作為最受投資者青睞的AI企業(yè),英偉達(dá)最近幾周可謂如履薄冰。出于對一系列問題(該公司高高在上的估值、反壟斷監(jiān)管機構(gòu)再添壓力、AI熱潮能持續(xù)多以及美國經(jīng)濟放緩的影響)的擔(dān)憂,即便這家芯片制造商最忠實的支持者,也難免產(chǎn)生些許恐慌情緒。
8月19日以來,英偉達(dá)股價已下跌約18%,其中最大單日跌幅(9.5%)出現(xiàn)在9月3日,當(dāng)日市值蒸發(fā)達(dá)到創(chuàng)紀(jì)錄的2790億美元。
就在英偉達(dá)剛度過“黑暗交易日”后,彭博社(Bloomberg)報道稱,美國司法部(DOJ)將加強對該公司的反壟斷調(diào)查。彭博社援引不愿具名知情人士透露,司法部官員已向英偉達(dá)和其他相關(guān)公司發(fā)出傳票,其中包括“具有法律約束力的要求,責(zé)成收到傳票者按要求提供信息”。傳票通常在對被調(diào)查公司提出正式指控前發(fā)出。
據(jù)彭博社援引知情人士消息稱,司法部官員對英偉達(dá)增加客戶轉(zhuǎn)投新供應(yīng)商難度、懲罰不愿僅使用其AI芯片的客戶的行為表示了擔(dān)憂。在競爭對手對英偉達(dá)的定價策略提出類似指控后,司法部在7月份開始了對英偉達(dá)的調(diào)查,最早進行相關(guān)報道的是《The Information》。
英偉達(dá)在給《財富》雜志的一份聲明中稱,其“純憑實力取勝”,客戶可以自由選擇最適合自己的解決方案,并補充說其一直“嚴(yán)格”遵守各項法律法規(guī)。
有該公司代表補充稱:“我們向美國司法部進行了問詢,但并未收到傳票。不過,我司很樂意回答監(jiān)管機構(gòu)就我們公司業(yè)務(wù)提出的任何問題。”
話雖如此,但科技界對英偉達(dá)策略的不滿似乎確實普遍存在。
技術(shù)分析與咨詢公司Moor Insights & Strategy的總裁兼首席分析師帕特里克·穆爾海德告訴《財富》雜志:“英偉達(dá)所有的競爭對手都向我表達(dá)過對該公司的不滿。我就不點名了,但你們應(yīng)該能想到他們可能是哪些公司”。
他補充說:“英偉達(dá)的客戶沒報怨過英偉達(dá)的策略,但確實說過希望能有,怎么說的來著,叫更‘平衡的供應(yīng)鏈’。”
據(jù)彭博社報道,英偉達(dá)今年4月對RunAI(AI計算軟件提供商)的收購案也已引起司法部的密切關(guān)注。有人擔(dān)心,此次收購將進一步加強英偉達(dá)對整個AI芯片供應(yīng)鏈的控制,使其客戶更難改用其競爭對手的產(chǎn)品。
總體而言,穆爾海德認(rèn)為英偉達(dá)最終可能會迎來“一場極為嚴(yán)密的調(diào)查”,可能會使其業(yè)務(wù)發(fā)展有所放緩,迫使該公司開放部分軟件平臺,供競爭對手使用,或最終面臨巨額罰款。
他警告說:“我之所以這么說,有幾個原因,首先,從技術(shù)上講,英偉達(dá)是一家壟斷企業(yè)。其次,AI對當(dāng)今乃至未來的社會、經(jīng)濟和商業(yè)都非常重要。因此這是一個極為熱門的(問題)。也就這意味著監(jiān)管機構(gòu)有極大的動力去采取一些行動。”
那么,英偉達(dá)是壟斷企業(yè)嗎?
