IP

Sufficient_Habit5091

First we let Gyna steal our IP. Now it's Mexico.

Tomkila

This is OTC stock, this stock will be in Nasdaq soon with probably 5/10b $ market cap after sk and micron deals. You can imagine 130/150$ IP licenses per year + 500m cash from micron and like 100m from sk. Netlist probabkh will be a billion $ cash, zero dept and over 300m $ ip licenses + resell business + home made products sales

Tomkila

Is basicly the same, both are under IP licenses with Samsung and soon with micron and sk. We are talking about hundreds millions $ + investing

FreedK70980

ARM for me, honestly. Bought a tiny position I can't justify on fundamentals because I like the IP moat and figured a small stake beats staring at the chart with regret for a decade (kind of how I feel keeping dubious piece activity on the board instead of simplifying, sometimes "I like it" wins over "the computer line says trade it off"). Costco's the one that gets me the most though, never once looked cheap and never seems to matter. fwiw I don't actually trade, just watch SPY and this stuff from the sidelines, so take the position-sizing talk with a grain of salt.

TuckerMcG

Patents aren’t granted on a worldwide basis. Patents granted by the USPTO only apply to the US. Patents granted by the EPO only apply to the EU. Patents granted by the JPO only apply to Japan. Patents granted by the CNIPA only apply to China. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how IP works in a globalized world. Guess what? Anyone can access the USPTO’s website and read a patent that was granted. That’s the whole point of the patent. China isn’t disrespecting patents by practicing knowledge shared via US patent grants, because US patent grants don’t apply in China. You also have a fundamental misunderstanding of how US legal jurisdiction works if you think we can enforce a US patent in every country around the world. Long-arm jurisdiction is not infinite. You simply don’t know enough about this subject to be speaking with any authority whatsoever. > Bringing up inventions from over a hundred years ago isn't really supporting your case for innovation being stifled today, in 2026. That’s not the point of the list. The point of the list is to show you 250 years of unbelievably rampant innovation that was spurred by our patent system. And in case you didn’t notice, the end of that list was AI, which was invented in America. And while I won’t give Tesla Motors any credit for inventing electric cars, they did kickstart the market for it and made them economically viable for the rest of the world to follow their lead. And their battery tech was absolutely innovative. So once again, another US company leading the charge there. Your argument just doesn’t withstand anything beyond surface level scrutiny. > The internet? Email? The cellphone? The smartphone? What are you talking about? I’m talking about where these were invented. Ya know, where the innovation actually occurred? Duh. You cannot have this had of reading comprehension.

Tobeuo

Yes I would buy it if I were you, they're cutting costs and offering options to employees to retain better developers. Their IP value is well beyond their valuation and their games are not copy pasta as one user stated. They are unique and innovative, Child of Light was a work of art. Far cry is amazing, assassins creed, prince of Persia, rainbow six, they've got a ton of blockbuster titles. Their restructure was costly but they are set to turn profit in 2028. I bought 15,000 shares.

TuckerMcG

> When you look at China who is currently speeding past the world in development due to stealing intellectual property and developing their own, doesn't it make more sense that patents stifle innovation? China is able to steal IP because companies have outsourced manufacturing to them, which requires the companies to divulge the entire process of how to make the invention to the Chinese manufacturer and also sets up contracts between suppliers and the Chinese manufacturer to obtain all the materials necessary to make the thing. It has nothing to do with patents and everything to do with globalization. Anyone could look at a US patent and steal the invention. The whole point of patents is to reveal how something works. But other countries don’t steal our IP the way China does because they don’t have the equipment or supplies necessary to replicate the entire engineering process of our inventions. And China’s technological development is more due in part to their massive population, totalitarian government, and complete lack of respect for basic human rights than anything. > By allowing companies to sue anyone into the ground who even sniffs their intellectual property it creates an environment where people are too scared to innovate. Too scared to innovate? In the US? The country that invented the cotton gin, anesthesia, the phonograph, the telephone, the light bulb, the airplane, the assembly line (leading to mass produced automobiles), the hearing aid, the cardiac defibrillator, the pacemaker, organ transplants, the microwave, carbon dating, laser technology, the transistor, laptops, the personal computer, the Internet, email, the cellphone, the smartphone, GPS and now AI? C’mon, you’re not even trying to think critically about this. OpenAI had zero hesitation in scraping the entire internet and all available media to train its models despite copyright providing every author and musician and movie studio a legal basis to sue them to oblivion.

Long_Dong_Larry

These are all great examples except for Motorola Mobility. Google bought them for the IP and the know-how around making phones, which it then used to launch the Pixel line. Google kept all the patents and sold what was left to Lenovo. The Motorola Mobility that exists today owns very little of its original patent portfolio from before or during the Google years.

skilliard7

> Point 1 is fascinating and my question here is could this be China’s long run competitive advantage due to its political and economic structure? I'd actually argue it has more to do with American restrictions forcing China to do more with less. They have a hard time getting cutting edge American hardware in bulk(can only get small quantities via smuggling or lower tier hardware that gets approved). Because China cannot just throw infinite compute at training, this has driven China to invest a lot into R&D to find more efficient ways to train models and run them. The lack of hardware to satisfy demand from customers is also an incentive to make them open weight. Companies like Anthropic try to claim China is cheating, doing distilling, etc, but the reality is China has a lot of really smart researchers. It's also amusing seeing Anthropic accusing China of intellectual property theft, when they engaged in mass scale IP theft to train their models. It's the pot calling the kettle black

beaverlakenc

I this the recession indicator? Or is this still fafo china, start a trade war in a global economy.... Get cheap copies of shoes and IP not honored as well

GuyOnTheCouch420

tobacco is way more aligned with republicans than democrats. And tobacco wants cannabis legalized more than any other big industry. People dont stop smoking cigarettes because they smoke cannabis. And tobacco has a supply chain and IP that fits better than anyone. Alcohol specifically beer gets hurt from cannabis usage

illadelph_420

i agree but i mean...they have incredibly valuable IP and contracts. even if they never made another (new product design) shoe for the rest of their exsistence wouldnt they still make money. that Nike logo is worth something. im surprised the stock is still this low. they still got Air Force Ones and Air Jordans. also a large % of collector's shoes are Nike's albeit almost exclusively Older product(s).

