"He Humiliated Us": Insiders Reveal the Toxic Legacy of the Executive Who Took TSMC's Secrets to Intel

(Editor’s Note: TAIWANinside provides exclusive, on-the-ground perspectives from the heart of the global semiconductor industry. This report is based on interviews with current and former TSMC executives regarding the recent trade secret litigation.)

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC) formally filed a lawsuit against former Senior Vice President Dr. Wei-Jen Lo on Nov. 25. In its statement, TSMC alleged that Dr. Lo took proprietary secrets related to the 2-nanometer (2nm) advanced process to competitor Intel, a grave violation of his non-compete agreement. The move has sparked controversy over integrity, as Dr. Lo reportedly claimed he was entering academia prior to his departure, only to join Intel immediately after.

On Nov. 26, the Taiwan High Prosecutors Office directed investigators to raid Dr. Lo’s residences in Taipei and Hsinchu—Taiwan’s semiconductor hub. Authorities seized computers and flash drives and were granted approval to freeze his stocks and real estate assets.

In response, Intel officially welcomed Dr. Lo back to the company, expressing strong support. Meanwhile, Washington offered its first reaction, with a U.S. Department of State spokesperson stating they would "not comment on the search operations by Taiwan’s judicial authorities."

This marks another potential crisis of trade secret theft for TSMC, following two major historical exits: the 2000 departure of Richard Chang to found SMIC in China, and the 2009 exit of former R&D Director Liang Mong-song, who subsequently joined Samsung Electronics and SMIC, helping rivals significantly close the technology gap.

With the lawsuit now in legal proceedings, the path forward is fraught with variables: how TSMC will protect its rights and prevent trade secrets from being used; how Dr. Lo will defend his innocence while interacting with Intel staff; and what role the U.S. government will play in this cross-border litigation.

Observation 1: TSMC’s Competitiveness Lies in its "Technology System," Not a Single Individual

Regarding the evolution of this event, three key points are worth discussing.

First, a single departed executive cannot turn the tide of the entire industry. TSMC’s success has never relied on one person; its core competitiveness stems from a complete system. Reforming a U.S. company like Intel, which requires rebuilding its manufacturing culture, will be an arduous task for Dr. Lo.

Many industry insiders have raised this point, with NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang offering the most incisive analysis. Huang, who flew to Taiwan on his private jet during Thanksgiving to visit TSMC founder Morris Chang, addressed the Dr. Lo case in media interviews.

"I can tell you that TSMC is not just one person," Huang stated. "The company's culture and technology are very complex. Beyond chip technology, transistor architecture, and process technology, TSMC possesses unique technologies in operations management and business planning. As a global large-scale manufacturer, every aspect of TSMC is built on technology. Therefore, TSMC's technical facets are extremely diverse. I have complete confidence they will continue to prosper."

As TSMC's largest customer and an industry leader who understands the foundry best, Huang’s point emphasizes that the foundation of TSMC's success is a complex, deep, systematic, and multi-layered "Technology System," rather than a reliance on any single figure.

Furthermore, Huang defines "technology" broadly. It is not limited to advanced process nodes like 3nm or 2nm; more importantly, it encompasses operations and management technologies, which are the core of TSMC's competitiveness.

This includes operational controls for on-time delivery, efficiency management, and adaptability, as well as business planning for capacity forecasting, customer relations, and technology roadmaps. Every link in the chain, from wafer fabrication to management, forms a "Technology System" that is fully internalized and difficult to imitate—the result of long-term accumulation of corporate culture.

Huang’s comments provide the highest validation of TSMC’s corporate culture and systemic capabilities from a top-tier client, offering the first crucial perspective on the Dr. Lo incident.

Observation 2: Harsh Management and Humiliation—Dr. Lo Lacked Widespread Internal Support

Secondly, what kind of person is Dr. Lo? And why would he take such drastic action? According to my exclusive interviews with multiple current and former TSMC executives, Dr. Lo was not a beloved leader within the company. The primary reason was his management style, which was not only extremely harsh but also involved humiliating subordinates, a behavior many colleagues found unbearable. Because of this style, few former colleagues have been willing to stand up for him since the scandal broke.

One former executive who worked with him for years was blunt when he saw reports that Dr. Lo may have taken large amounts of data related to 2nm or even the more advanced 14A (referring to TSMC’s A14, or 1.4nm generation process) technology: "This fits exactly with what I’d expect him to do."

The executive recalled that between late 2018 and early 2019, Dr. Lo required every unit in the "RD Module" division to write detailed 5-year and 10-year technology roadmaps. While the 10-year plan might have been for reference, the 5-year portion involved extremely precise and sensitive core technology blueprints.

