Slashdot Mirror


Trump Issues Order To Block Broadcom's Takeover of Qualcomm (bloomberg.com)

Bloomberg reports that President Donald Trump issued an executive order today blocking Broadcom from acquiring Qualcomm, "scuttling a $117 billion deal that had been subject to U.S. government scrutiny on national security grounds." From the report: The president acted on a recommendation by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., which reviews acquisitions of American firms by foreign investors. The decision to block the deal was unveiled just hours after Broadcom Chief Executive Officer Hock Tan met with security officials at the Pentagon in a last-ditch effort to salvage the transaction. "There is credible evidence that leads me to believe that Broadcom Ltd." by acquiring Qualcomm "might take action that threatens to impair the national security of the United States," Trump said in the order released Monday evening in Washington.

22 of 230 comments (clear)

  1. Seen this before: Fairchild by Flexagon · · Score: 3, Informative

    This reminds me of a similar deal that was similarly scuttled: the proposed purchase of Fairchild Semiconductor that was then owned by French company Schlumberger, to Fujitsu, a Japanese company. In either case, Fairchild would have been owned by a non-US company from a "friendly" country. National security was the given reason, but Japan's then-growing leadership in semiconductors against US companies was the understory.

    1. Re:Seen this before: Fairchild by jrumney · · Score: 3, Informative

      In this case the understory seems to be America's growing leadership in semiconductors against US companies. The current Broadcom was formed by a merger between Broadcom of California, and Avago, which was formed when two New York based private equity firms bought the semiconductor division of Agilent, which itself was spun out of HP. Being private equity vultures, they moved corporate headquarters to a more tax friendly location, but the operations are still very much based in the US.

      Maybe Obama was somehow involved in setting up the deal, that would explain why Trump has to scuttle it now.

  2. Re:Not going to mention by Lisandro · · Score: 4, Informative

    So we're going to post this story, but completely ignore the news that broke today that the whole "Russian hacked the election" and "Russia colluded with Trump" turned out to be entirely false?

    No, House Republicans came up with that conclusion, somehow opposing the entire US intelligence community in the process. The fact that they both decided that Russians did meddle in the elections but somehow did not sought to help Trump is some Orwellian-level doublethink.

  3. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while by Locke2005 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've had enough problems with Broadcom's chips and Broadcom's lack of support for their chips that I think Trump did the right thing here. I tried to bring up a parallel computer on Broadcom's MIPS chip once, eventually decided they were lying about the performance and it couldn't really retire one floating point instruction per cycle. We gave up and switch back to Intel CPUs.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  4. Re:Not going to mention by vux984 · · Score: 3, Informative

    "The investigation is being closed with nothing found."

    Cite?

    " completely ignore the news that broke today that the whole "Russian hacked the election" and "Russia colluded ..."

    All I see is some partisan republicans on a house commitee releasing a statement to that effect. Nobody else seems to be buying it; including the Democrats on that same committee. Nevermind the statement from the CIA etc.

    In other words: shut up comrade.

  5. Re:Your free market president at work! by Locke2005 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Please stop, that is demeaning to mentally handicapped people!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  6. Y'know, I have to wonder.... by mark-t · · Score: 5, Insightful

    .... this is the 2nd time in about as many weeks as I've seen the US president invoke an argument of "national security" on a matter that impacts commercial enterprise, and using that argument as a basis for immediate action that bypassed any of the ordinary measures which might otherwise be required.

    It has become apparent to me that the man uses the expression to mean whatever he thinks it ought to mean, and has no bearing on the actual definition of the term.

    1. Re:Y'know, I have to wonder.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Obama did the same. So did Bush. And Clinton and the other Bush and so on way back over a century. It's a standard political practice that falls under the umbrella of protecting US interests.

      It seems new only because you have never paid attention before.

  7. Trump's administration issued the order by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    not Trump. Nobody listens to Trump. This became obvious when the stock market stopped reacting to his tweets. He literally said we should ignore due process and take away people's guns. If Obama had done that gun stocks would have gone nuts. When Trump did it not even a blip.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re: Trump's administration issued the order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If Trump didn't mean what he said, why did Breitbart run the headline: "Trump the gun grabber"? Why did the NRA feel they needed to have a meeting with him after these comments? You can say people are being dumb and the President didn't mean what he said... But a lot of conservatives seemed to take it the same way.