英偉達(dá)控制著攸關(guān)AI發(fā)展的下一代芯片約90%的市場份額,此外,該公司近年來還在垂直整合方面取得了長足進展,不再僅僅是一家芯片公司,更已成為“AI平臺企業(yè)”。
在許多專家看來,坐擁如此令人瞠目的市場份額增長,同時還擁有成套的軟、硬件AI產(chǎn)品,英偉達(dá)無疑已經(jīng)具備壟斷地位,但司法部需要證明的不僅僅是這些。
穆爾海德指出:“壟斷并不違法。但如果利用壟斷地位去打壓競爭、損害消費者權(quán)益,那就違法了。”
搭售協(xié)議,即賣方將一種產(chǎn)品與另一種產(chǎn)品捆綁銷售,是英偉達(dá)涉嫌濫用壟斷地位的方式之一。根據(jù)司法部的說法,此類協(xié)議(也稱為“配套銷售”)在一些情況下可能并不違法,但有關(guān)機構(gòu)可以依據(jù)反壟斷相關(guān)法律的4項條款對其合法性提出質(zhì)疑。
1890年通過的《謝爾曼反托拉斯法》(Sherman Antitrust Act)在第一條、第二條明確禁止“限制交易”的行為,并規(guī)定“壟斷”非法,可以作為對前述搭售協(xié)議提出質(zhì)疑的依據(jù)。同樣,司法部也可將1914年通過的《克萊頓反托拉斯法》(Clayton Antitrust Act)第三條(禁止“大幅削弱競爭”的行為)或1914年通過的《聯(lián)邦貿(mào)易委員會法》(Federal Trade Commission Act)第五條(禁止“不公平競爭”)作為質(zhì)疑依據(jù)。
英偉達(dá)競爭對手、AI芯片制造商Tenstorrent的首席執(zhí)行官吉姆·凱勒今年8月在接受《The Information》采訪時表示,在他看來,英偉達(dá)的銷售策略并不違法,但他承認(rèn)客戶常“感覺有一股壓力推著自己不得不購買英偉達(dá)的網(wǎng)絡(luò)設(shè)備,覺得只有這樣才能保證自己能買到該公司備受追捧的服務(wù)器芯片”。
雖然司法部正在調(diào)查有關(guān)搭售協(xié)議的指控,但他們很可能必須證明“搭售”行為的實現(xiàn)并非僅靠壓力,而是有正式合同提出了相應(yīng)要求。
但科技研究與咨詢公司Info-Tech Research Group的業(yè)務(wù)主管兼首席研究總監(jiān)斯科特·比克利認(rèn)為,司法部很難實現(xiàn)這一目標(biāo)。他指出,一直以來,半導(dǎo)體行業(yè)都是按雙方事先協(xié)商同意簽訂的合同依據(jù)分配計劃進行的分配,目前尚無企業(yè)指控英偉達(dá)有違反合同約定的行為。
他解釋說:“當(dāng)然,他們會努力推銷自己的設(shè)備,可能會說自己設(shè)備的兼容性更好,在英偉達(dá)機架上使用英偉達(dá)芯片能獲得更好的體驗,諸如此類。但據(jù)我了解,以及從我聽到的消息來看,他們并沒有做出強制要求。他們會‘強烈推薦’,但也允許大客戶在數(shù)據(jù)中心設(shè)計中使用客戶自己的設(shè)備和硬件。”
比克利認(rèn)為,搭售協(xié)議在很大程度上是英偉達(dá)在與其極具影響力且實力強勁的科技巨頭客戶爭奪定價權(quán),在這一行業(yè),目前幾乎沒有多少像樣的競爭。
他說:“我不認(rèn)為英偉達(dá)有什么違法行為,至少在表面上看沒有。我認(rèn)為,他們只是恰好在一個無人能與其匹敵的領(lǐng)域成為了唯一的強者罷了。”
