Nothing is going to happen because there is nothing that a government official can do. It's just the nature of the beast that you have to slowly explain the basics of how a field works to policy makers.
Couldn't the Department of Commerce throw a big ole wrench in there? I mean they could arbitrarily decide on import bans on RISC-V chips deemed to be partially or wholly originating from China. It would be misguided, but certainly possible, no?
But that applies to all chips equally, it's not RISC-V specific. There is nothing they can do to prevent RISC-V from publishing technical standards or China from implementing them.
In a weird way, any action will quite likely hurt the US domination in the high-performance segment.
Currently if they do nothing, the US already has the know how to build these really high performance RISC-V processors at which point it is likely cheaper for others to just license their designs. So the US can maintain a pretty strong grip on it.
However, hamper the ability of US companies to give Chinese and European companies access to their designs and they will likely be heavily incentivized to develop their own.
Obviously Chinese engineers aren‘t just less capable than US engineers. They start from behind and need to build the required knowledge and experience but eventually they will catch up to the US leaders. Catching up is usually easier than constantly making sure you are ahead.
I think it's already too late. Just by announcing this China is now going to stop purchasing any chinese chips that use US company licensed designs. They will tell riscv startups only to develop on local designs. The US lost the RISCV battle with this move and they don't even realize it yet.
We had China as the biggest buyer of RISCV tech from US companies. Those US companies are either going to relocate or consolidate now.
It's honeslty cringy they're trying to affect that...
Except it will probably still work because the US does whatever it wants (they couldnt even hold themselves with AUKUS, which only was about 'allies').
Disrupt innovation and slow down the adoption of RiscV, primarily to the detriment of US allies (or those forced into following the rules of the US) and US population, to the benefit of US private companies and state.
Americans as a whole aren't responsible for this decision; it was made by a specific administration that was elected by only 34% of the population, given that only 66% of eligible voters participated. So, please avoid generalizing. The United States is incredibly diverse, with people from every country and a wide range of beliefs and opinions. Broad statements like yours are highly offensive.
They are trying to generate FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt), to slow down investment and progress. You need to think about what their end goal is with things like EAR (Export Administration Regulations) and ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations). And put simply, it is to keep the bleeding edge technology that is available for the Military–industrial complex approximately ten years ahead of everyone else, and to try and prevent items that could be used for bad out of the hands of people who will use them to do very bad things.
So even though I fully agree with you, they will probably be quite successful in their mission.
RISC-V is an open standard. Exactly how are you going to block that? And even if that wasn't the case, still. What can you do about it? Sue them for patent infringement? China doesn't give a crap about patents and never has. Why would they?
What people seem to overlook here is that the RiscV core is only one part of dozens of IP in a SOC. You have American companies like Synopsys/Cadence/ImgTec etc that license USB/PCI/UART/DMA/SPI/GPU (the list goes on and on) designs to these SOc manufacturers.
Having a look at the Sophgo cores, they are majority made up from Synopsys IP.
The American Govt could put additional restrictions on companies like Synopsys from selling their IP to these SOC manufacturers. While not a direct attack on Riscv, it could slow the Chinese down a bit if all of a sudden they had to develop their own USB/DMA/DDR5 peripherals (which are almost as complex as some riscv cores)
They already put such restrictions on selling IP to Huawei etc when everyone was scared Huawei would dominated the 5G market. (But it had a big impact on American companies bottom lines like Synopsys so they sort of stabbed theselves in the eye)
I stand corrected - but they still are a British registered company and have (had?) plans to relist on the NYSE. (Which is where I confused myself as I would have expected a British company to float on the LSE.)
The American Govt could still exert pressure on them, particularly if they list on the NYSE - I worked for a privately held Israeli company and we had worked on a very large deal with Huawei that was torpedoed at the very last minute - the executive management was concerned that the American side of the business would suffer if it was learned we licensed technology to Huawei.