He specifically mentioned an unusual directive: Dr. Lo demanded that staff "print out" these confidential materials and deliver them directly to his Vice President's office. This was a complete violation of TSMC’s strict protocols regarding paperless operations and information security, but given his authority, the units had to comply. It is reported that one department submitted over 500 pages of technical data. The executive pointed out that at the time, high-ranking executives at the VP level were not subject to standard security checks when leaving the company, making it effortless to remove these physical documents from the facility.

He also lamented that for over twenty years, TSMC has punished countless low-level engineers for negligent or intentional violations of Proprietary Information Protection (PIP) regulations. However, Dr. Lo held a high position; if his leak is confirmed, the damage from this single event would exceed the sum of all cases over the past two decades. If TSMC cannot handle this matter prudently, it will be difficult to justify to internal employees and will severely impact the principle of proportionality and authority in handling future security violations.

Additionally, Dr. Lo enjoyed exceptionally special treatment at TSMC, including a delayed retirement of eight years. During this time, he frequently exercised powers inconsistent with his position. Why were these management loopholes not discovered or corrected in time? This suggests that TSMC’s internal corporate governance and senior management mechanisms may also require review and correction.

The industry is also re-examining the famous "Night Hawk Project" (2014–2016). This initiative required R&D personnel to work the graveyard shift (00:00 to 08:00) to conduct 24-hour uninterrupted research. At the time, this was seen as a key strategy for accelerating 10nm and 7nm development to shake off Samsung and secure exclusive chip orders for Apple. However, in the wake of the Dr. Lo case, the system is facing scrutiny, with some questioning its long-term benefits.

One executive recalled that during the planning phase in 2013, there was intense internal debate about forming the Night Hawk force. One faction argued that TSMC should improve R&D efficiency through better management systems rather than forcing a midnight shift that violated human biological clocks, arguing the marginal benefits might be limited.

Nevertheless, the Night Hawk Project was established with Dr. Lo’s strong support, aligning with his consistent style of squeezing performance out of employees. Although widely credited externally with helping TSMC surpass Samsung technologically, internal opposition never ceased, and the system was eventually discontinued after its phase objectives were met.

Unsatisfied Without Promotion: Seeking to Reclaim Glory in a Rival Camp

After discussing Dr. Lo’s personal style, another issue worth pondering is: TSMC has had many high-ranking executives leave over the years, so why did he commit an act that has sparked such public outrage? Many wonder why Dr. Lo, with an estimated net worth of over NT$2 billion (approx. US$65 million) and at the age of 75, did not choose to enjoy a comfortable retirement. Why delay retirement for eight years and then risk defecting to a competitor? Is it for fame, or for profit?

Based on the many former TSMC executives I know, the vast majority leave with gratitude, proud of their brilliant careers at the foundry. Whether they move to other companies, academia, entrepreneurship, writing, or simply travel the world, most cherish their "amazing journey" at TSMC. Even if they have occasional criticisms, few feel the company treated them unfairly.

But there are always exceptions. A very small number of people leave with resentment, primarily stemming from the regret of not being promoted to a desired position and the loneliness of asking, "Why was someone else promoted instead of me?" This unwillingness to let go transforms into a drive to reclaim what they believe is their rightful glory elsewhere.

The most typical example is Liang Mong-song. Feeling slighted at TSMC (due to losing a competition for R&D VP), he moved to Samsung and later SMIC, attempting to prove his capabilities by helping rivals upgrade their technology to strike back at the former colleagues he felt had looked down on him.

This mindset of needing to prove one's ability exists not only in top executives but also among mid-level engineers. In August 2025, it was reported that three engineers who moved to the Japanese semiconductor equipment giant Tokyo Electron Limited (TEL) were suspected of stealing TSMC’s 2nm technology secrets while working remotely.

According to informed sources, labeling these three engineers as "intentionally stealing secrets" might be an overstatement. It is understood that their primary motivation was to impress their new employers. They attempted to collect data to analyze why TEL's equipment failed to penetrate TSMC’s production lines, losing orders to competitors like Applied Materials or Lam Research. They hoped to prove to TEL executives that they had unique insights and the ability to solve the company's business pain points.

Therefore, whether high-level or mid-level, strong career ambition is common. However, semiconductor professionals must remember that trade secrets belong to the company, and any infringement is a major crime. Especially in the current tense geopolitical climate, key semiconductor technologies are viewed as strategic assets affecting national competitiveness. No one should underestimate the strict regulations of Taiwan’s Trade Secrets Act and the determination of judicial authorities to defend national industrial security.

These three engineers had excellent educational and professional backgrounds—formerly considered "winners in life"—but due to a momentary lapse involving the leakage of key technologies, they committed a felony endangering national security. Now prisoners held incommunicado, they face severe criminal liability and astronomical civil compensation claims—a truly regrettable outcome.