司法部還可能以使用排他性回扣為由對英偉達(dá)展開反壟斷調(diào)查。穆爾海德解釋說:“(有人會對客戶說)除非你拒絕購買競爭對手的產(chǎn)品,不然我就不會給你這個好價格。這就是排他性定價,而不是‘以量定價’。如果你擁有壟斷地位,你就不能這樣做。”
英偉達(dá)的軟件平臺CUDA可能也會受到嚴(yán)密調(diào)查。CUDA在從低級驅(qū)動程序到GenAI模型的各個方面均有應(yīng)用,并且未向AMD或英特爾等英偉達(dá)的競爭對手開放。
穆爾海德解釋說:“聽著,如果你不是壟斷企業(yè),那沒事。但如果擁有壟斷地位,大家在看這個問題的時候可能會覺得,‘你更想要的其實是控制市場,對么?’如果是這樣,考慮到你的影響力如此之大,那么即便對方是你的競爭對手,你也得把這些東西對其進行開放。”
不過,比克利仍然認(rèn)為,英偉達(dá)只是將其技術(shù)優(yōu)勢用在了提升利潤和市場份額上,并未用于打壓競爭行為。在他看來,如果試圖處罰、拆散英偉達(dá)或減緩英偉達(dá)的發(fā)展速度,只會阻礙AI的發(fā)展。
“我們需要的其實是一些優(yōu)秀的老式創(chuàng)新”,比克利認(rèn)為,“就是推動其他企業(yè)推出競爭產(chǎn)品和技術(shù),從英偉達(dá)吸走一些投資。”
司法部調(diào)查對英偉達(dá)的潛在影響
專家表示,如果司法部通過調(diào)查發(fā)現(xiàn)英偉達(dá)確實存在違反反壟斷法的行為,該公司或?qū)⒂瓉韲?yán)峻挑戰(zhàn)。但即使該芯片制造商未有任何違規(guī)行為,其業(yè)務(wù)運營也可能因調(diào)查而放緩,至少是略有放緩。
穆爾黑德解釋說:“無論是誰,只要被司法部盯上,發(fā)展都會受到影響,”他把這比作在油箱里放沙子,“你得配個律師來對定價進行審批,還必須讓律師參加通常不會有律師參加的會議”。
在最壞的情況下,英偉達(dá)可能還會被迫向競爭對手開放其CUDA軟件平臺,導(dǎo)致競爭進一步加劇。穆爾海德解釋說:“和蘋果當(dāng)年被迫開放應(yīng)用商店、微軟被迫開放IE瀏覽器API一樣,英偉達(dá)可能也會面臨類似局面,從而讓AMD、英特爾等公司……能夠在平等的基礎(chǔ)上利用 CUDA。”
如果司法部能夠證明英偉達(dá)確實存在違法行為,那么后者可能還將需要支付巨額罰款,而且可能不僅是在美國如此。穆爾海德說:“我相信這種情況會蔓延到歐盟、韓國、日本,可能還有中國臺灣,中國大陸可能不會這樣做,而這又會讓審查變得更加嚴(yán)格。但從本質(zhì)上講,其實還是罰款。”
不過,穆爾海德和比克利都不認(rèn)為這些罰款會對英偉達(dá)的業(yè)務(wù)造成重大影響,這主要是因為該公司擁有明顯的技術(shù)優(yōu)勢,同時營收仍在大幅增長。兩位專家還指出,司法部的調(diào)查需要數(shù)月甚至數(shù)年才能完成。
比克利說:“無論這件事如何收場,英偉達(dá)該賺的錢都不會少賺一分,到時候無論要罰多少錢,對英偉達(dá)來說都是九牛一毛。我認(rèn)為這種罰款根本不會對英偉達(dá)及其收益和財務(wù)狀況產(chǎn)生任何實質(zhì)性影響。”
盡管投資者對有關(guān)調(diào)查的消息反應(yīng)消極,但比克利也不認(rèn)為司法部的調(diào)查能取得成功。他說:“我覺得他們沒辦法裁定英偉達(dá)存在反競爭行為,而且我認(rèn)為這件事不會產(chǎn)生太大影響。”(財富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:梁宇
