My problem with the EU overall, aside from being inefficient, is that they don't really push towards intrinsic perfection. They kind of look what others do, try to simulate and copy it, usually fail - and then the same pattern is repeated.
Just take the issue of a european chip industry. Or literally anything China is doing now. The EU just isn't really a driver - it is a maintainer at best. And that also means it will successfully lose out to e. g. China or the USA.
Ironic comment in light of Netherlands-based ASML being the only company in the world that can supply the lithography machines that TSMC uses to make chips for NVidia and others.
Isn't that an example of driving towards intrinsic perfection?
You mean with the licencing of the EUV tech? If push comes to shove, to the point where the USA tries to strangle ASML, the EU could create pathways to not recognise the licence agreement anymore, and remove copyright protections from it.
All the engineering part of that technology is in European hands, the royalties to EUV LLC are based on mutually beneficial arrangements, if it's weaponised all gloves are off.
And people forget what was actually licensed and what value does it have without ASML. ASML bought SVG lithography two decades ago to expand in dry/immersion optical litho and US market access. EUV matured later. SVG had momentum in DUV and still couldn't sustain at 193nm while EUV is an order of magnitude more complex. Cymer was ASML's light source supplier that ASML later acquired in 2013. Pre acquisition there were supply/technology agreements, but after 2013 the Cymer IP became ASML owned so not a continuing US license.
Today's restrictions are mainly export control licenses, not ongoing IP licenses.
ASML builds the whole scanner and owns the integration IP that makes the parts actually produce yield at scale. The light source matters but without ASML's stages, metrology, optics integration, contamination control, control software etc etc you've got a science project instead of a tool a fab can run. ASML won because the integration problem beat almost everyone else.
It's similar to TSMC, anyone can buy an ASML machine, but there is only one TSMC, because it's not just about the machine and not just about the light source.
> My problem with the EU overall, aside from being inefficient, is that they don't really push towards intrinsic perfection. They kind of look what others do, try to simulate and copy it, usually fail - and then the same pattern is repeated
There is literally a term for when EU mandates result in global change, "the Brussels effect".
Also, it's a bit weird to claim the EU never tries to push for perfection and just copies - this is the organisation that brought us USB C as the one and only standard for everything, the right to be forgotten and the right to digital privacy, competition on railway networks EU-wide, the OpenSkies, and is actively trying to prevent excessive concentration of market forces (unlike pretty much any other regulator).
> Also, it's a bit weird to claim the EU never tries to push for perfection and just copies - this is the organisation that brought us USB C as the one and only standard for everything
Not the same as inventing USB, and I am far from sure its a good thing.
> he right to be forgotten and the right to digital privacy
Right to privacy in various forms far predates the EU.
> competition on railway networks EU-wide
A copy of a policy of a country that has left the EU, and is far from popular there, and looks like being reversed there.
> actively trying to prevent excessive concentration of market forces (unlike pretty much any other regulator).
The US was very good at that historically, and there are plenty of regulators around the world with the same concerns.
Why? It's good for consumers (more practical) and the planet (less ewaste).
> Right to privacy in various forms far predates the EU.
Online? As a concept yes, but as a legal framework, not really.
> A copy of a policy of a country that has left the EU, and is far from popular there, and looks like being reversed there.
The UK system isn't actual competition though. There are concession that get local monopolies. So for the vast majority of trips, there is one private company that operates these trains on that route. It's the worst of all worlds. In the EU, anyone can start operating on any route.
> The US was very good at that historically, and there are plenty of regulators around the world with the same concerns.
And which one has done anything? The only recent one I recall is the UK's blocking Faceboo's acquisition of Giphy.
Linus Torvald is Finnish when he creates his first Linux kernel. Guido Van Rossum is Dutch and created Python. Yeah, please tell me more about EU wanting to keep IP and knowledge.
Honestly the bigger problem - even with the current topic - is that everything is top down.
They don't make a framework for XYZ to emerge based on market forces. It's always committee driven 'we will support this initiative so XYZ happens' top-down initiatives.
Those are necessary in some sectors, but it is applied everywhere. With multinational participation in committee and a lot of back and forth dance.
It's better than blind trendchasing or completely unregulated market forces doing their job, but the delay overhead is gigantic.
Just take the issue of a european chip industry. Or literally anything China is doing now. The EU just isn't really a driver - it is a maintainer at best. And that also means it will successfully lose out to e. g. China or the USA.