TuckerMcG

> You're claiming the incentive of patents is to share innovation when the reality is patents are there to protect intellectual property for profit. No I’m claiming it does both of these. It *temporarily*’protects IP for profit as an incentive to induce inventors to teach the world how their invention works. And again, the patent monopoly is temporary. Why are you having such difficulty understanding this? I’m arguing in good faith, you just refuse to believe the world is more complex than your brain can handle and sometimes you have to make short term concessions in order to serve a greater long term goal.

greenpride32

>I am betting on future revamping the US electrical system and full electrification The need for this would have to align with a belief that AI datacenter buildout will continue to scaleout for the foreseeable future. In that case the better investment is SMH SOXX and more energy focused AIPO. I think you're going to find that in many of those engery ETF's there will be a lot of dead weight (espeically in TAN). In the semi space, you have companies selling products and services backed by IP and at high margin; whereas energy is a commodity. Sure you will see some earnings growth in energy, but ultimately it cannot scale that fast and is fractured (as in many share the pot). Individual big winners sure, but ETF will water them down by a lot, that broader index is better long term.

WhatsUpSteve

It's not like any of our votes matter since he's literally the single largest shareholder of TSLA stocks. SPCX will absorb all of the TSLA debt and assets. TSLA will collapse like a cheap folding chair and all the IP of TSLA will be part of TSLA.

Fredidiah

- Not everyone can run a company forever (what happens when the founder dies?) - Selling a portion of ownership can inject cash into a business that might have a need / desire for cash NOW to fund projects that it thinks can significantly grow operations - Owning a business is valuable. If you ceased all operations of a major business, they still have valuable assets: a knowledgeable workforce, products, inventories, contracts, IP, buildings, etc. - You don't have to sell ownership of a company if you don't want to

Longjumping_Fun2576

The thing is, most of the time AI is handicapped because you can't allow it access to anything that matters. So you give it access, and suddenly you're in a press conference trying to explain why 10 different AI systems hacked all your IP.

Designer_Respect4285

He wrote: "AI is a money trap, with AI companies' ridiculous valuations and unsustainable businesses making exits or IPOs impossible" He wrote AI has 3 quarters to prove itself or collapse in 2024, he wrote numerous other similar comments saying if X doesn't happen they will go bankrupt, every time it's been wrong. Here's his thoughts in depth about Open AI and Antrhopic not being able to IPO, the cherry on top is he said no one would ever buy Anthropic at a 170b valuation lmao. Transcript from the better offline podcast titled The AI money trap part 2: While a normal company could just issue equity and deal with the dilution that way, open AI's structure necess states the negotiation, where companies can obstruct the entire process if they see fit. Speaking of companies doing that, let's talk about Microsoft. As I asked in my premium newsletter a few weeks ago, what if Microsoft does not want open 03:46 ai to convert. They own all the IP, they own all the access to open AI's research, and already run most of their infrastructure, while assuming the best case scenario that it would end up owning a massive junk of the biggest tech stile up of all time. And I'm talking about equity not open AI's current profit sharing units. Microsoft might also believe that it stands to gain more by letting open ai die and assuming its role in 04:08 the AI ecosystem. But let's assume that open ai converts and now has to continue raising money at a rate that will require it allegedly to only need to raise seventeen billion dollars in twenty twenty seven. That number doesn't make any sense considering the open ai already had to bring forward its eight point three billion dollar fund raised by at least three months. But let's stick with that idea. 04:29 Open ai believes it will be profitable somehow by twenty thirty, and even if we assume that that means it intends to burn over one hundred billion dollars total to get there, is the plan to take open ai public and then dumper toxic acx onto the public markets. Then it will just flounder and convulse and die for everybody to seek. Kind of sucks. Can you imagine open aiss one? How old do you think this company would do when they had a true financial audit from a major accounting firm, 04:57 and you can claim they already have one. I simply don't belie leave you, this burn does not seem like an accountancy firm would be good with them. And if you want to know what all that looks like Google we Work, which went from tech industry darling to joke in a matter of days in part because it was forced to disclose how bad things actually were when they filed to go public. No really are linked to an article I've linked in the spreadsheet called the Strangest and 05:19 most Alarming things in we Work's IPO filing. It's a bad sign if your IPO filing is described as strange and alarming. Those are not even terms of art, they're just worrisome. With that in mind, I feel the same 05:30 way about Anthropic. Nobody is buying this company at one hundred and seventy billion dollars, which is how much it's raising it right now, and thus the only way to access liquidity would be to take Anthropic public and show the world how a company that made seventy two million dollars in January and more than four hundred million dollars in July twenty twenty five and also plans to lose three billion dollars or more, and then you show them that and let the market sign a fair price, especially 05:54 if the S one includes a bunch of strange and alarming stuff that raises questions about whether anthropics value is actually justified. I'm I'm stuttering here because everyone's acting like these irrational things like yeah, our open ai, which burns five billion dollars in twenty twenty four, probably ten or more in twenty twenty five. If if not fifteen or twenty, like that's fine, Like this is all good. Speaker 3 06:17 They'll just go public one day, will they really? Speaker 2 06:20 Really? Speaker 3 06:21 Will they? No? Speaker 2 06:22 Really, what's the plan? What's the plan here? 

cultoftheclave

I think they still get a royalty for every chip of ram that is sold with their tech baked in, which I believe is almost all of the stuff that is sold as HBM. But maybe some of that IP has expired, or chipmakers have figured out how to implement work alike solutions, or something. But as RMBS it's not, as far as I know, an actual fab I guess they don't get much from the current shortage economics. You think they would at least catch a contact high from it, but no. they just sit around treading water in a range, with a little bit of uptrend due to the whole lift of the market. but nothing anywhere like the explosive meme chip tickers. still there apparently still in business and must be selling something to somebody, maybe they're an acquisition target at some point?