審校:夏林
作為最受投資者青睞的AI企業(yè),英偉達(dá)最近幾周可謂如履薄冰。出于對一系列問題(該公司高高在上的估值、反壟斷監(jiān)管機構(gòu)再添壓力、AI熱潮能持續(xù)多以及美國經(jīng)濟放緩的影響)的擔(dān)憂,即便這家芯片制造商最忠實的支持者,也難免產(chǎn)生些許恐慌情緒。
8月19日以來,英偉達(dá)股價已下跌約18%,其中最大單日跌幅(9.5%)出現(xiàn)在9月3日,當(dāng)日市值蒸發(fā)達(dá)到創(chuàng)紀(jì)錄的2790億美元。
就在英偉達(dá)剛度過“黑暗交易日”后,彭博社(Bloomberg)報道稱,美國司法部(DOJ)將加強對該公司的反壟斷調(diào)查。彭博社援引不愿具名知情人士透露,司法部官員已向英偉達(dá)和其他相關(guān)公司發(fā)出傳票,其中包括“具有法律約束力的要求,責(zé)成收到傳票者按要求提供信息”。傳票通常在對被調(diào)查公司提出正式指控前發(fā)出。
據(jù)彭博社援引知情人士消息稱,司法部官員對英偉達(dá)增加客戶轉(zhuǎn)投新供應(yīng)商難度、懲罰不愿僅使用其AI芯片的客戶的行為表示了擔(dān)憂。在競爭對手對英偉達(dá)的定價策略提出類似指控后,司法部在7月份開始了對英偉達(dá)的調(diào)查,最早進行相關(guān)報道的是《The Information》。
英偉達(dá)在給《財富》雜志的一份聲明中稱,其“純憑實力取勝”,客戶可以自由選擇最適合自己的解決方案,并補充說其一直“嚴(yán)格”遵守各項法律法規(guī)。
有該公司代表補充稱:“我們向美國司法部進行了問詢,但并未收到傳票。不過,我司很樂意回答監(jiān)管機構(gòu)就我們公司業(yè)務(wù)提出的任何問題。”
話雖如此,但科技界對英偉達(dá)策略的不滿似乎確實普遍存在。
技術(shù)分析與咨詢公司Moor Insights & Strategy的總裁兼首席分析師帕特里克·穆爾海德告訴《財富》雜志:“英偉達(dá)所有的競爭對手都向我表達(dá)過對該公司的不滿。我就不點名了,但你們應(yīng)該能想到他們可能是哪些公司”。
他補充說:“英偉達(dá)的客戶沒報怨過英偉達(dá)的策略,但確實說過希望能有,怎么說的來著,叫更‘平衡的供應(yīng)鏈’。”
據(jù)彭博社報道,英偉達(dá)今年4月對RunAI(AI計算軟件提供商)的收購案也已引起司法部的密切關(guān)注。有人擔(dān)心,此次收購將進一步加強英偉達(dá)對整個AI芯片供應(yīng)鏈的控制,使其客戶更難改用其競爭對手的產(chǎn)品。
總體而言,穆爾海德認(rèn)為英偉達(dá)最終可能會迎來“一場極為嚴(yán)密的調(diào)查”,可能會使其業(yè)務(wù)發(fā)展有所放緩,迫使該公司開放部分軟件平臺,供競爭對手使用,或最終面臨巨額罰款。
他警告說:“我之所以這么說,有幾個原因,首先,從技術(shù)上講,英偉達(dá)是一家壟斷企業(yè)。其次,AI對當(dāng)今乃至未來的社會、經(jīng)濟和商業(yè)都非常重要。因此這是一個極為熱門的(問題)。也就這意味著監(jiān)管機構(gòu)有極大的動力去采取一些行動。”
那么,英偉達(dá)是壟斷企業(yè)嗎?
