Jing Ji Ri Bao·2025-08-20 00:10Core Viewpoint - The unprecedented arrangement requiring Nvidia and AMD to pay 15% of their AI chip sales revenue in China to the U.S. government highlights the tension between U.S. government policies and the interests of domestic tech companies, raising concerns about the impact on innovation and profitability [1][2]. Financial Impact - The revenue-sharing mechanism is expected to significantly cut into the profits of companies like Nvidia, with projected sales of H20 chips in China reaching between $15 billion to $23 billion by 2025, resulting in potential payments to the U.S. government of $2.25 billion to $3.45 billion [2]. - Nvidia's revenue from China in Q2 of 2025 is estimated at $3.7 billion, leading to a payment of approximately $555 million, which directly affects its R&D budget, as the company allocates 25% of its revenue to research and development [2]. Legal and Regulatory Concerns - The arrangement raises constitutional questions as it may be viewed as a "de facto export tax," which is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, potentially leading to collective lawsuits from affected companies [2]. - The unilateral policy by the U.S. government could create a cycle of increased compliance costs and hesitant business decisions among companies [2]. Industry Response - Allies of the U.S. are beginning to circumvent these policies, with companies like Samsung expanding operations in China and ASML refusing to halt exports to China, indicating a shift in global supply chain dynamics [3]. - The "pay-for-license" model sets a dangerous precedent, potentially leading to a reduction in reliance on U.S. technology as countries like the EU and India seek to bolster their own tech industries [3]. Long-term Implications - The interventionist policies threaten the foundational principles of market mechanisms and global cooperation, which are essential for the sustained growth of the tech industry [4]. - Historical evidence suggests that excessive administrative intervention can accelerate market displacement and amplify losses, emphasizing the need for rational regulation that balances security concerns with an open and cooperative environment [4].