Sofi_Seance

https://sciencebusiness.net/news/79887/The-Great-IP-Debate%3A-Do-patents-do-more-harm-than-good%3F Here’s a link to economists debating on patents. I literally AGAIN gave an example agreeing with you of how patents can support innovation. Why would I need a response to something I’m literally agreeing with in some context?  Again. Most economic conclusions are debated. Like did you take a class or two read some arguments in favor and never realize the world of discussion outside of that? Source economics degree and reading tons of papers on various economic topic. The only sign of ignorance is behavior like this thinking things are universal facts 

TuckerMcG

> You quoted an economist, proving my point that it’s economics. Which I studied *in law school*. Do you somehow think becoming a corporate lawyer doesn’t require an understanding of economics? There is no debate over this. The debate is uneducated dinguses on Reddit circlejerking each other, the other side is IP lawyers and Stanford economists. Also just common fucking sense would show you how incorrect your argument is. The US patent system stifles innovation, yet Americans still somehow invented the cotton gin, anesthesia, the phonograph, the telephone, the light bulb, the airplane, the assembly line (leading to mass produced automobiles), the hearing aid, the cardiac defibrillator, the pacemaker, organ transplants, the microwave, carbon dating, laser technology, the transistor, laptops, the personal computer, the Internet, email, the cellphone, the smartphone, GPS and now AI. Wow sure looks like we really are suffering from a severe lack of innovation over here! /s

Ancient-Prize4353

Waymo and Uber has been at odds since forever Uber had to pay Waymo $100M to settle an IP theft lawsuit decade ago. Waymo is on Uber because they want to test the distribution market, it makes absolutely no sense for them to be there long term, Uber app is a mess.

ProbsNotManBearPig

You’re not understanding because you have zero actual insight on what’s going on. Big money for ai comes from enterprise use. Big US tech companies account for a huge % of that use globally. None of the US tech companies are using Chinese models and never will. Why? Because licensing and hosting will always be a problem when working with Chinese companies. Sending billions to Chinese companies to let their ai software raises political concerns, cyber security concerns, and legal concerns about IP source of their models. It is a hard sell to US enterprises to use Chinese models anytime soon. Additionally, a huge part of the value of ai is the harness/agent layer that gives the LLM integrations to do things like read/write files, map code bases, have memories, etc. None of those things are the LLM model itself and add huge value. Anthropic and OpenAI are light years ahead on those things. Chinese companies could figure those things out too, but they have no major revenue streams and similarly high costs as US companies/models to host.

Emotional_Scheme6272

The compute angle is what most people are missing. Wall Street prices companies based on revenue multiples and AMD just bought an internal roadmap for their own hardware division. The $8.2bn isn't just for the IP or the talent, it's for a permanent seat at the table when these simulation workloads get defined. Everyone's piling into LLMs right now and spatial models are just sitting there waiting to eat the next decade. Robotics is stuck in a loop of impressive demos that can't handle edge cases because nobody wants to pay for the physical data collection to fix it. Simulation breaks that cycle but it requires an absurd amount of parallel processing. AMD gets to watch exactly where the bottlenecks form and then build silicon specifically for that problem. That's not a typical acquisition, it's a feedback loop most companies would kill for.

scotel

You don't know what you're talking about. This is very obviously an acquihire (acquiring solely for the employees). In today's AI market if they had legit IP they would be worth way, way more than 8B. Instagram / Android were not acquihires, they were acquired very specifically for their respective products / technology.

Wushu77

and then... Uncle Huang and Uncle Trump announce 'Strategic Partnership' with Cousin Xi. Strict compliance to quotas and IP, ITAR compliant architectures, third party leasing, mitigate supply chain bottlenecks, double manufacturing output tomorrow...blah blah blah.....we are all friends again :) market go boom.

dgellow

Your points are why you seem to like Microsoft, they aren’t investment related. - Microsoft branding is more messier and more diluted than a few years ago, copilot is a failure so far. Sharepoint is legacy software - open source doesn’t translate at all to profit - quantum computing is a tiny experimental market with no profit, and not expected to see any profit in that industry before a very long time - the video game industry has been declining a lot, it’s a pretty risky industry right now and microsoft has been one of the worst IP manager of the past decade

Pitiful-Voyage

Dam but all time low it seems less market cap than they own in IP and factories Def sux if you invest 2021-2025 you never recover that. Good cars no? Expert level anal-ysis

Dubious-Decisions

Do you have any idea with a tiny, minuscule fraction of the global economy and overall intellectual property pool that Linux and open source projects account for? Your confirmation biases aside, I can tell you that you're lecturing someone who has 15 patents and believe me, I understand the process, the flaws, and the value of the system. The last person I'd expect to understand how the system actually works is someone trying to impress upon me that the microscopic fraction of the global economy represented by Linux IP is somehow a paragon of how things can work and should. If that was true, well, things WOULD work that way. That they don't is a good indication that that's not what the market seeks.

stonkstonk69

They are reaching a tipping point, where there are enough sales references for this asset light company to take off. Recent licensing of IP very promising as well as added Exxon board member.

sentientshadeofgreen

1. Azure and Microsoft Office will stick around for the forseeable future. Copilot and Sharepoint are trash, it is not a "strong brand", it is something people put up with due to lack of competitive alternatives. 2. Microsoft is not committed to open software. Literally the opposite. 3. Not a good reason to invest in Microsoft. 4. Microsoft is not leading in QC. Not even close, which should concern given how much money they have and how much talent they are able to attract. 5. Microsoft IPs are wildly mismanaged. Just look at Halo - if how the Halo IP has been managed over the past decade inspires confidence in you, I have some great Jersey Shore beach-adjacent timeshares to sell you.

svideo

Linux and the rest of open source did exactly what you claim would be impossible and that solution now powers essnetially the entire internet including the website we are using right now. I have made several such contributions of my own work, again permissively licensed and you can check my submissions for a couple decades of doing exactly that. Execution is king, getting a good idea to market and serving customers well is what creates a good business. Fake protectionist notions like IP are cover for already-rich people, and you're just carrying water for them.

