CHIPS and Science Act

The $280 billion CHIPS and Science Act is designed to use federal grants and investments to encourage domestic production of advanced semiconductors and will also fund research into further advanced technologies, including further improved microchips; quantum computing; and artificial intelligence (AI).  Although many advanced chips are still primarily designed in the US, almost all of them are currently manufactured abroad (primarily in Taiwan and Korea). And, China is rapidly developing its own capabilities for advanced chip manufacture.  Legislators and the Biden Administration see this situation as a potential national security concern deserving of major market intervention.  These most advanced semiconductors serve as core features of US military and other governmental systems, and the current situation has substantial security risks.  Although the Department of Commerce is in charge of distributing the funds, the Department of Defense is also directly involved with the considerations.  At this point, it appears that there are three primary companies set to vie for the bulk of the $50 billion in direct investment: Intel, Samsung, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC).

On the patent side, the basic setup will follow the usual US rule that inventions created using federal fund will belong to the creators (i.e., the chip companies), but the Government will seemingly have march-in rights.  In high-security situations, some developments will also be classified and the patents kept secret, although that situation most often arises in the context of a DoD contract.

34 thoughts on “CHIPS and Science Act

  1. 5

    This is a giant corporate give away that is going to create zombie chip manufactures.

    Some of the big chip manufacturers in the USA have become bloated DEI under performers that need radical change–not 10’s of billions of dollars from the government to reenforce bad policies.

    What a nightmare.

    1. 5.1

      “Some of the big chip manufacturers in the USA have become bloated DEI under performers that need radical change…”

      Name one.

      1. 5.1.1

        I also would like to know who among the somewhat few chipmakers NWPA is taking issue with. They may be forced to do DIE (probably for ESG to get $$$), but idk how bloated they’ve become, he should let us know where his info is from.

        1. 5.1.1.1

          6, it is well known. Just ask a top engineer looking for a job.

      2. 5.1.2

        I too would like to know and echo 6’s comments.

        1. 5.1.2.1

          anon, seriously? Read the WSJ. One corporation is Intel. You should hear the things said about Intel on other business blogs.

          1. 5.1.2.1.1

            Ok – Intel.

            Thanks.

              1. 5.1.2.1.2.1.1

                “The percentage of underrepresented populations in senior leadership positions increased from 7.6% to 7.8%. ”

                As usual, the “muh senior leadership” that’s doing the DIE, doesn’t even get DIEed. lelz.

              2. 5.1.2.1.2.1.2

                I know people that are graduating from college now –top colleges and really smart people–but they are white males and say they would never work for Intel.

                1. “but they are white males and say they would never work for Intel.”

                  Well that’s good because intel apparently doesn’t want them.

              3. 5.1.2.1.2.1.3

                The big thing about this 6 and anon is that the patent system is meant to be an antidote to lazy corporations.

                Innovation is necessary for corporations only if there is innovation in other places that they can’t stop.

                Otherwise, corporations like GM in the 50’s is well off just keeping their 60% market share and making a fortune.

                So, trashing the patent system helps monopolies.

                This chips act is a giant shxt show that ensures that we won’t be competitive for another 20 years. What we need is a competitive system where capital flows to make the chips. For that we need to adjust trade. The US to help Taiwan just gave away our chip manufacturing to them and now is trying to make up for it.

                It is a giant shxt show. It is socialism where the corporations do the ESG and DEI and in return are allowed to stay monopolies and the government will give them money. Just insanity.

                1. “It is socialism where the corporations do the ESG and DEI and in return are allowed to stay monopolies and the government will give them money.”

                  What corporations are doing “the ESG and DEI” are monopolies and being allowed to stay monopolies by just having the government “give them money”?

                2. Please pardon potential rePeat (hitting a filter)….

                  March 8, 2023 at 10:30 am

                  Yes Breeze, perhaps “monopoly” is far too loose a word (and duopoly likely is insufficient).

                  That does NOT though change the dynamics to which Night Writer indicates between large established entities and the government.

                  If it assuages your feelings, simply insert “Efficient Infringers” for monopoly

                3. “For that we need to adjust trade. The US to help Taiwan just gave away our chip manufacturing to them and now is trying to make up for it.”