    2. Re: Trump's administration issued the order by quantaman · · Score: 4, Informative

      If Trump didn't mean what he said, why did Breitbart run the headline: "Trump the gun grabber"?

      So people like you would click on it. See how that works?

      They needed to remind Trump that his base was pro-gun.

      Why did the NRA feel they needed to have a meeting with him after these comments?

      For appearances. So that people like, when they saw that both parties left the meeting without their hair on fire, would be denied the chance to spread around a phony narrative.

      The NRA needed to meet with Trump because the NRA realizes that Trump tends to agree with whomever spoke with him last.

      You can say people are being dumb and the President didn't mean what he said... But a lot of conservatives seemed to take it the same way.

      He was speaking casually, not lawerly. Which you're trying to pretend you don't know, because it helps your narrative to assert otherwise. And no, there aren't any significant number of conservatives are the least bit worried about that. Because he's more than clarified the matter, for those who think a single sound bite out of context is some sort of executed policy.

      He was speaking out of his ass because he has no idea what he's talking about. I'm not saying he's an idiot, I honestly don't know if he's smart or dumb. But I do know he has no attention span, you can hear it every time he talks when he goes flying off on tangents left and right and can barely string together two sentences on the same topic.

      That's his basic problem as President, issues are complex and he can't pay attention long enough to really analyze the issues, so instead he just listens to people and tries to get the high level picture. The problem is a smart knowledgeable person can make a superficially compelling case for any position in a complex topic. So if you want Trump to decide on a certain course all you need to do is surround him with the right people and he'll eventually agree with you. That's why the GOP is so confident they can sway him on almost any issue unless he's completely obsessed with it (ie trade), because they can control enough of the people he talks to and none of the nuts on his call list want gun control either. Plus, on something like guns you need actual legislation and the GOP controlled congress will never pass significant gun control.

      --
      I stole this Sig
  8. Re: Intel won this round to stay alive... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And the alternative was even more grim. Broadcom has proven itself to be utterly incompetent and unfriendly. It was almost immediately apparent that they just wanted to kill the competition in a anti-competitive manner.

    This was a good decision, even if for the wrong reason. Sometimes, you just have to take what you can get.

  9. Re: Not going to mention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Oh please. This investigation has been going on for over a year, with not even a hint of any collusion. The only ones being blinded by partisanship are the left, mad at President Trump for defeating The Annointed One.

    19 indictments (13 of them Russian nationals) and 5 guilty pleas so far might disagree with what you deem as reality.

  10. Re:Not going to mention by Lisandro · · Score: 3, Informative

    Sure: https://www.dni.gov/files/docu...

    This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies. It covers the
    motivation and scope of Moscow’s intentions regarding US elections and Moscow’s use of cyber tools and media campaigns to influence US public opinion. The assessment focuses on activities aimed at the 2016 US presidential election and draws on our understanding of previous Russian influence operations.
    When we use the term “we” it refers to an assessment by all three agencies.

  11. Re:Racism at work by Luckyo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Broadcom is a Singaporean company that decided to pretend to be US company by moving headquarters specifically to help seal this deal.

    Also, anti-chinese sentiments are nationalist, not racist. Conflating the two is a rather basic error.

  12. Re:Racism at work by jrumney · · Score: 3, Informative
    Broadcom was a US company before it moved its headquarters to Singapore for tax purposes and to be closer to their supply chain and customers.

    And before you claim the motivation is nationalist not racist, you should probably check the nationality of the person involved first.

  13. Re:Not going to mention by stephanruby · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ok, I'll bite. Here are the direct quotes of Conaway (a Republican):

    "Bottom line: Russians did commit active measures against our elections in '16, and we think they'll do that in the future," Conaway said. "It's clear they sowed discord in our elections. ... But we couldn't establish the same conclusions the CIA did that they specifically wanted to help Trump."

    Is that what you meant by "entirely false"? Plus, that doesn't really explain why the Republican majority shut down their investigation so quickly (unless they're trying to hide something). After all, nobody tried to shut down the 911 commission prematurely, when no evidence was found that US officials had colluded with Bin Laden. After all, the investigation was started to investigate "Russian Meddling", not specifically "Trump Collusion".

    I wonder, when did that change for the Republicans?