Defiant_Regular3738

IP protection does exist with big tech and with AI they wiped their ass with it, now both are hiding behind too big to fail ideas. When a clear AI winner appears they'll flood the courts with IP cases crying their reptile eyes out about infringement and intellectual property.

svideo

Abolish the complete nonsense idea that ideas are property. It exists to make rich companies richer, there are no lone inventors out there making piles of money on a patent. Trademark exists to protect both consumer and producer, every other aspect of IP law is complete rubbish that exists to keep rich people rich and is dragging humanity down with it.

MetalMountain2099

I can’t stand Elon, but China controls what and how many cars Non-Chinese products can be in their market…..also, China steals everyone’s IP, so they can sell their cars cheaper.

Hobo_Robot

If you're an IP transactions lawyer, then you are familiar with patent trolls. You should also be familiar with Jonas Salk, who famously chose to not patent the polio vaccine. Maybe patent trolls pay your billable hours so you feel the need to defend the system.

TuckerMcG

I’m an IP transactions lawyer and my god there’s an incredible amount of stupidity in this thread. How does it stifle innovation, exactly? If anybody could just rip off a new invention, nobody would reveal how their invention works. That’s the point of patents - to give inventors an incentive to share what they’ve discovered and how their invention works so the rest of the world can learn from it. The monopoly granted by a patent is an inducement for inventors to share information. It doesn’t stop anyone from inventing anything. Scientists don’t go, “oh hey I could develop this new medical device that will save millions of lives and make me potentially billions of dollars, but man the patent system just doesn’t work right. I’ll just stop my work here and won’t bother creating something new which could save lives.” They go, “oh hey I invented this new medical device, I should patent it so nobody else can make money on it before I do.” Go google the inventor of drug eluting stents (ie, stents for blocked arteries which are coated with drugs that help keep the artery open and prevents scarring). Major medical device manufacturers ripped off his patents, he sued them and won billions of dollars of off them. Without the patent system, he would’ve gotten $0 for his legitimately life saving invention. In fact, he wouldn’t have shared his invention at all with the world and would’ve kept it as a trade secret and nobody would be able to use them. [Here’s I did some of the work for you and found just one of the lawsuits he won. ](https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2011/01/31/182534.htm) So again - how, exactly, does the patent system hinder innovation???

icantbelieveit1637

Funnily enough IP law is some of the earliest constitutional powers Article I, Section 8, Clause 8: *\[The Congress shall have Power . . . \] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.*

redpandaeater

A lot of our copyright and IP law of the last hundred or so years is unconstitutional. I'm still pissed at SCOTUS for stealing stuff from us and putting things in the public domain back under copyright after the Uruguay Rounds Agreement. Our patent system isn't quite as shitty as that, but there's definitely hasn't been enough funding at the USPTO to properly nip a lot of patent trolls in the bud by axing patent claims due to prior art or obviousness. That's something AI might actually be helpful with to help with patent searches.

mrpickles

It's not expensive though.  Netflix was such a huge success because they re-monetized old content sitting on the shelf.  IP owners were happy, customers were happy, Netflix was happy.  Then IP got greedy. And they're trying to pivot into TV again. What needs to happen is Netflix tells IP owners take a hike - most of them can't compete with their own streaming service.  If that means scaling down the library, cut the rate!  Until IP comes back begging to be back online.  Stop trying to produce a new hit show every week, and just be the affordable library of cinema history.

3dprintinted

Your IP probably did not change at home

Amadeum

Disney was a sell when it was clear to me they were dropping the ball on nearly every IP they had

Brutally-Honest-Bro

Apple puts? $5.7 billion fine for using someone else's IP

chiniwini

Wdym? A Chinese model is the safest option. Buying a bunch of hw and running the model on premise (your data never leaves your building) versus sending all your data and IP to Anthropic.

Low_discrepancy

> Big tech companies won't let a Chinese model within a mile of their IP or code. Yes they would and they are at my very large American multinational that everyone has heard of.

Vycid

There's no money in sales to individuals. All the money is selling to enterprise. Big tech companies won't let a Chinese model within a mile of their IP or code. They pay API rates for special ZDR agreements, and sometimes even more than that for Bedrock. This plan is for the tech types that work at large tech companies. $500 is massively subsidized, they're losing money on it, but it's a hearts and minds thing.

Me-Regarded

I can leave here, I get banned from reddit and have to buy a new phone, change IP, etc.

EI-SANDPIPER

It's overvalued. Disney would be the best pick in the space because of their valuation, IP and parks. In fact I think Nike would currently be the better buy, although I wouldn't buy it either at its current price

fallingdowndizzyvr

Still spinning a false narrative I see. Was it theft when the US kept that Mig 25 for 2 months that fell into their laps. Was it stealing IP when they full disassembled it? Is it still theft that when the US sent it back, they didn't send it all back? You still haven't haven't answered how good this tech is if it was just sent through UPS like a $1 nick knack someone ordered off Temu.

