Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Friday April 20 2018, @04:43PM   Printer-friendly
from the trade-wars dept.

China's ZTE slams U.S. ban, says company's survival at risk

China's ZTE Corp said on Friday that a U.S. ban on the sale of parts and software to the company was unfair and threatens its survival, and vowed to safeguard its interests through all legal means.

The United States this week imposed a ban on sales by American companies to ZTE for seven years, saying the Chinese company had broken a settlement agreement with repeated false statements - a move that threatens to cut off its supply chain.

"It is unacceptable that BIS insists on unfairly imposing the most severe penalty on ZTE even before the completion of investigation of facts," ZTE said in its first response since the ban was announced, referring to the U.S. Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security. "The Denial Order will not only severely impact the survival and development of ZTE, but will also cause damages to all partners of ZTE including a large number of U.S. companies," ZTE said in a statement.

ZTE said it regards compliance as the cornerstone of its strategy, adding it invested $50 million in export control compliance projects in 2017 and plans to invest more this year. A senior U.S. Commerce Department official told Reuters earlier this week that it is unlikely to lift the ban.

Also at WSJ.

Previously: U.S. Intelligence Agency Heads Warn Against Using Huawei and ZTE Products
The U.S. Intelligence Community's Demonization of Huawei Remains Highly Hypocritical
Huawei CEO Still Committed to the U.S. Market
Rural Wireless Association Opposes U.S. Government Ban on Huawei and ZTE Equipment

Related: ZTE's $99 Zmax Pro Smartphone Packs in Top-Line Features


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @04:52PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @04:52PM (#669707)

    But they aren't done with their investigation! Just because they found many occurrences of our breaking the settlement agreement doesn't mean we should receive the harshest penalty! We haven't even had a chance to hire a lobbying firm or make political contributions yet!

  • (Score: 2) by Fnord666 on Friday April 20 2018, @04:53PM

    by Fnord666 (652) on Friday April 20 2018, @04:53PM (#669708) Homepage
    If you look closely you will see the world's smallest violin playing "my heart bleeds for you." Hopefully this will serve as an example to other companies when planning their future business strategies.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Friday April 20 2018, @05:32PM (3 children)

    by bob_super (1357) on Friday April 20 2018, @05:32PM (#669722)

    Whatever happened to letting the market sort things out?

    Less than ten years from now, when the Chinese chip manufacturers are done overtaking the US ones, funded by billions from Huawei and ZTE, Broadcom, Qualcomm and co will cry a river about jobs and competition.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by captain normal on Friday April 20 2018, @06:21PM (1 child)

      by captain normal (2205) on Friday April 20 2018, @06:21PM (#669749)

      I doubt that Trump and his closest advisers (at least the ones that are left) have even heard of Sun Tuz, much less have studied "The Art War". Our current administration has jumped into a fray without fully studying the situation and having a clear objective. Unless there is a change of thinking at the top, the Chinese will wind up undercutting our businesses and literally owning the U.S. This isn't a game that the school yard bully can command.

      --
      The Musk/Trump interview appears to have been hacked, but not a DDOS hack...more like A Distributed Denial of Reality.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 23 2018, @06:09PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 23 2018, @06:09PM (#670820)

        He's writing the Art of Chaos.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Friday April 20 2018, @07:26PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 20 2018, @07:26PM (#669776) Journal

      Whatever happened to letting the market sort things out?

      The Chinese government got involved. According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], 5 of the 9 directors that oversee the company are appointed by state-owned enterprises. Sounds like ZTE was violating trade sanctions on North Korea, perhaps at the behest of someone in the Chinese government.

      Funny how the market is supposed to work in a situation where it is being actively broken.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @05:55PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @05:55PM (#669732)

    It's time to establish that smartphones are protected under the first amendment as speeh enabling devices (just like printing presses).
    And software source code is speech, how can you ban the sale of that? National security? Ahem. BULLSHIT.
    While radio usage might not be, as long as they accept a standard sim card I don't see the problem.

    I'd be willing to litigate this pro se if noone else would, but I'd rather have a large group plus lawyers.
    We can't let this continue.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @06:04PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @06:04PM (#669740)

      I would personally like to see cellular modems designed with a WORM 'flash log' for the cellular modem, have it keep a timestamp when the clock is properly configured, a hash of the image uploaded, and maybe some other metadata to help determine if it was an authorized or modified firmware image. Then require all cellular firmware to be open sourced, which will allow HAMs and programmers to audit the code and provide patches to fix protocol flaws or radio transmission flaws in the source code, which the FCC, CE, etc can then sign periodically for verified images. The benefit being more eyes to ensure security, more transparency which is good for everyone except the intelligence community, and the ability for people with unsupported devices to find an updated and authenticated image for their modem based on improvements in the common codebase for that cellular modem platform. The only issues that could derail this is non-standard transmitter designs, or non-standard antenna designs, and those could both be worked around similiarly to the ARM BSP tables, provide a template image that enumerates the hardware geometry such that the operating system/modem firmware can make the adjustments need to keep signals within the expected transmission powers and frequencies.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @07:05PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @07:05PM (#669765)

      It's time to establish that smartphones are protected under the first amendment as speeh enabling devices (just like printing presses).

      Now this is an interesting thought.

      Absolutely people use smartphones for reading the speech of others, and posting their own, but they are multi-function devices (really just miniature general purpose computers at this point). The argument will likely go that if we protect them like a printing press, we are affecting all those other functions that don't deserve this level of protection.

      Probably the best starting question is - Are computers extended the same protection you mention similar to printing presses?
      (If so then this should be a slam dunk. )

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 21 2018, @01:15AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 21 2018, @01:15AM (#669877)

      It's time to establish that smartphones are protected under the first amendment as speeh enabling devices (just like printing presses).

      Fuck you. Don't moderate that as "Troll" or "Flamebait" because I posted from a smartphone (which should be protected under the first amendment as speeh enabling device.

(1)