英偉達(dá)控制著攸關(guān)AI發(fā)展的下一代芯片約90%的市場份額,此外,該公司近年來還在垂直整合方面取得了長足進展,不再僅僅是一家芯片公司,更已成為“AI平臺企業(yè)”。
在許多專家看來,坐擁如此令人瞠目的市場份額增長,同時還擁有成套的軟、硬件AI產(chǎn)品,英偉達(dá)無疑已經(jīng)具備壟斷地位,但司法部需要證明的不僅僅是這些。
穆爾海德指出:“壟斷并不違法。但如果利用壟斷地位去打壓競爭、損害消費者權(quán)益,那就違法了。”
搭售協(xié)議,即賣方將一種產(chǎn)品與另一種產(chǎn)品捆綁銷售,是英偉達(dá)涉嫌濫用壟斷地位的方式之一。根據(jù)司法部的說法,此類協(xié)議(也稱為“配套銷售”)在一些情況下可能并不違法,但有關(guān)機構(gòu)可以依據(jù)反壟斷相關(guān)法律的4項條款對其合法性提出質(zhì)疑。
1890年通過的《謝爾曼反托拉斯法》(Sherman Antitrust Act)在第一條、第二條明確禁止“限制交易”的行為,并規(guī)定“壟斷”非法,可以作為對前述搭售協(xié)議提出質(zhì)疑的依據(jù)。同樣,司法部也可將1914年通過的《克萊頓反托拉斯法》(Clayton Antitrust Act)第三條(禁止“大幅削弱競爭”的行為)或1914年通過的《聯(lián)邦貿(mào)易委員會法》(Federal Trade Commission Act)第五條(禁止“不公平競爭”)作為質(zhì)疑依據(jù)。
英偉達(dá)競爭對手、AI芯片制造商Tenstorrent的首席執(zhí)行官吉姆·凱勒今年8月在接受《The Information》采訪時表示,在他看來,英偉達(dá)的銷售策略并不違法,但他承認(rèn)客戶常“感覺有一股壓力推著自己不得不購買英偉達(dá)的網(wǎng)絡(luò)設(shè)備,覺得只有這樣才能保證自己能買到該公司備受追捧的服務(wù)器芯片”。
雖然司法部正在調(diào)查有關(guān)搭售協(xié)議的指控,但他們很可能必須證明“搭售”行為的實現(xiàn)并非僅靠壓力,而是有正式合同提出了相應(yīng)要求。
但科技研究與咨詢公司Info-Tech Research Group的業(yè)務(wù)主管兼首席研究總監(jiān)斯科特·比克利認(rèn)為,司法部很難實現(xiàn)這一目標(biāo)。他指出,一直以來,半導(dǎo)體行業(yè)都是按雙方事先協(xié)商同意簽訂的合同依據(jù)分配計劃進行的分配,目前尚無企業(yè)指控英偉達(dá)有違反合同約定的行為。
他解釋說:“當(dāng)然,他們會努力推銷自己的設(shè)備,可能會說自己設(shè)備的兼容性更好,在英偉達(dá)機架上使用英偉達(dá)芯片能獲得更好的體驗,諸如此類。但據(jù)我了解,以及從我聽到的消息來看,他們并沒有做出強制要求。他們會‘強烈推薦’,但也允許大客戶在數(shù)據(jù)中心設(shè)計中使用客戶自己的設(shè)備和硬件。”
比克利認(rèn)為,搭售協(xié)議在很大程度上是英偉達(dá)在與其極具影響力且實力強勁的科技巨頭客戶爭奪定價權(quán),在這一行業(yè),目前幾乎沒有多少像樣的競爭。
他說:“我不認(rèn)為英偉達(dá)有什么違法行為,至少在表面上看沒有。我認(rèn)為,他們只是恰好在一個無人能與其匹敵的領(lǐng)域成為了唯一的強者罷了。”
司法部還可能以使用排他性回扣為由對英偉達(dá)展開反壟斷調(diào)查。穆爾海德解釋說:“(有人會對客戶說)除非你拒絕購買競爭對手的產(chǎn)品,不然我就不會給你這個好價格。這就是排他性定價,而不是‘以量定價’。如果你擁有壟斷地位,你就不能這樣做。”
英偉達(dá)的軟件平臺CUDA可能也會受到嚴(yán)密調(diào)查。CUDA在從低級驅(qū)動程序到GenAI模型的各個方面均有應(yīng)用,并且未向AMD或英特爾等英偉達(dá)的競爭對手開放。