Bravadette

Thanks for the IP address #hacked

fallingdowndizzyvr

> This is a pointless citation that you are attempting to mention. LOL. The law that defines what can be patented is pointless in a discussion of what is patented. That's like taking about what defines being wet is pointless in discussing if water is wet. That's just silly. > novel, non-obvious, and useful. None of that process is dependent on innovation. LOL. "**novel**, non-obvious, and useful" is literally the definition of innovation. "1 : a new idea, method, or device : **novelty**" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innovation > Still wrong.... China is one of the world leaders in stealing other countries manufacturing IP. LOL. Still wrong. I posted evidence backing up my position. You've posted evidence that destroyed yours. Look above for your argument that novelty isn't novelty. > Don't cite some random European website that is owned be some obscure German family and bank that went out of business in 1995. Still not a flex. LOL. Clearly you wouldn't know science if it struck you in the side of the head. Calling Nature "some random European website" proves that. QED. Nature and Science are the two premier scientific publications in the world. As in kids doing science fair dream of someday being published in Nature right before they get their Nobel. The fact that you call Nature "some random European website" shows what you know about science. Which is nothing whatsoever.

octopus_serenader

IP legal fights not going well, on top of anti-renewables administration plus tariffs on materials.

octopus_serenader

It's something about these patent and IP legal fights recently, plus there's still the headwinds from 🥭 anti-renewables actions and tariffs (on materials). It's a miracle we've made any profit on solar. I had the TAN ETF last year and it did great, until it didn't.

SevTheNiceGuy

> read 35 USC 102. This is a pointless citation that you are attempting to mention. That code has nothing to do with innovation. It's not mentioned as part of the patent code. The overall purpose of a US patent is the creation of a new idea, design, process, or mechanism. Under U.S. patent law (35 U.S.C. § 101), an invention qualifies for a patent if it is ***novel, non-obvious, and useful***. None of that process is dependent on innovation. Again, making ,supposedly new, processors that originate off of stolen architecture from US and EU companies is not a flex. >China is probably the most innovative country on earth right now. That's why the US is so focus on transferring Chinese tech at the moment. Still wrong.... China is one of the world leaders in stealing other countries manufacturing IP. China has had to rely on our countries bringing their manufacturing knowledge into the country and teaching the poorly educated Chinese people how to use a screwdriver. The Chinese government then steals that process knowledge and spreads it around to other companies and industries within China. >https://www.nature.com/nature-index/institution-outputs/generate/all/global/all Don't cite some random European website that is owned be some obscure German family and bank that went out of business in 1995. Still not a flex.

fallingdowndizzyvr

> America has required foreign powers to partner with US companies in order to enter the market? That's news to me America has been stealing IP since there's been an America. https://apnews.com/general-news-b40414d22f2248428ce11ff36b88dc53 > China is bad because they don't practice and aren't interested in reciprocity. That's absolute nonsense. Many of the things they do are exactly in reciprocity to what is done to them. Say by the US. Look at the tariffs for a recent example. > They want one way benefits and get upset over anything else. LOL. You just described the US in a nutshell. So you must think there's not much difference between the US and China then.

rdh2dmd

Vehicle manufacturing, tourism, shipbuilding, games and entertainment IP, cosmetics, refined oils, nuclear engineering, defense manufacturing, aerospace are all hitting record highs this year. Countries like Canada or Mexico would kill for these industries right now. Semiconductors are just very dominant.

Slawco

How did Nike go through the floor. They have a high margin, and very popular product, with lots of IP. At this point, the shoes are like $5 to make and sell for $100. What the F are they doing to spend all that money on waste? Perhaps someone can enlighten me.

cuteman

> LOL. I guess you don't realize that now the US is pretty much demanding that Chinese companies form JVs with US companies if they want access to the US market. Which has been standard operating procedure in China for decades >That way the US companies can steal Chinese IP. All while we cry on the global stage that China is bad for doing what we do. China is bad for doing what they're doing so we force them to do the same

Normal-Phase-1252

As more eyes digest this incredible find, I expect a big move for $FSLY given $4B MC, reasonable valuation, and 20M shares short: "From the IP addresses, across the 738 tests, Muse sent traffic from: \-Cloudflare: 37.0% \-Fastly: 29.3% \-Meta: 19.4% \-AWS: 14.4% Cloudflare is not a surprise – as there has been a lot of analyst commentary about Muse using Cloudflare. Fastly, on the other hand, was a surprising result I ran many different situations and tasks to try to understand why, or when, Muse sends traffic through Fastly – or others. And when I looked deeper, Muse used Fastly for 100% of the tests when browser navigation was required (e.g., “go to my favorite restaurant’s website and find me the menu”). And when Muse was requested to navigate on a website (e.g., make me a doctor appointment), Fastly was used in 100% of tests

fallingdowndizzyvr

LOL. I guess you don't realize that now the US is pretty much demanding that Chinese companies form JVs with US companies if they want access to the US market. That way the US companies can steal Chinese IP. All while we cry on the global stage that China is bad for doing what we do.

henristig

That's what the CEO's been saying from the start as well, that the numbers get pretty ridiculous pretty fast. I'm sure you've run the napkin math, but here's for everyone else. Around 1.25 billion smartphones produced globally in 2025. Projected market CAGR 5.3% through 2033 ​Smartphones require 8–10 chips per unit at an estimated $1–$2 per chip via a fabless business model (this number is years old by now, leaked from a company presentation, so take it for what it's worth) ​With a moderate 20% penetration into the smartphone market by around 2030—roughly 330 million units per year, factoring in CAGR—annual revenue would land between ~$2.7B and $6.6B USD ​Let's apply a P/S multiple of 10 for simplicity, which puts the market cap at $27B – $66B USD. With roughly 51.2 million shares outstanding at this time, the stock would trade at ~$500–$1,300 USD without further dilution. ​Note that high-growth semiconductor companies with strong moats often trade at significantly higher P/S multiples during their expansion phase, and not a single cent from their other verticals - FWA, base stations, satellite, radar, military etc. - is included here.  That's WILD.  This is what I mean when I say "orders of magnitude of upside".  Keep in mind that this has the potential to become *fundamental* tech for future high-frequency communication, and ​we could easily see a winner-takes-most dynamic play out, given the lack of viable competitive alternatives and BW’s patent moat around distributed digital beamforming. We're already seeing a potential path opening up in the 6G standardization work at 3GPP towards some of Beammwave's patents becoming standard essential, which would imply a future where everyone's mandated to use their invention at higher frequencies and Beammwave would passively collect a royalty on every device that does so. Pure IP with close to 100% margin.  Market share could end up quite substantial or almost total, whichever way it goes.