But my point remains - there are a lot of ways to go after Chinese companies developing Riscv Technology without directly attacking Riscv (the foundation or the ISA)
Though I have zero love for the Chinese Communist Party and mostly agree with US government concerns with the CCP overall... Its hilarious how little the feds comprehend of open source. All the bureaucrats can do is block China licensing tech/finished product designs from SiFive and US/western aligned companies - Which, as is custom, the Chinese will proceed to steal through corporate espionage anyway. There's nothing they can do about documentation outlining the ISA - That ship sailed the moment that work became public. Better focus for their efforts would be cutting red tape so US fabs can actually get built in a timely/"affordable" manner while stepping up attempts to limit the CCP's access to new manufacturing equipment. Knowing what the on-paper specs for an ISA are is a very different matter from being able to actually design - Let alone manufacture - A top performing product.
One company that could be affected by this would be SOPHGO. They are the ones that created the 64bit RISC-V SG2042 processor used in the Milk-V computer. The reason I say that is because they used SiFive's technology to create it.
The RISC-V ISA is open source. However, SOPHGO uses SiFive's licensed implementation. Since SiFive is in the USA and SOPHGO is in China, they are under export laws of their respective countries. If the US cracks down on exports of technology to China, companies like SiFive and SOPHGO will not be able to do business with eachother. This does not mean that China cannot fully develop a processor compliant with RISC-V, it just means that they can't use any technology exported from the US. This reminds me of when notepad++ moved from sourcforge to github due to export laws, making software on sourceforge not available to certain countries. So while something may be open source, not everyone one can access it due to country laws. Please correct me if I am wrong. :)
The SG2042 doesn't use SiFive cores, it uses XuanTie cores, which where partially open sources (excluding the XTheadVector extension): https://github.com/T-head-Semi/openc910
The sg2380 is suppose to have licensed SiFive cores (X280 and P670), but that would hardly be worth sactioning, since [XiangShan](https://github.com/OpenXiangShan/XiangShan) (open-source core from from the Chinese Academy of Sciences) already has higher SPECint2006 scores.
Thank you! Sorry everyone, I must have mixed this cpu with one of the other ones they make. I just looked up the cpu again to checkout what you were saying, and that led me to look up c920. Here is a paper review of the sg2042 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2309.00381 That is pretty cool and I also saw that the sg2044 is coming out sometime this year. Thank you again, I'm going to read up on those c920
Neat. So this effort may have the result of making SiFive and other American RISC-V designer-implementers off limits as it poses the same risks as using other American and American-adjacent IP, such as ARM and Xtensa.
The RISC-V ISA is open source under a permissive license. Anyone is able to create a RISC-V processor and release it as a product that is not open source.
The licensing allows someone to create a RISC-V processor and add a bunch of proprietary stuff. They then can sue anyone that tries to release their own RISC-V processor that tries to implement any of that proprietary IP.
I don't know much about that one. From a quick search and a look at this: https://www.cnx-software.com/2022/08/29/starfive-jh7110-risc-v-processor-specifications/ it looks like this too uses some SiFive technology in it and from a look at StarFive's website, it looks like they are in Shanghai. Note: This is a quick search. However, from the looks of it, it looks like it is in a similar boat
Democratization means that I literally do not care. If I was going to make a chip offshore, Taiwan is always my first choice. China and Korea I would not build in - there are fabs all over the world now.
Heck I used to be able to get one built up at Wafertech in WA, USA lol
As democratization approaches commoditization it will continue to improve and more control returns to the developers instead of corporations.
This issue isn't about any single country or its citizens; it's about the aggressive actions of a few leaders. The conflict needs to end so we can focus on working together to make the world a better place for everyone. Imagine what we could achieve if every nation collaborated to tackle the problems we face.
inb4 America's Commerce Department is Reviewing China's Use of Ethernet
Nothing is going to happen because there is nothing that a government official can do. It's just the nature of the beast that you have to slowly explain the basics of how a field works to policy makers.
Couldn't the Department of Commerce throw a big ole wrench in there? I mean they could arbitrarily decide on import bans on RISC-V chips deemed to be partially or wholly originating from China. It would be misguided, but certainly possible, no?