穆爾海德解釋說:“聽著,如果你不是壟斷企業(yè),那沒事。但如果擁有壟斷地位,大家在看這個問題的時候可能會覺得,‘你更想要的其實是控制市場,對么?’如果是這樣,考慮到你的影響力如此之大,那么即便對方是你的競爭對手,你也得把這些東西對其進行開放。”
不過,比克利仍然認(rèn)為,英偉達(dá)只是將其技術(shù)優(yōu)勢用在了提升利潤和市場份額上,并未用于打壓競爭行為。在他看來,如果試圖處罰、拆散英偉達(dá)或減緩英偉達(dá)的發(fā)展速度,只會阻礙AI的發(fā)展。
“我們需要的其實是一些優(yōu)秀的老式創(chuàng)新”,比克利認(rèn)為,“就是推動其他企業(yè)推出競爭產(chǎn)品和技術(shù),從英偉達(dá)吸走一些投資。”
司法部調(diào)查對英偉達(dá)的潛在影響
專家表示,如果司法部通過調(diào)查發(fā)現(xiàn)英偉達(dá)確實存在違反反壟斷法的行為,該公司或?qū)⒂瓉韲?yán)峻挑戰(zhàn)。但即使該芯片制造商未有任何違規(guī)行為,其業(yè)務(wù)運營也可能因調(diào)查而放緩,至少是略有放緩。
穆爾黑德解釋說:“無論是誰,只要被司法部盯上,發(fā)展都會受到影響,”他把這比作在油箱里放沙子,“你得配個律師來對定價進行審批,還必須讓律師參加通常不會有律師參加的會議”。
在最壞的情況下,英偉達(dá)可能還會被迫向競爭對手開放其CUDA軟件平臺,導(dǎo)致競爭進一步加劇。穆爾海德解釋說:“和蘋果當(dāng)年被迫開放應(yīng)用商店、微軟被迫開放IE瀏覽器API一樣,英偉達(dá)可能也會面臨類似局面,從而讓AMD、英特爾等公司……能夠在平等的基礎(chǔ)上利用 CUDA。”
如果司法部能夠證明英偉達(dá)確實存在違法行為,那么后者可能還將需要支付巨額罰款,而且可能不僅是在美國如此。穆爾海德說:“我相信這種情況會蔓延到歐盟、韓國、日本,可能還有中國臺灣,中國大陸可能不會這樣做,而這又會讓審查變得更加嚴(yán)格。但從本質(zhì)上講,其實還是罰款。”
不過,穆爾海德和比克利都不認(rèn)為這些罰款會對英偉達(dá)的業(yè)務(wù)造成重大影響,這主要是因為該公司擁有明顯的技術(shù)優(yōu)勢,同時營收仍在大幅增長。兩位專家還指出,司法部的調(diào)查需要數(shù)月甚至數(shù)年才能完成。
比克利說:“無論這件事如何收場,英偉達(dá)該賺的錢都不會少賺一分,到時候無論要罰多少錢,對英偉達(dá)來說都是九牛一毛。我認(rèn)為這種罰款根本不會對英偉達(dá)及其收益和財務(wù)狀況產(chǎn)生任何實質(zhì)性影響。”
盡管投資者對有關(guān)調(diào)查的消息反應(yīng)消極,但比克利也不認(rèn)為司法部的調(diào)查能取得成功。他說:“我覺得他們沒辦法裁定英偉達(dá)存在反競爭行為,而且我認(rèn)為這件事不會產(chǎn)生太大影響。”(財富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:梁宇
審校:夏林
Investors’ favorite AI play, Nvidia, has been on thin ice in recent weeks. Concerns about its rich valuation, new pressure from antitrust regulators, the sustainability of the AI boom, and the impact of the slowing U.S. economy have spooked even some of the chipmaker’s most ardent defenders.