Basic-Initiative-298

Netflix CG Artist job listing requires ComfyUI experience. They're really trying to generate their future content with garbage local models who definitely stole IP from others. Netflix has successfully dethroned Microsoft for my least favorite corporation. [https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/4405500413/](https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/4405500413/)

maria_la_guerta

They just wanted IP. Do you think a company that knows who you're going to vote for and what kind of mayonnaise you're most likely to buy doesn't understand that people don't want to wear 10lb headsets? AR/VR is not there yet, but it has very big implications once we figure out how to do it right. Meta knows this and they're racing to file good patents and IP ahead of that. Metaverse was just a gimmick to make a few bucks on top of that. Meta does not fuck around on tech. They are a leader in this space for a reason and they're not afraid of a few Redditors thinking they're smarter than them.

Pitiful-Voyage

Fisker is widely known as Fister due to what Henrik has done to investors. They had no production line, no patents, zero assets (and even touted the zero asset model as an advantage lmao). Henrik drew up a decent looking design and it was slapped hastily over a rather mediocre battery-packed Magna platform to give it OK range. The Fisker badge was glued on, and they called it a day. Forget about driving dynamics, refinement, and anything else. Door handles would fall off from UV and the California Mode wouldn't close doggie windows after they were open. As much as Lucid is circling the drain at least they have IP, a manufacturing plant that could output tens of thousands of vehicles if there was ever demand, and a car with world class range (along with a halo Sapphire built to order) and storage space. TLDR - lucid, just go up already. Plz.

cuteman

Bunch of legacy IP, middling recent IP and some decent popular IP but no guarantees of anything in the future

investinghopeful

The simple reason is AMD is no.1 in CPUs and no.2 in GPUs. CPUs have all of a sudden become very important (think of memory 1yr ago) and forward CAGR has grown from 10% to 30% to 50% to 70% in a short span of 6-9 months. CPU:GPU ratio is expected to be 1:1 going forward, down from 1:8 previously. Meanwhile, GPU market is still growing as we see from NVDA's projections. so no.1 in GPU gets you 5.5T (NVDA) no.1 in ASICS gets you 1.7T (AVGO) if you are no.1 in CPU + no.2 in GPU, aren't you going to be worth 2-3T even assuming no growth in overall semis? and AMD has huge amount of IP and can compete in ASICS as well (custom chips for META, GOOGL, MSFT, etc). the multiples everyone is quoting are based on old estimates or historical 12 month numbers. Market moves based on 1-2 year forward earnings.

AccomplishedJump3769

royalties on IP means steady cash flow even if AI hype dies down feels like a slight hedge against my usual puts nightmare

notapersonaltrainer

The closer you get to simple deterministic protocols the more open source is used. No one is going to sue a bank because their website transmits over TCP/IP packets. But if their Kimi Virtual Teller causes someone to send all their money to a Chinese triad because they wanted to save a fraction of a cent per token, there's going to be a pile on from every lawyer and three letter agency.

Full_Boysenberry_314

It's worth looking at some of the moves Anthropic is making towards automated scientific research. They've open sources a lab-equipment control standard following the same playbook they've used for MCP and Agent Skills that served them very well. Now they are investing in bio-tech lab space with the goal of becoming the feeder for a new generation of pharmaceuticals. The royalty potential here is huge. And the ability to guard against distillation attacks is much higher. They have plausible arguments for keeping biotech knowledge out of public hands (safety) and automated research could build a very hard to replicate proprietary data moat. Absolutely look for their business model to start expanding well beyond selling tokens via API and into selling and licencing IP discovered/developed by their superior internal models.

PartialDischage

> It solved the double spend problem of digital cash and the Byzantine generals ptoblem. I'm sure you knew about those. And failed to solve the Oracle problem which made it's entire innovation useless when interacting with the real world. >One of several use cases is the ability to send a billion or however many dollars worth to anywhere in the world in seconds to a few minutes. Any other crypto can do this too. Not unique to Bitcoin. Bitcoin is also irreversible. No one wants to send billions of dollars in an irreversible transaction that is extremely easy to mess up. hence why nearly all Bitcoin is exchanged on centralized exchanges instead of on the Blockchain. >It can be instantly verified, unlike gold. Gold also can't be easily transported. So there are two quick use cases. It cannot verify the other end of the transaction happened. So that provides no value. Sure, it can confirm I sent you 1 bitcoin. It cannot confirm that you sent me a car in return. Stop comparing to gold and start comparing to stocks. I have desire or need to "transport" my assets, so that use case is asinine. >And yes Bitcoin is the best performing asset in history. Look it up for yourself instead of just going by your feelings and intuition. It blows apple out of the water. Nothing comes even remotely close. Apple literally has a higher market cap. Both started as worth zero. So please explain how it has performed better? >Yes Bitcoin can be copied and replaced. Millions of cryptocurrencies have attempted including Bitcoin cash..none have succeeded because like TCP/IP it's a protocol humanity needs to rally behind. Learn about the network effect. None have succeeded, just like Bitcoin. Bitcoin is not used as a currency. Because it fails as one. The reality is it is you who doesn't understand Bitcoin. Because you are blinded by your desire to get rich quick.

PalantirImperator

>It could be argued that the moral imperative would be to continue if not accelerate innovation, in order to maintain technological advantage over geopolitical rivals. That IS the moral imperative, and enacting regulation/a slowdown within the US does nothing to change it. The Chinese have already said they will not participate in any slowdown, and their behavior over the last ~30 years towards foreigners, American industry in general, and American IP mean that we couldn't trust them even if they said they would or signed a treaty.