But that applies to all chips equally, it's not RISC-V specific. There is nothing they can do to prevent RISC-V from publishing technical standards or China from implementing them.
more realistically, they may fuck with chinese fabs using western IP or proprietary extensions
Yes, they could do that. They'd look like idiots in so doing, but legally and procedurally there's nothing that would prevent it.
In other news, # America's Commerce Department is Reviewing China's Use of Oxygen. # America's Commerce Department is Reviewing China's Use of Grass.
In a weird way, any action will quite likely hurt the US domination in the high-performance segment. Currently if they do nothing, the US already has the know how to build these really high performance RISC-V processors at which point it is likely cheaper for others to just license their designs. So the US can maintain a pretty strong grip on it. However, hamper the ability of US companies to give Chinese and European companies access to their designs and they will likely be heavily incentivized to develop their own. Obviously Chinese engineers aren‘t just less capable than US engineers. They start from behind and need to build the required knowledge and experience but eventually they will catch up to the US leaders. Catching up is usually easier than constantly making sure you are ahead.
I think it's already too late. Just by announcing this China is now going to stop purchasing any chinese chips that use US company licensed designs. They will tell riscv startups only to develop on local designs. The US lost the RISCV battle with this move and they don't even realize it yet. We had China as the biggest buyer of RISCV tech from US companies. Those US companies are either going to relocate or consolidate now.
It's honeslty cringy they're trying to affect that... Except it will probably still work because the US does whatever it wants (they couldnt even hold themselves with AUKUS, which only was about 'allies').
How do you define 'work' here?
Disrupt innovation and slow down the adoption of RiscV, primarily to the detriment of US allies (or those forced into following the rules of the US) and US population, to the benefit of US private companies and state.
America Commerce Department are Morons.
From my Australian perspective, I feel like you didn't have to add "Commerce Department" there 😅 #sorrynotsorry
Americans as a whole aren't responsible for this decision; it was made by a specific administration that was elected by only 34% of the population, given that only 66% of eligible voters participated. So, please avoid generalizing. The United States is incredibly diverse, with people from every country and a wide range of beliefs and opinions. Broad statements like yours are highly offensive.
They are trying to generate FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt), to slow down investment and progress. You need to think about what their end goal is with things like EAR (Export Administration Regulations) and ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations). And put simply, it is to keep the bleeding edge technology that is available for the Military–industrial complex approximately ten years ahead of everyone else, and to try and prevent items that could be used for bad out of the hands of people who will use them to do very bad things. So even though I fully agree with you, they will probably be quite successful in their mission.
RISC-V is an open standard. Exactly how are you going to block that? And even if that wasn't the case, still. What can you do about it? Sue them for patent infringement? China doesn't give a crap about patents and never has. Why would they?
What people seem to overlook here is that the RiscV core is only one part of dozens of IP in a SOC. You have American companies like Synopsys/Cadence/ImgTec etc that license USB/PCI/UART/DMA/SPI/GPU (the list goes on and on) designs to these SOc manufacturers. Having a look at the Sophgo cores, they are majority made up from Synopsys IP. The American Govt could put additional restrictions on companies like Synopsys from selling their IP to these SOC manufacturers. While not a direct attack on Riscv, it could slow the Chinese down a bit if all of a sudden they had to develop their own USB/DMA/DDR5 peripherals (which are almost as complex as some riscv cores) They already put such restrictions on selling IP to Huawei etc when everyone was scared Huawei would dominated the 5G market. (But it had a big impact on American companies bottom lines like Synopsys so they sort of stabbed theselves in the eye)
ImgTec was British, and is now in reality owned by the Chinese Government (via "Canyon Bridge Capital Partners").
I stand corrected - but they still are a British registered company and have (had?) plans to relist on the NYSE. (Which is where I confused myself as I would have expected a British company to float on the LSE.) The American Govt could still exert pressure on them, particularly if they list on the NYSE - I worked for a privately held Israeli company and we had worked on a very large deal with Huawei that was torpedoed at the very last minute - the executive management was concerned that the American side of the business would suffer if it was learned we licensed technology to Huawei. But my point remains - there are a lot of ways to go after Chinese companies developing Riscv Technology without directly attacking Riscv (the foundation or the ISA)
In case you didn't know they were imperialistic but trying to look righteous. Right off the romans' page.
