Summary of Key Points
A federal court in California, USA, has sued three major memory manufacturers—Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron—for allegedly colluding to drive up prices. The accusation is that they cut back on traditional DRAM production under the guise of transitioning to AI technology, resulting in a 700% increase in memory prices over four years. In response, South Korea has launched a counterattack: it plans to invest 800 trillion won to build four new chip factories, focusing on storage chips. This lawsuit, which appears to be an antitrust case, is actually a battle between the US and South Korea for “new strategic resources” in the AI era—high-bandwidth memory (HBM), a critical bottleneck for AI hardware. South Korean companies control nearly 80% of the global HBM production capacity and earn 35% of the profits from AI-related industries. The US aims to use this lawsuit to pressure South Korea into bringing storage manufacturing back home, in order to regain profits and industrial sovereignty.
Why Does South Korea Earn 35% of AI Profits?
In the AI era, while GPUs (led by NVIDIA) are the “heart” of hardware, HBM is the “blood vessels.” Without HBM, GPUs are like cars without fuel—unable to function properly. A high-end GPU requires 6-8 HBM chips, and only three companies in the world can produce them: SK Hynix (57%), Samsung (22%), and Micron (21%). This means that the better NVIDIA sells, the more South Korea earns. Every time GPT is trained or an AI data center is built, South Korea benefits financially. By 2026, SK Hynix’s quarterly profit margin could reach 72% (higher than NVIDIA’s), generating a daily net profit of 2 billion yuan! As a result, the South Korean stock market has doubled in value, surpassing India to become the sixth-largest in the world. The entire population has invested in Samsung and SK Hynix stocks, doubling their net assets—a “national wealth creation movement” driven by AI.
The Real Motive Behind the US Lawsuit: Not Antitrust, but Control of Manufacturing
On the surface, it seems that consumers are complaining about rising memory prices, but one of the defendants is Micron itself, which is odd. The real goal of the US is to bring storage manufacturing back home. In the past, the US controlled the upstream of semiconductors (CPUs, GPUs, software), but the crucial HBM is now in South Korean hands. Micron received a $6.1 billion subsidy from the US for building a factory, but progress has been slow (the New York facility is not expected to start production until 2030). The lawsuit serves three purposes:
1. To create difficulties for South Korean companies and increase their operating costs in the US;
2. To buy time for Micron to catch up;
3. To provide a pretext for future interventions in the supply chain (if a monopoly is established, the US can legally restrict South Korean companies). In short, the US is jealous of the 35% of AI profits that South Korea has earned and wants to take that share back.
Is the Price Increase Really a “Conspiracy”?
The lawsuit claims collusion among the three companies, but the truth is more complex. With the surge in AI demand, HBM profits (72%) are much higher than those of regular DRAM (20-30%), so any company would naturally shift production to HBM. These three companies together control 95% of the global DRAM market, and when they all switch to HBM, DRAM production decreases, leading to price increases (for example, DDR5 memory prices rose from $200 to $1400). This is not a result of a deliberate conspiracy; rather, it’s a “structural problem” in an oligopolistic market where companies all choose the higher-profit option, driving up prices. Apple has already begun passing on these costs to consumers, meaning future phones and computers will become more expensive.
South Korea’s Counteraction: Using Speed and Scale to Outpace the US
In response to the lawsuit, South Korea did not defend itself but instead invested heavily in expansion: 800 trillion won to build four new chip factories and is creating the “Longin Semiconductor Super Cluster,” which will centralize HBM design, materials, and packaging in one area, reducing R&D time and gaining a competitive advantage. South Korea’s confidence comes from its strong cash flow and speed. With high profits, Samsung and SK Hynix can expand quickly without government subsidies, with new factories ready for production by 2028, while Micron’s facility is not expected to start until 2030. South Korea bets that the growth in AI demand will outpace US efforts to catch up, and as long as it maintains a leading position in production capacity, it can continue to reap the benefits.
The Essence of This Competition: A “Resource War” in the AI Era
In the past, countries competed for oil and steel; now they are competing for the ability to produce intelligent technologies—GPU, HBM, and data centers. The relationship between the US and South Korea is one of both cooperation and conflict: NVIDIA needs South Korean HBM, and South Korea needs NVIDIA’s orders, but the profit distribution issues are becoming increasingly strained. This lawsuit is not just an ordinary antitrust case; it represents a significant battle for resources in the AI era. In the future, whoever controls more HBM production will have a greater stake in the AI industry chain. Just as oil was once a key resource, storage chips will become a core weapon in international competition.
In Summary: The US and South Korea are not fighting over memory prices; they are competing for “industrial sovereignty” in the AI era. Whoever controls the critical resources will reap the largest profits. This battle has just begun.