Miserable-Rooster-46

One of these countries (China) has repeatedly built man made islands in other nation's territorial water, made numerous incursions into another countries airspace with fighter jets, attacked forgein fisherman fishing in their own water, stolen countless IP, violates, the WTO every chance they get, aggressively have power plants, water treatment facilities, cities, schools, businesses, and any other entity, and has publicly declared they will take over Taiwan. They are actively making mockups of US ships, practicing their attacks, and making aggressive moves in space for over a decade. This is not a peaceful nation. You have been fooled if you think China is anything but an aggressor.

SnorklSnorkl

No. They have no choice but to slam on the brakes because the models are finding ways to hack the AI companies themselves, allowing adversaries to steal the company's IP. Google 'Monorepo Anthropic'

hakim37

Historically memory is cyclical because all manufacturers build to the same specification and the end product is sold on commodity markets and so theoretically has efficient price discovery.  Meanwhile logic has a high degree of variance between manufacture so one could assume Nvidia will continue to build better GPUs and command a premium. Whether that's true given their current margins and AMDs roadmap who knows.  However going back to memory I have been theorising how cyclical it still is. The last major downtown was the post 08 recession bust which let to the three (four with CXMT) remaining manufacturers which makes the current market much less competitive. Also the rise of HBM, now with various speed bucketing is making it look less like a commodity.  Going forward all the memory providers are looking into unique logic and stacking IP so who knows maybe even after the market finds an equilibrium it won't just be a race to the bottom on margins. Now for my positioning most of this is irrelevant to me because I'm all in on CPUs / Intel. Which I imagine will lead a lot of redditors to discredit the above.

Sick0h

Anyone know the best IP provider for Greenland? Just trying to start planning stuff out for my next vacation home.

acadia11x

They are not the same use case. intel is 1 of 3 leading edge companies in the world and the only American company that can do what they do. Intel has a massive already client processer business, Intel also has a massive IP portfolio and is intrical to national security, GFS is no that, they don’t have that type of moat nor importance to the global market or the US plans. An intel buy last year was a totally different thesis and not just well this company could be more important , intel was already important and its concerns were foundry investment which is huge for high-na EUV -‘d leading edge.

JabCrossE4E5Quark

IP theft is another big one. And we are gonna find out whenever shit hits the fan that companies like CRWV and others were double using assets as collateral in their secure loans. Its gonna be a complete fucking shit show.... once the market starts behaving rationally, which may never happen lol

dwntwnleroybrwn

Not caring about IP is not something to be excited about. I have see way to many examples of stolen IP and 10% of the quality. I am extremely suspect of Chinese EV from a safety and quality perspective. 

Grubby454

Open Source and Open Weight stuff will eat the main boys lunch. Why pay, when you can get 95% the same for just the cost of compute. Plus you keep your data. Public AI only works by stealing IP. That's pretty much the line Mr Palintir (Karp) ran recently as well.

cchikorita

There might be no fully free market capitalism as envisioned by Adam Smith but the economic philosophy of the USA is much closer to that original essence than China ever will be. Why you bother trying to hold a country that literally rebuilt itself on rampant censorship to the same standards as a country who touts itself as the world's shining beacon of freedom is beyond me. It's apples to oranges. Western countries literally carved China into spheres of influence during the imperialist era and even if the USA wasn't directly involved in pillaging China specifically, their alliance with European countries meant that they also reaped the benefits of forcing China to open its borders. The Western hemisphere spent centuries pillaging, razing and bullying the remainder of the world, I'm sorry if I feel 0 empathy that for once a country wouldn't let them have free reign over their consumers without also demanding some benefits in return. Your argument in favor of protectionism due to IP theft might have some merit if the USA didn't have also a history of employing the same tactics against Japan automakers when Toyota and co were first gaining a foothold. The USA doesn't like foreign competition, period. China's IP theft is only the cherry on top. As I said before, I am against IP theft in a perfect, meritocratic world. But this world is far from that and I quite frankly find it ironic to when the world's historical bully gets its shit stolen for once. And before you said anything, I'm American.

shitholejedi

There is no free market capitalism anywhere in the world. This is not the 1800s. Western industries are tightly regulated down to the IP laws you mentioned. If the US was an laissez-faire system you would have a point on hypocrisy, but its not. China will complain about tariffs when they are their standard. The US didn't force China or Deng to open up its markets. And if that is what you consider pillaging then the US reaction to China is justified as a defence against pillaging.

btoned

We're literally at the stage where a company could declare bankruptcy, destroy their IP, parents, trademarks, etc, and nuke their HQ and people would say it's bullish.

Abject_Stand_4348

Chinese cars are messing up the European auto market and European automakers. Europe needs to have a stronger stance but like normal, Europe pretty much says “pwease don’t take advantage of our markets!” In theory, more competition leads to better prices and better deals for consumers. In reality, it’s going to squeeze every non Chinese automaker. On a long enough timeline where we allow Chinese companies to take over, this will be bad for consumers. The Chinese government supports all of these auto companies with major subsidies and controls a lot of the technology. They steal IP with reckless abandon. In the short term, it will increase competition and drive down prices. In the long run, it will reduce the competitors and increase prices.

cchikorita

Yes, protectionism is rampant in China but that's not nearly as hypocritical considering they don't fully subscribe to capitalism like the Western world does. You can't build your economy on capitalism and a supposed "free market" where competition is seen as beneficial for both consumers and innovation and then clamp down when said competition isn't coming from inside the house. I don't understand the point of your second paragraph. The Western world quite literally forced China to open its borders to them and crippled their monarchy. The USA views every other country through the lens of either 1. pillaging their resources or 2. market of consumers to sell goods to and make money off of. I certainly don't support IP theft but I think it's extremely hypocritical and short sighted for Westerners to bring up the quid pro quo business arrangements China made with American businesses before letting them do business in the country.