Nvidia stock has dropped roughly 18% since Aug. 19, with the majority of the damage coming after a 9.5% plunge on Tuesday that erased a record $279 billion in market cap.
Just after the dark day of trading for Nvidia, Bloomberg reported that the U.S Department of Justice (DOJ) has ramped up its antitrust probe against the company. DOJ officials reportedly sent a subpoena to Nvidia, and other involved companies, which includes “l(fā)egally binding requests that oblige recipients to provide information,” according to unnamed Bloomberg sources familiar with the matter. Subpoenas often precede the filing of a formal complaint against a company under investigation.
DOJ officials have expressed concern that Nvidia makes it difficult for its customers to switch to new suppliers and penalizes those that don’t exclusively use its AI chips, according to Bloomberg’s sources. The DOJ investigation into Nvidia began in July, The Information first reported, after similar allegations from competitors about Nvidia’s pricing strategies.
In a statement to Fortune, Nvidia said that it “wins on merit” and customers are free to choose whatever solution works best for them, adding that the company “scrupulously” adheres to all laws.
“We have inquired with the U.S. Department of Justice and have not been subpoenaed. Nonetheless, we are happy to answer any questions regulators may have about our business,” a representative added.
Still, the tech world’s issues with Nvidia’s tactics certainly seem to be widespread.
“All of Nvidia’s competitors have issued grievances with me. I’m not going to name them, but you can imagine who they might be,” Patrick Moorhead, president and principal analyst at Moor Insights & Strategy, a technology analyst and advisory firm, told Fortune.
“Nvidia’s customers haven’t talked about any of these tactics, but they have talked about the desire to have—what words did they use—a more ‘balanced supply chain,’” he added.
Nvidia’s April acquisition of RunAI, which provides AI computation software, is also under the DOJ’s microscope, per Bloomberg’s report. There are concerns that the purchase will further strengthen Nvidia’s grip on the entire AI chip supply chain, making it more challenging for its customers to switch to competitor’s products.
Overall, Moorhead believes this could end up being “a very serious probe” for Nvidia, which could slow its business slightly, force the company to open up some of its software platform for use by competitors, or, eventually, lead to a significant fine.
“The reason I say that is first of all, technically, Nvidia is a monopoly. Second, AI is super important to society, economics and business today and into the future. So it’s a super hot button [issue]. And that means regulators are super motivated to do something,” he warned.
So, is Nvidia a monopoly?
Nvidia controls roughly 90% of the AI-critical next-generation chip market, and it has made big steps toward vertical integration in recent years, branding itself as not just a chip company but an “AI platform enterprise.”
The impressive market share gains and suite of both software and hardware AI offerings have made Nvidia a monopoly in the view of many experts, but the DOJ will have to prove more than just that.
“It’s not illegal to be a monopoly. It’s illegal—if you’re a monopoly—to squash competition and harm consumers,” Moorhead noted.
Tying agreements, where a seller ties the sale of one product to the purchase of another, are one of the ways Nvidia is allegedly abusing its monopoly power. These agreements, also called “tie-in” sales, are not always illegal, but can be challenged under four provisions of antitrust laws, according to the DOJ.
Both section one and section two of the 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act, which prohibit the “restraint of trade” and make it illegal to “monopolize,” can be used to challenge tying agreements. Similarly, the DOJ could rely on section three of the 1914 Clayton Antitrust Act, which forbids acts that will “substantially lessen competition,” or section five of the 1914 Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits “unfair competition.”
Jim Keller, CEO of the AI chipmaker Tenstorrent, an Nvidia competitor, told The Information in August that Nvidia’s sales tactics are not illegal, in his view, but he admitted customers often “feel pressured to buy Nvidia’s networking gear to guarantee themselves access to the company’s vaunted AI server chips.”
While the DOJ is investigating claims of tying agreements, they will likely have to prove that the tying was done with official contracts, rather than merely “pressure.”
