But this isn't an article about corporate culture - it's an article about the nationality of the company which owns the IP.
> are built around designs, known as instruction-set architectures (isas), which are owned either by Intel, an American giant, or by Arm, a Japanese one
Who owns the ARM IP? A Japanese company. Not a British one.
If you asked me if ARM has a British history and possibly culture, then yes (it certainly pays like a British company!) But that wasn't the context - the context was who effectively owns the IP.
So what do you think is more likely? The Economist are mistaken about the history of the company, or they were using a different context, the one they actually make explicit in the article?
I was just wondering from a British Point of view whether you still consider them to be British or not.
>Who owns the ARM IP? A Japanese company. Not a British one.
ARM, a British Company, owned by Japanese Funds.
Because to me that is like saying HSBC is owned by Chinese if HSBC had Ping An and other shadow investors owning majority of it, but certainly HSBC is a British Company right?
P.S - I means no offence in case any Brits got the wrong end of the stick. Just genuinely curious.
Mostly no. They may be based in the UK, but the decisions of whether to introduce a new range, hiring, firing and where profits go lie elsewhere.
The Land Rover office may still look and feel British, but it's Tata gets the final say, and perhaps one day decides they will all be made in India. Or perhaps Poland post no-deal Brexit.