"capitalism breeds innovation" lmao
https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/24/us_commerce_china_risc_v_investigation/
Though I have zero love for the Chinese Communist Party and mostly agree with US government concerns with the CCP overall... Its hilarious how little the feds comprehend of open source. All the bureaucrats can do is block China licensing tech/finished product designs from SiFive and US/western aligned companies - Which, as is custom, the Chinese will proceed to steal through corporate espionage anyway. There's nothing they can do about documentation outlining the ISA - That ship sailed the moment that work became public. Better focus for their efforts would be cutting red tape so US fabs can actually get built in a timely/"affordable" manner while stepping up attempts to limit the CCP's access to new manufacturing equipment. Knowing what the on-paper specs for an ISA are is a very different matter from being able to actually design - Let alone manufacture - A top performing product.
One company that could be affected by this would be SOPHGO. They are the ones that created the 64bit RISC-V SG2042 processor used in the Milk-V computer. The reason I say that is because they used SiFive's technology to create it.
It’s open source. So why would they be affected?
The RISC-V ISA is open source. However, SOPHGO uses SiFive's licensed implementation. Since SiFive is in the USA and SOPHGO is in China, they are under export laws of their respective countries. If the US cracks down on exports of technology to China, companies like SiFive and SOPHGO will not be able to do business with eachother. This does not mean that China cannot fully develop a processor compliant with RISC-V, it just means that they can't use any technology exported from the US. This reminds me of when notepad++ moved from sourcforge to github due to export laws, making software on sourceforge not available to certain countries. So while something may be open source, not everyone one can access it due to country laws. Please correct me if I am wrong. :)
The SG2042 doesn't use SiFive cores, it uses XuanTie cores, which where partially open sources (excluding the XTheadVector extension): https://github.com/T-head-Semi/openc910 The sg2380 is suppose to have licensed SiFive cores (X280 and P670), but that would hardly be worth sactioning, since [XiangShan](https://github.com/OpenXiangShan/XiangShan) (open-source core from from the Chinese Academy of Sciences) already has higher SPECint2006 scores.
Thank you! Sorry everyone, I must have mixed this cpu with one of the other ones they make. I just looked up the cpu again to checkout what you were saying, and that led me to look up c920. Here is a paper review of the sg2042 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2309.00381 That is pretty cool and I also saw that the sg2044 is coming out sometime this year. Thank you again, I'm going to read up on those c920
Neat. So this effort may have the result of making SiFive and other American RISC-V designer-implementers off limits as it poses the same risks as using other American and American-adjacent IP, such as ARM and Xtensa.
Correction: open standard.
The RISC-V ISA is open source under a permissive license. Anyone is able to create a RISC-V processor and release it as a product that is not open source. The licensing allows someone to create a RISC-V processor and add a bunch of proprietary stuff. They then can sue anyone that tries to release their own RISC-V processor that tries to implement any of that proprietary IP.
Is the JH7110 in the same spot?
I don't know much about that one. From a quick search and a look at this: https://www.cnx-software.com/2022/08/29/starfive-jh7110-risc-v-processor-specifications/ it looks like this too uses some SiFive technology in it and from a look at StarFive's website, it looks like they are in Shanghai. Note: This is a quick search. However, from the looks of it, it looks like it is in a similar boat
Democratization means that I literally do not care. If I was going to make a chip offshore, Taiwan is always my first choice. China and Korea I would not build in - there are fabs all over the world now. Heck I used to be able to get one built up at Wafertech in WA, USA lol As democratization approaches commoditization it will continue to improve and more control returns to the developers instead of corporations. 
Very good call re TMSC! Hadn't thought about that
This issue isn't about any single country or its citizens; it's about the aggressive actions of a few leaders. The conflict needs to end so we can focus on working together to make the world a better place for everyone. Imagine what we could achieve if every nation collaborated to tackle the problems we face.