> “[The claim] was based on a rationale that American companies purchased large volumes of Korean semiconductors and thus contributed to the Korean firms' earnings,” the source said. “So, if the Korean chipmakers’ partner firms in Korea are entitled to parts of the profits, the American ones are, too.”
If I'm understanding this correctly, the Korean firms are reinvesting their profits in local partners, and a US trade delegation is trying to induce them to invest similarly in US firms. "US seeks share of Korean chipmakers' 'excess profits'" implies transfers to the US federal government, like a special windfall tax, which doesn't appear to be the case here. (And it would be outrageous, of course...)
I would imagine a lot of pushback…
See also the story of TikTok.
At this point, doing business in the US is an existential risk to any company.
You can argue that regulation is fine and I agree, but those fines generate a lot of money. The commission then uses those funds for various programs.
If tech companies blatantly break established law then of course they should be punished. However that's not what is happening most of the time, it's new regulations to constrain US tech.
> If tech companies blatantly break established law then of course they should be punished. However that's not what is happening most of the time, it's new regulations to constrain US tech.
Can you define the word “law” and the word “regulation” for me. You are using them interchangeably while arguing that they should be treated different so I can’t understand your argument beyond a strawmaned version of “I don’t like their laws so it’s not ok”.
I rather engage with the steel man version of your belief so please give me one.
"A regulation is a legal act of the European Union which becomes immediately enforceable as law in all member states simultaneously."
I think it's fine that I used the terms interchangeably but you can disagree if you want. Pick the term you prefer instead.
Also, I didn't say "I don't like the EU's laws/regulations". I'm stating that they do target US tech with NEW laws/regulations and the result is large fines. A lot of the time they are wrapped up in a PR package about competition and after years of this, Europeans still prefer to use US tech.
This is what you said most recently
> If tech companies blatantly break established law then of course they should be punished. However that's not what is happening most of the time, it's new regulations to constrain US tech.
This is what you said originally that makes a distinction between law and regulation.
I truly cannot understand what you mean if you cannot define these as separate definitions but treat them like they are separate definitions.
Please help me square your world view.
What is your cutoff timeline for where it’s an established law vs a new regulation?
Do you think when the US applies its laws to foreign companies operating in their borders that it’s just made up and arbitrarily enforced?(ignoring the current admin, I would agree they are doing that by ignoring our own laws)
In theory that's illegal, though I've never seen a company get busted for it.
Edit: to be clear, the current admin is treating American companies like their property, demanding that foreign countries invest in our businesses because they made “excess profits” is only a single indirection to a windfall tax.
Also lol at the idea that these guys believe in the idea of “excess profits”. I’d put money down that they would never accept that framing for themselves.