US investigates China's access to RISC-V — open standard instruction set may become new site of US-China chip war

Chess pieces on Chinese and US flag
(Image credit: Shutterstock)

The U.S. Department of Commerce is investigating the risks of China's access to the RISC-V instruction set architecture (ISA) for processors, Reuters reports, heeding calls from lawmakers.

RISC-V (pronounced risk-five) is an ISA, a software instruction standard that tells processors how to receive instructions (e.g. x86 and ARM). RISC-V's low complexity is easier to work with than x86, and is a fully open standard — unlike Arm, its primary competitor. While not popular in mainstream computing products, the standard has a high potential for most processor use cases, concerning U.S. lawmakers attempting to limit China's access to advanced computing power in the ongoing trade war over tech. 

The RISC-V standard is a fully open standard, licensable by anyone, and is currently held by a Swiss trust to keep its open standard nature intact. But this has not stopped U.S. lawmakers from calling it a U.S.-based tool and declaring China's use of it to be wrong — and perhaps dangerous.  

The CCP (Chinese Communist Party) is abusing RISC-V

Michael McCaul, House Foreign Affairs

"The CCP (Chinese Communist Party) is abusing RISC-V to get around U.S. dominance of the intellectual property needed to design chips," said Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee in his first attack on China's access to RISC-V back in October. 

This is not the first time the U.S. government has tried to stop China's access to RISC-V. In October, McCaul and other lawmakers called for China's access to RISC-V to be hampered, which RISC-V International was swift to push back on. Callista Redmond, chief executive of RISC-V International, responded that unhampered open standards are important: "RISC-V is an open standard and has incorporated meaningful contributions from all over the world. As a global standard, RISC-V is not controlled by any single company or country." 

Open standards, such as Ethernet, HTTPS, and USB have revolutionized the internet and technology, and restricting access to any of these would have catastrophic impacts on both the embargoed entity and the success of the open-source projects that would now find their reach limited. 

In November 2023, a new group of 18 lawmakers again attacked China's access to RISC-V. Yesterday, the Department of Commerce responded to their claims, stating it is now "working to review potential risks and assess whether there are appropriate actions under Commerce authorities that could effectively address any potential concerns." 

The Department of Commerce also addressed RISC-V International's worries about the restriction of the open-source standard, however, noting that it would need to act carefully to "avoid harming U.S. companies that are part of international groups working on RISC-V technology." 

The chip war between China and the U.S. will likely continue for as long as the U.S. fears military development or losing economic ground to their superpower competition. And while the U.S. continues attempting to ban China's access to any powerful technologies, China is not making relations easier, with a report yesterday finding that Chinese universities have been sidestepping sanctions on Nvidia GPUs.

Freelance News Writer
  • hotaru251
    this won't work.
    Its rights holder being Swiss & open standard would easily be used agsint US gov's case.

    Theres legit valid reasons to bar some stuff from another nation...this is not one of those cases. (and honestly is the example of why we need truly opensource options to prevent abuse by others)

    still waiting for someone to try and ban breathing.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    FWIW, I think banning access to an ISA or open source (e.g. Linux, GCC) is going too far. I can't speak on legal grounds, but I worry that we'll end up with a huge schism in the tech world, where you basically have Eastern and Western tech that can't interoperate. That will ultimately hurt the US a lot more than current access to that tech is helping China.

    I was worried about this, back when ARM was first used as a point of leverage. I was hoping for a WTO court case or something, in order to put such IP out-of-bounds.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    sww1 said:
    G7 should stop trading with China because the Chinese is too smart in Tech
    That's not why they're doing it, but we can't talk about the real reason (political discussions are off limits).

    hotaru251 said:
    this won't work.
    Its rights holder being Swiss & open standard would easily be used agsint US gov's case.
    ARM was UK-based and Japanese-owned, back when Huawei was barred from accessing its tech. The point of leverage is that it contained IP owned by USA-based citizens (and presumably companies ARM licensed it from). I don't know how deep the legal analysis ever went, on such claims.

    Yes, RISC-V tried to insulate themselves by relocating to Switzerland, but if its patent pool includes any contributed by US companies (I think it must?), then you could still see the USA try to control it, in a similar way. Maybe Switzerland doesn't play ball and enforce those claims, but US lawmakers could at least try to control involvement in RISC-V or with Chinese entities by US companies.

    hotaru251 said:
    Theres legit valid reasons to bar some stuff from another nation...this is not one of those cases. (and honestly is the example of why we need truly opensource options to prevent abuse by others)
    I think it's not the reasons, but rather the tactic that's at issue.
    Reply
  • Pierce2623
    sww1 said:
    should shut down Google, Apple, Microsoft, Intel, AMD, Qualcomm... access to RISC-V so USA can go back to the stone age era. And G7 should stop trading with China because the Chinese is too smart in Tech and built a China Space Station that ban American astronauts -How Dare You? LOL. Only USA can ban Chinese astronauts in ISS even though it's called International and built mainly by Russia.
    Nobody wants to cut off their access to American technology though, do they?
    Reply
  • Pierce2623
    bit_user said:
    FWIW, I think banning access to an ISA or open source (e.g. Linux, GCC) is going too far. I can't speak on legal grounds, but I worry that we'll end up with a huge schism in the tech world, where you basically have Eastern and Western tech that can't interoperate. That will ultimately hurt the US a lot more than current access to that tech is helping China.

    I was worried about this, back when ARM was first used as a point of leverage. I was hoping for a WTO court case or something, in order to put such IP out-of-bounds.
    How could a judge fo that with ARM when it’s NOT and open standard? ARM is a private company and didn’t HAVE to play ball with the US unless they want to maintain access to the American market.
    Reply
  • CmdrShepard
    Pierce2623 said:
    Nobody wants to cut off their access to American technology though, do they?
    If that meant never ever seeing the words "Recommended for you" or "Skip this ad in 30 seconds" I am all for it.
    Reply
  • roba67
    China is unilaterally pulling away from X86 due to US commerce policy (Raimondo), this is going to hurt Intel and AMD but it was predictable.
    Reply
  • watzupken
    US seems to own everything.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    _Shatta_AD_ said:
    US over-stepping is going from incredulous to ludicrous.
    As long as this is just something being looked into by some Congressional committees, I'd say there's not much cause for concern. They're going to look into and say lots of things, sometimes just to score political points.

    The time we should worry is if they start drafting bills that seem to have broad support. Either that, or the Executive branch decides to act within the bounds of existing laws.

    So, let's try not to be too hyperbolic (just yet).
    Reply
  • parkerthon
    Does China simply having access to use the open source design mean they will somehow dominate? Any kind of ban would no doubt be very unilateral in nature. This means China will still use the open source patents anyway. US companies would have to go great efforts to only use certain components. It’s a messy solution that would accomplish nothing except poke China in the eye and make them even more adversarial.
    Reply