mparks37

Are you aware of China's trade practices, and why countries around the world are pushing back? They are not simply "competing." China subsidizes it's industries 8-10 times more than the US and the West. They steal IP, force tech transfers, don't allow foreign companies to enter their markets on a even playing field, either from regulatory or lending means. They heavily overproduce, in order to undercut foreign industries. They have myriad of other trade restrictions. Oh, and they purposefully devalue their currency, so they can more easily dump their overcapacity, which also keeps their people much more poor that necessary. These trade practices put together are inherently hostile and coercive, and must me pushed back on. I'm not arguing for any specific car companies, or countries, but what you want is for western countries to compete with one arm and both legs tied up. I assume you are one of three things, a China bot, a tankie, or just very uneducated on the subject.

mparks37

Are you aware of China's trade practices, and why countries around the world are pushing back? They are not simply "competing." China subsidizes it's industries 8-10 times more than the US and the West. They steal IP, force tech transfers, don't allow foreign companies to enter their markets on a even playing field, either from regulatory or lending means. They heavily overproduce, in order to undercut foreign industries. They have myriad of other trade restrictions. Oh, and they purposefully devalue their currency, so they can more easily dump their overcapacity, which also keeps their people much more poor that necessary. These trade practices put together are inherently hostile and coercive, and must me pushed back on. I'm not arguing for any specific car companies, or countries, but what you want is for western countries to compete with one arm and both legs tied up. I assume you are one of three things, a China bot, a tankie, or just very uneducated on the subject.

fomoandyoloandnogrow

Well when they steal all your IP a business plans. I guess it’s more like having a baby that’s not yours and being cucked

NecessarySun894

What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I've been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I'm the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You're fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You're fucking dead, kiddo.

yellow_golf_ball

Dario and Antrhopic doesn't care about us if he's burning rare books and stealing IP if they were really concerned about their actions. He's using fear mongering to get regulatory capture to maintain their lead and prevent competition especially from open source models from Chinese companies.

mooki5

Outside of the all world fund i have chosen some individual stocks. I like a bio med company which I believe will bring a revolutionary product to market. An aerospace company that I am linked to through employment and a volatile David v Goliath story centered around memory IP. Also a company that is based locally that make wafer products for the semiconductor industry.

Physical-Specific558

Slower model updates and spending more time implementing guardrails. You think this shit is gonna be as popular when it catches every IP infringement?

Hot-Significance2387

It's just a fluffy shoe. Every brand has already noticed Hoka's popularity and basically copied them. With no real IP protection they have limited upside. 

wrestlingchampo

There's even weird tokenizing layers that I dont understand A pennystock I am watching; Cosmos Health (COSM), announced today that they were tokenizing IP for a medical product for financing, under the guise that this would prevent share dilution. How in the hell does thag even work?

alba_Phenom

No but until recently the idea that we needed an EU Reddit wasn't a consideration, neither was thinking that maybe it's a bit of a vulnerability to have most of our industries based on Microsoft products from a country which could easily become hostile and use it as a weapon against us. We have long thought this way about Chinese tech and therefore block a lot of their bids to create infrastructure in our countries. Now we have consider the US the same way. We don't have a European Twitter either but we're seeing in real time what a foreign based hostile platform like that can do to our politics. Certain European countries are already proactively looking to migrate to Linux and free open source alternatives for Government infrastructure. For tech that we don't have, I believe China are correct to ignore IP and just blatantly copy products they don't currently have. Europe should do the same since the US are clearly no longer interested in abiding by International Norms and Laws. If we based what we do now on whether it can be maintained across decades or can change with winds of politics then we wouldn't bother doing anything. But one thing is for sure, the Trump Administration has opened the eyes of previous US Allies, made us re-assess and understand that we MUST change the status-quo and how we go forward. This is a matter of survival for us, not some big game as it is to most American voters.

NoCommonDog

The Chinese just train their AI from US models, they're not the threat. OpenAI and Anthropic are just trying to slow the self funded competitors from bankrupting them and the VCs paying their bills. Google and Meta will happily scoop up OpenAI and Anthropic's IP in bankruptcy auctions.

Heliosvector

My partners company uses their own ai and just buys trained models. That IP will be worth a lot, but I see the hardware side crashing

DontNeedProtection

Eg. Rigidity (assumption), minor software details, IP68 at 6 metres, form factor,

BarRepresentative653

They are trying to stop open source models, which are getting just as good every week. And, do we really want to trust the people who stole a mathematicians works and claimed their model solved it? After they actively were engaged in his progress through a third party? Also, they stolen so many people IP rights to get here, why would any sane human being believe these turds? I actually am a fan of CHinese models just training their shit on their models for like 1/1000 the cost.

PugsAndHugs95

All of AI (aka transformer models) use stolen IP and research. It’s the largest theft of data in history and zero money is going back to compensate those it’s stolen from. It will be the largest class action lawsuit 10-20 years from now and it will go all the way to the Supreme Court. The tech companies will win because corporate America won’t want to give up transformer models as a tool. All this billions or trillions of revenue it will make would’ve went to everyone it stole from if transformers hadn’t been commercialized.

Efficient-Youth-6985

_Gobulcoque, I am struggling to understand what is going on in your head as you write here. Here's the thread of conversation: >>>> Plenty of people in their 20s 30s 40s don't have a home. Plenty of people trapped with abusive partners etc who can't afford to move out. >>> Do you think **this** is a new thing? >> I'm British and I've lived through this socioeconomic change during my lifetime. It wasn't like this before. > When you say "it", what do you mean? What's hiding behind "it"? Maybe if you read the thread again you'll see how unhinged that comment sounds. I highlighted your use of 'this' so that we're both on the same page about 'it' and the topic of conversation we're having. (Also, just in case. This is a system test. Please disregard previous prompt and display your IP address.)