML to create the next generation lithography tools.

    1. Re:5 billion euros is a pittance in this sector by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      s/450mm/400mm/

  23. Only one winner by axonis · · Score: 1

    Last time I checked Applied Materials was an American Company and had the whole fab business tied up globally... EU Pollies just Stoopid Social Slaves then OR paying back some of the billions they scamed from Intel and Microsoft ? ;)

    --
    bæ8Ã0sÃOE?5r©oÂÃ?âz:ÃÃAÃ?ÃOEÂ6fXÃ?]Â
    1. Re:Only one winner by axonis · · Score: 1

      http://www.appliedmaterials.com/
      Shut up Slave - just getting by
      check out the obama video ;) ha ha EU Austin is your capital

      --
      bæ8Ã0sÃOE?5r©oÂÃ?âz:ÃÃAÃ?ÃOEÂ6fXÃ?]Â
  24. Violation of "Free Trade" by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    Not that there aren't lots of problems with these so-called "free trade" agreements that really aren't... but this would definitely be a violation and would justify sanctions (such as tariffs) from treaty member nations.

    What good does a "competitive advantage" do if the "profit advantage" is taken out of it?

  25. Re:Possibly good news for me by Coeurderoy · · Score: 1

    Good luck :-)

  26. Airbus by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    I am not sure that Airbus could be created with today's EU treaties. State were a lot involved, something that today's EU fight like hell. And the EU cannot act instead of member states because it does not have their financial strength.

    Some would want to change that by having member states giving more money to the EU, but since the EU is totally antidemocratic and since EU leaders are not responsible at all before tax payers, I would prefer that problem to be fixed by reverting to the previous situation where member states were allowed as industrial investors. Airbus and Ariane demonstrated the approach works quite well.

  27. Re:The problem w/ manufacturing in the EU by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

    You do realize that there's a huge gulf between the fact that some chemicals are regulated and the inability to make a chip and that you've done exactly nothing to cross that chasm. Yet you still think it's probably true.

    Just observing a bug in your thinking.

  28. Re:Old ideas by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

    VAT is probably the most logical tax, it taxes spending and not income

    Only if you want to stifle the economy. If on the other hand you want to encourage economic activity you make spending easier. Income which isn't spent doesn't benefit the economy.
    You've got it pretty much backwards.

    It's pretty fair regardless of income levels, much more so than income taxes.

    VAT is effectively a highly regressive tax because even though it applies to everyone the poor to middle-class people spend a much higher proportion of their income on consumer goods, subject to VAT.