Applied Materials Sued In China Over Alleged Trade Secret Theft (msn.com)
- Reference: 0178678292
- News link: https://slashdot.org/story/25/08/14/2325232/applied-materials-sued-in-china-over-alleged-trade-secret-theft
- Source link: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/us-chip-gear-maker-sued-in-china-over-alleged-trade-secret-theft/ar-AA1KsGvy
> Top U.S. chip-equipment supplier Applied Materials was [2]sued by a rival in China over alleged trade secret theft , a further escalation in the technology war between the world's two largest economies. Beijing E-Town Semiconductor Technology Co. filed a lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court against Applied Materials, according to a company [3]statement (PDF) to the Shanghai Stock Exchange. The Chinese chip-gear maker alleged that the Santa Clara, California-based company illegally obtained, used and revealed its core technologies related to the application of plasma source in treating the surface of wafers, the statement said. The court has filed the case but has not begun a trial, E-Town added.
>
> Applied Materials earlier hired two employees from E-Town's fully owned US subsidiary, Mattson, and they were privy to the Beijing company's proprietary plasma technologies, the filing said. Applied Materials filed a patent application crediting the duo as inventors with the National Intellectual Property Administration in China after the two joined the Santa Clara company, the Beijing firm said, alleging that the content revealed trade secrets co-owned by E-Town and Mattson. "The patent application violated the rules of China's Anti-Unfair Competition Law, and it infringes on trade secrets, and has caused significant damage to the plaintiff's intellectual property and economic interests,รข E-Town said in the filing, adding that Applied Materials is also suspected of marketing and selling the technologies involved in the case to Chinese customers. E-Town is asking the court to demand that Applied Materials stop using its trade secrets and destroy related materials. It's also seeking about 100 million yuan ($13.9 million) in recompense for damage.
[1] https://slashdot.org/~hackingbear
[2] https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/us-chip-gear-maker-sued-in-china-over-alleged-trade-secret-theft/ar-AA1KsGvy
[3] https://static.sse.com.cn/disclosure/listedinfo/announcement/c/new/2025-08-14/688729_20250814_BJ7L.pdf
Concordski (Tu-144) (Score:5, Interesting)
You guys remember when the Soviets copied the Concorde and delivered a bigger and faster version three months before the Concorde and accused the West of copying it?
Re: (Score:3)
> a bigger and faster version
You left out "deafeningly louder".
Re:Concordski (Tu-144) (Score:5, Funny)
> You left out "deafeningly louder".
And crashier...
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair the Paris crash was very likely due to a French military jet trying to get close enough for photos, i.e. to steal the Soviet technology.
How much of it was copied from Concorde is debatable, but it probably wasn't that much overall. The Tu-144 is a very different aircraft in several key ways, and what really let it down was lack of good engines.
Same thing with the Buran. It looked superficially similar to the Shuttle because all space planes are that shape, it's just physics. But it was a very dif
trade secrets are not property (Score:2)
"...alleging that the content revealed trade secrets co-owned by E-Town and Mattson."
Trade secrets are not owned. If they were, they would not be secrets.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you missed the point.... If coke formulation was truly their own property they would publish it like a mickey mouse cartoon and have reasonable state sponsored protection from all but the for personal use home brewers clones of fizzy sugar water.
Re: (Score:2)
Research and development costs, experience, employees being paid by the company to develop expertise in a given field, these things cost a company money. If another company is paying your employees to teach them how to do things, then that's a problem. Patents are there to protect stuff, but seriously, if Intel could get TSMC employees to teach their employees how to make the fab process work, then that's seen as a scumbag tactic that may violate some laws.
How about you pay an employee of a company mone
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like the numerous times we actually caught them red handed (get it?) stealing from us? Like that? Or were you just simping for them?
Re: (Score:3)
Applied Materials are currently under criminal investigation for supplying China's SMIC with chip fabrication equipment. If the Chinese company wins in court, it could force SMIC to switch to their machines.
Note how in China you can only claim for actual losses, hence the relatively small monetary amount, and for specific remedies like an import ban.
So, they applied for the patent AFTER (Score:2)
the guys left and went to work for Applied Materials? That fails the smell test. "They invented it here (but actually in America even though we're filing the patent here), as the date on the patent application clearly doesn't show!"
The best part is that they may have stolen it from Applied Materials in the first place. There's a link to a story on that lawsuit in this article.
Pot. Kettle. Black. (Score:1, Interesting)
Audacity. Irony. Hilarity.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't realize China even HAD any IP laws on the books over there? Do they specifically say "except when we copy IP from another country because that's OK", or do they just "selectively enforce" it that way?