    And just to put things in perspective, even if you don't think that an attack on our leadership process an act of war (which is kind of silly if you don't think that), the 9/11 attack at the time cost us ~3,000 casualties, but in the case of Crimea, the Russian incursion has already cost our ally ~10,000 lives.

    And please notice the weasel word "specifically" in "that [the Russians] specifically wanted to help Trump." Of course, we already know that's not true. The Russians were trying to help both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump (although Donald Trump is the only one that retweeted their stories).

    And of course, that still doesn't explain why they'd shut down their own investigation so quickly, when everybody else, the Mueller team, Trump's own Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, etc. are raising even more alarms than ever before at a more frequent rate than ever before.

  14. Re:Not going to mention by quantaman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "The investigation is being closed with nothing found."

    Cite?

    " completely ignore the news that broke today that the whole "Russian hacked the election" and "Russia colluded ..."

    All I see is some partisan republicans on a house commitee releasing a statement to that effect. Nobody else seems to be buying it; including the Democrats on that same committee. Nevermind the statement from the CIA etc.

    In other words: shut up comrade.

    After the memo I've been wondering if the Republicans on the house intelligence committee could be charged with obstruction of justice.

    I mean if they're deliberately trying to tarnish the investigation and Mueller in order to give Trump cover to shut it down then that's pretty much the definition of obstruction.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  15. Re:Jokes aside I gotta kind of wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Are the Republican voters just living in a perfect bubble or do they really just not care as long as it doesn't have a D next to it's name?

    Modern republicanism has all the symptoms of being a cult religion. What is worse is they blatantly ignore facts that don't fit into their world view. Their usual method of doing so is by bringing up some possibly true, possibly not bit of data from the opposition and justifying their decision to support their party by saying, well at least it is not that.

    The really fun thing is the only thing they seem truly conservative about is conservation of excuses. They will use the same excuses, time, and time, and time again. Trump could be sleeping with ten different porn stars a night, and have kids with six of them and they would still justify or excuse it by pointing to Bill Clinton who hasn't been president for over 17 years.

    Instead of setting a higher bar, ethics only matter if their opponent may not be squeaky clean. They are fine with their guy being a low life scum as long as he is their low life scum. Hillary was flat out guilty for her actions defending her husband and should never be president, at the same time Trump's people were paying off porn stars to shut up. Now I don't support Infidelity in any shape or form but a spouse has the right to defend the other spouse. End of story, well unless your a democrat I guess.

  16. Re: Not going to mention by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Informative

    Please cite electoral criminal activity by national level republicans running for office.

    Are you serious? Have you ever heard the name, "Richard M. Nixon"? He was the previous Republican president who resigned in shame after having illegal activity exposed by a special prosecutor. It was kind of a big news story. There were 69 indictments and 48 convictions. A whole bunch of Republicans went to prison.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  17. Re: So much for business friendly by bestweasel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Mergers like these are good mainly for the executives who plan them and the lawyers and brokers who extract fat fees for executing them. Shareholders see a short-term gain but nothing is added to the economy indeed jobs and choice are diminished.

  18. Re: Not going to mention by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Informative

    *We pretend that Bill Clinton never happened.*

    I don't think you fully understood what I said. Because of the criminal activity around Richard Nixon's Committee to Re-elect the President (CREEP) there were sixty-nine indictments and forty-eight convictions. People went to the federal penitentiary for years. Nixon resigned from the presidency and had to be pardoned by his (second) vice-president. And it all started with a burglary and a cover up. There were actually seventy-six indictments and fifty-five convictions during the Nixon Administration, but only 48 of those convictions were directly connected to crimes committed in relationship to Watergate break-in.

    This is what you said in your previous comment:

    "Please cite electoral criminal activity by national level republicans running for office.

    Oh wait... you can't. Because it's never happened."

    Now, do you want to apologize to the class?

    *We pretend that Bill Clinton never happened.*

    Clinton got a blowjob and lied about it. Nobody went to prison. Nobody was indicted. Nobody was convicted.

    During the Obama administration, there were zero indictments, zero convictions, even though the House GOP conducted investigations that went on twice as long as the current House Intelligence Committee's. The came up with nothing. There have been already been 22 indictments during the Trump investigation and five convictions. That's convictions. Not allegations. Not accusations. Convictions. As in "guilty". As in felony. And we're not anywhere near the end. Mueller hasn't even gotten to interview Trump or his failsons or Ivanka yet. There are lots and lots of witnesses left to talk to.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.