                  So how do you propose to magically “adjust trade” bro? And apparently Taiwan is not making enough chips as it is, or they’re finding buyers at a better price elsewhere, etc. (tho the chip shortage is global I hear).

                  I’m not even sure what you’re talking about overall. We’ve got over taxation going on in Merica. Period. We’ve got super free trade so foreign workers can undercut us ez. We’ve got massive environmental reqs so again, foreign nations can undercut us EZ. Just dillying around with trade to the US doesn’t solve any of those, and it doesn’t solve a global shortage.

      3. 5.1.3

        Breeze, you have turned into a joke on this blog. You have the mentality of a 12-year-old and produce no interesting content.

        1. 5.1.3.1

          It is not a coincidence that when Smelly Breeze comments on non-patent law items that he emulates Poopy Diaper.

    2. 5.2

      Night Writer,

      Tending to our own institutions, have you seen the interim leader of the ABA?

  2. 4

    Has the US ever exercised its march-in rights for any technology?

    1. 4.1

      I believe that the answer is “no,” but cannot say for certain.

      Perhaps for a short time during the anthrax scare…?

  3. 3

    Both comments one and two have a common element: “equity.”

  4. 2

    . . . and yet, the Biden and his administration continues to watch from the sidelines as the ability to protect such critically-important advancements and breakthroughs continue to be crippled by our very own Supreme Court (e.g. Alice and Mayo decisions) and CAFC (repeatedly misapplying the unconstitutional Alice and Mayo decisions).

    Mr. President: For what good does it do to support advancements and breakthroughs . . . if they can’t be protected with patents?

    What good?

    1. 2.1

      “ Mr. President: For what good does it do to support advancements and breakthroughs . . . if they can’t be protected with patents?”

      Kids, this is what you’ll be writing in blog comments when you huff patents every day behind the 7-11.

      1. 2.1.1

        Denigrating the question — while avoiding its direct implications — is no way to go through life, son.

        Your emotive faux elitism is showing again.

    2. 2.2

      “What good?”

      Anyone with any sense can see that technological advancements have value even without a patent system.

      Since I suspect you to not be completely senseless, I suspect the question you meant to ask is “What good does it do for my wallet?

      1. 2.2.1

        Wow – way to miss the point AND attempt to misdirect at the same time.

        You must be an examiner.

      2. 2.2.2

        The key question is, does a patent system encourage more technological advancements? Hard to test directly.

        This paper is from 2010, but note the results.

        “Pharmaceutical Innovation by Country
        Thirty-six percent of all NMEs were developed in the United States (Figure 1). The United Kingdom was the next largest source of NME development (10.4%). Examination of drugs with patents (n = 288) revealed that 126 (43.7%) of the NMEs had their earliest patent filed by inventors in the United States. Of the 288 drugs with patents in force at the time of FDA approval, 28 (10%) had more than 1 country listed as the home country of the patent holder. The distribution of inventor countries did not appreciably change if we assigned the second country listed on the patent as the inventor (data not shown).”

        link to ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.

        1. 2.2.2.1

          Whether or not test directly is NOT the determinative factor.

          What IS determinative is that SUCH was so widely accepted at this nation’s founding that the power to provide a system FOR patents was expressly provided in the Constitution (and not even as a supplemental ‘barter’ as may appear in the Bill of Rights).

          It is abysmal how people simply feel it is somehow ok to disregard history (including the Lockean nature to which the allocation of power to the Legislative Branch — and not the Judicial Branch — was indicated to complete a Quid Pro Quo and turn the inventor’s inchoate right into a full bundle of sticks of legal property rights).

          1. 2.2.2.1.1

            I agree. But being able to show the naysayers empirical data does not hurt.

            1. 2.2.2.1.1.1

              It does’hurt’ if this showing is a distraction from the guiding legal point, as it prevents the person to whom you are showing the data from grasping that legal point.

              Put bluntly, the naysayer’s action is not the valid point that they may think it to be.

              (I recognize that you mean well)

  5. 1

    The big problem is, with the poor education that kids are getting now, we will have a next generation of imbeciles.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You can click here to Subscribe without commenting

Add a picture