But that may be difficult to do, according to Scott Bickley, practice lead and principal research director at Info-Tech Research Group, a tech research and advisory firm. He noted that semiconductors have always been dished out on allocation schedules, with contracts both parties agree to in advance, and Nvidia isn’t being accused of breaching any contracts.
“Of course, they’re going to try to sell their gear—which they will probably say is more compatible, that you’ll get a better quality experience if you run Nvidia chips with Nvidia racks and things like that. But to my understanding, and from what I’m hearing, they haven’t forced that. They’re heavily encouraging it, but they’re allowing their biggest customers to utilize their own gear and their own hardware for their data center designs,” he explained.
Bickley argued that the tying agreement beef is largely a jockeying match for pricing between Nvidia and its very influential and powerful big tech clients in a space with little to no serious competition.
“I don’t think Nvidia’s doing anything—that I can see, at least on the surface—that would be breaking the law,” he said. “I think they’ve just become the 800 pound gorilla in a space where there’s not any other 800 pound gorillas to fight them off at this point.”
The potential use of exclusionary rebates is likely another reason the DOJ could be investigating Nvidia for antitrust violations. “[Those say] I’m only going to give you this good price if you don’t buy the competition. It’s not volume-based pricing, it’s exclusionary-based pricing,” Moorhead explained, noting “you can’t do that if you’re a monopoly.”
Nvidia’s software platform CUDA might also be under the microscope. CUDA is used in everything from low level drivers to generative AI models, and it isn’t open to competitors like AMD or Intel to use.
“Now, if you’re not a monopoly, that’s fine. If you have monopolist powers, people might look at that and say, well, ‘You’re more in the marketplace business, right?” Moorhead said, explaining that: “In that case, you have so much power you have to open this up, even if it’s your competitors.”
Still, Bickley argued that Nvidia is simply utilizing its technology advantage to increase profits and gain market share, rather than engaging in anti-competitive behavior. Attempting to fine, break up, or slow Nvidia would only impede the development of AI in his view.
“What we need is some good, old fashioned innovation,” Bickley argued. “You know, have some other companies come out with competing products and technologies that start to siphon away some of that investment from Nvidia.”
The potential impacts of a DOJ investigation on Nvidia
Nvidia could face significant challenges if a DOJ investigation finds antitrust violations, experts say. But even if there aren’t any violations, the chipmaker’s business operations could be slowed, at least slightly, by the investigation.
“When anybody has the Department of Justice looking at them, it slows things down,” Moorhead explained, likening it to putting small bits of sand in a gas tank. “You have to have a lawyer approve your allocations. You have to have a lawyer approve your pricing. You have to have a lawyer—in meetings that you normally wouldn’t have a lawyer in.”
Nvidia could also be forced to open up its CUDA software platform to competitors in a worst-case scenario, leading to increased competition. “Apple had to open up the app store, and Microsoft had to open up its API with Internet Explorer, this would likely be something like that, which would enable AMD, Intel, and others…to tap into CUDA on an equal basis,” Moorhead explained.
If the DOJ is able to prove Nvidia acted illegally, it may need to pay heavy fines as well, and not just in the U.S. “I do believe that this case is going to spread to the EU, Korea, Japan and likely Taiwan—probably not China—which, again, just makes the scrutiny even higher. But essentially, it’s paying a fine,” Moorhead said.
However, neither Moorhead nor Bickley believe these fines will dramatically impact Nvidia’s business, in large part due to the company’s distinct technology advantage and surging revenues. Both experts also noted that it will take months, or more likely years, for the DOJ’s investigation to conclude.
“By the time it comes to a conclusion, whatever that conclusion is, the money will have been made by Nvidia, so any fine that they put forward will be basically pocket change,” Bickley said. “I don’t think it will have any material impact at all on them and their and their earnings and their financial position.”
Bickley doesn’t see the DOJ’s case as likely to succeed, either, despite investors’ negative reaction to news of the investigation. “I don’t really see a path for them to come up with any type of true anti-competitive judgment,” he said. “I don’t think it’s going to come up much.”