← Back to context

Comment by culi

11 hours ago

Breaking the export rules. Tech workers should be used to the idea of a "Invention Assignment Agreement".

Manus was built in China and all of its development happened there. In order to skirt Chinese review of the deal they tried to close down shop there and move to Singapore.

I don't think China is being unreasonable. I'm sure the US would act exactly the same way if an American tech company raised money from China and then tried to close down in the US and move all of its IP and technology to a different country so that it can be bought out by Alibaba or Bytedance without having to deal with US approval

5 comments

culi

Reply
nsagent  3 hours ago

There is no equivalent exit ban in the US that can be instituted on a whim for regulatory or business disputes. If you want to know more, you can read up on it in this Stanford Journal of International Law publication:

"Legal Strategy for Commercial Hostage-taking and Business Exit Bans" https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/SJIL_60-...

  • culi  1 hour ago

    Do you read the news? Whether or not to stop Nippon Steel's acquisition of U.S. Steel was being discussed everywhere. On what basis was that power?

    > Nippon Steel's acquisition of U.S. Steel can be stopped by the US President based on a recommendation from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), citing risks to national security under Section 721 of the Defense Production Act.

    National security risks. Exactly what China is citing. It's literally the exact same situation.

    EDIT: In fact, the US regularly stops acquisition of US companies by China https://hvmilner.scholar.princeton.edu/sites/g/files/toruqf2...

  • giwook  3 hours ago

    I love that there is an actual 48-page research paper on the exact comment that you were responding to and completely refutes their assertion.

    What a mic drop.