Observation 3: TSMC’s Lawsuit Against an Intel Exec Could Trigger Sensitive U.S.-Taiwan Relations

Thirdly, the leak controversy surrounding Dr. Lo has become extremely complex due to his move to Intel. The relationship between Intel and TSMC is intricate: they are clients, competitors, and partners. More critically, Intel is the national champion heavily relied upon by the U.S. government’s policy to "reshore semiconductor manufacturing" (e.g., the CHIPS and Science Act). It is a fact that the U.S. government and NVIDIA currently hold approximately 10% and 4% stakes in Intel, respectively. Dr. Lo joining Intel with TSMC's trade secrets turns this lawsuit from a commercial dispute into a sensitive conundrum involving multiple stakeholders and potentially touching on U.S.-Taiwan political relations.

From a corporate response perspective, before and after TSMC announced the lawsuit, Intel issued multiple statements reiterating: "Intel upholds strict policies and controls, strictly prohibiting the use or transfer of any third-party confidential information or intellectual property (IP). Intel will strictly fulfill these commitments."

Intel's statement further noted that based on all information it possesses, "there is no reason to believe there is any factual basis for the allegations against Dr. Lo," demonstrating a strong stance in support of him. Additionally, an Intel spokesperson publicly expressed a warm welcome for Dr. Lo’s return to the company.

Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan also responded specifically to the matter. He stated he fully supports Dr. Lo’s return to Intel and staunchly denied allegations of leaking secrets or "defecting with ammunition." Tan emphasized that all accusations are baseless and that Intel has strict internal controls that never allow the use or transfer of third-party secrets or IP.

Tan further pointed out that Dr. Lo had worked at Intel for 18 years early in his career, focusing on wafer manufacturing R&D, before moving to TSMC to continue related work. His return to Intel is now a key piece in driving the company's transformation. Tan believes that cross-enterprise talent flow is legitimate and a symbol of a healthy industrial ecosystem, and this personnel case is no exception.

Tan’s response seems to imply: When Dr. Lo jumped from Intel to TSMC years ago, Intel didn’t complain; now that he’s jumping back, why the fuss? This statement profoundly reflects the starkly different attitudes and values regarding "job-hopping" culture between Asian countries and Silicon Valley.

In the U.S., particularly in California where Intel is headquartered, non-compete clauses have long been legally regarded as unenforceable. This means employees have a high degree of freedom to join competitor companies after leaving, without undue fear of legal pursuit by former employers. This legal environment is seen as a key factor in maintaining Silicon Valley's innovative vitality, as it facilitates the free flow of talent and technology.

Therefore, Silicon Valley’s attitude toward executive job-hopping is clearly more lenient. In the past, Google employees even pushed for movements against non-compete restrictions, arguing that preventing employees from developing elsewhere suppresses innovation and involves issues of employment fairness.

In contrast, in Asian corporate cultures that value loyalty, the act of resigning to immediately join the "enemy camp" is usually not blessed and is often labeled as being a "traitor." In Dr. Lo’s case, many of his former colleagues at TSMC likely share this sentiment.

A Contrarian View: If Intel "Catches Up a Little," It Might Actually Benefit TSMC

However, setting aside moral debates about "industry progress" or "betraying one's old master," the core question remains: How much substantive influence can Dr. Lo actually wield at Intel? Can he successfully drive Intel Foundry Services (IFS) back to glory? This is the focus of industry attention.

A executive who worked with Dr. Lo for many years offered a different analytical perspective. He bluntly stated that among TSMC’s many VP-level executives, Dr. Lo’s personal capability was considered only average. Therefore, he judges that even if Dr. Lo took some technical data, it is unlikely he can single-handedly bring a disruptive contribution to Intel.

The executive further pointed out that Intel and TSMC have vast differences in R&D paths and process architectures, and the work culture and attitudes of their employees are diametrically opposed. TSMC’s core competitiveness comes from the execution and discipline of its grassroots engineers. Dr. Lo faces an enormous challenge in trying to transplant this "TSMC culture" into Intel's environment, which emphasizes individualism.

Therefore, he even proposed a counter-intuitive view: If Dr. Lo can actually help Intel a little, it might not be a bad thing. Currently, Intel is lagging too far behind in advanced processes. If it can close the gap slightly, it could actually benefit TSMC. The reason is that if Intel’s competitiveness continues to decline, TSMC will face even greater global anti-trust pressure—a very real commercial survival issue.

In fact, under geopolitical considerations, the U.S. government urgently wants to control domestic advanced process technologies. Especially in the defense sector, if Intel cannot produce the critical chips and components needed for advanced U.S. weapons and must rely entirely on foreign-based TSMC, this is a national security risk Washington cannot accept. Therefore, if Intel can close the technology gap and share some strategic demand, it might be the best outcome for TSMC to alleviate geopolitical pressure.

As for the allegations that Dr. Lo took massive amounts of secrets, this has now become a focal point for the global semiconductor industry. How he will use this information, and how he will defend his innocence in a lengthy cross-border lawsuit, remains to be seen. This drama, involving industrial landscapes and U.S.-Taiwan relations, is just raising its curtain.