SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Chinese tech giant Huawei has filed a motion in a US court challenging the constitutionality of a law that limits its sales of telecoms equipment, the latest action in an ongoing clash with Washington.
Huawei's chief legal officer Song Liuping said the firm had filed a motion for summary judgment asking the court to rule on whether it is constitutional for the US to implement a military spending provision that bars the government and its contractors from using its equipment.
Mr Song said the "state-sanctioned campaign" against the company will not improve cybersecurity.
"Politicians in the US are using the strength of an entire nation to come after a private company," he said. "This is not normal."
Source: https://techerati.com/news-hub/huawei-takes-us-to-court-over-security-law/
Additional Coverage:
[Ed Note: full disclosure - The submitter is also the author of the linked news story and a junior editor at the techerati.com web site]
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday May 29 2019, @04:54PM (4 children)
I've heard about Chinese tech spies for years, if not decades. The fact that it took us this long to respond, is disheartening. "This is not normal." perhaps, in some places in the world and has been protected against in the US. The fact of the matter is that China has been stealing technology for decades and they aren't going to stop, if no one stands up to them. Sure, the USA may not have the cleanest hands, but we're not disappearing US citizens. There's a whole different power dynamic in a totalitarian regime vs a democracy.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 29 2019, @05:49PM
Yes, China has a different approach to "Intellectual Property". To China you can't be a selfish person and keep progress to yourself for capital gains. Commons is greater. That being said I was under the impression that the boycott was based on security considerations, which is not yet based on evidence. Having a boycott on Chinese companies (in general) for fear of "theft" of knowledge would make more sense.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 29 2019, @07:36PM
Or American tech spies during our developing years.
It is far more common than most countries would like to admit. the difference is, most countries aren't big enough to do it on the scale China can. The last one that could was the US and it was directly responsible for many advances in American technology and economic prosperity before we started our own IP laws... Just like China is doing now.
If you don't learn from history you will never understand how much IP laws stifle innovation while not providing nearly the benefits claimed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 30 2019, @05:52AM
Uh huh, keep telling yourself that.
https://www.denverpost.com/2014/03/27/former-qwest-ceo-nacchio-claims-on-tv-his-jail-time-was-nsa-payback/ [denverpost.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 30 2019, @10:21AM
I've been hearing about little green men since the 50s. What's your point?
IP shouldn't be a right in the first place. As far as I'm concerned, corporations been stealing knowledge from the public for centuries and its only the Communists and the Chinese that are standing up to them.
US citizens been disappeared without lawyer counsel or due process for at-least a good decade since the patriot act.
Indeed there most certainly is. In a totalitarian regime the industrial-military complex does at it likes. In a democracy the people do as they like. Which one do you think you're living in exactly?
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday May 29 2019, @05:14PM
If that is your real name.
This is a much better and more interesting submission than most of the others you've subbed. Good show! Hopefully it will spark a good discussion.
The actions of China over the past 30 years or so WRT surreptitious technology and IP transfers is absolutely an issue. I also find it quite interesting that the Chinese are savvy enough to act just like any other military contractor when they don't get "their" slice of the pie.
There are a whole host of issues raised by both the Federal government's ban on using Huawei, as well as encouraging other governments to pass on them. Even more, this fits right in with the Trump administration's combative style which, while making for good sound bites, hasn't really paid off in any meaningful way. That's not to say it won't, but as they say (incorrectly [nih.gov], but the meaning is clear) you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
That said, I'd personally prefer that we'd play hardball with the Chinese regarding their oppressive, manipulative and murderous treatment of their own citizens, and use economic levers to impact those behaviors.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday May 29 2019, @05:37PM (2 children)
Very true! Usually the roles are reversed.
But the government is allowed to "boycott" Huawei. This is a basic procurement thing. Huawei is not entitled to a contract.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Wednesday May 29 2019, @11:01PM (1 child)
Ok, someone out there finally said it.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday May 29 2019, @11:37PM
Nothing to do with "Trump"... His error is the belief that government is more powerful than business.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 29 2019, @05:39PM (3 children)
Ideological attack on any corporation is an attack against Liberty, a step into totality.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 29 2019, @06:49PM (1 child)
Corporations are a fabrication created by Governments, their very existence is an attack against Liberty.
(Score: 2, Funny) by fustakrakich on Wednesday May 29 2019, @07:01PM
Corporations are a fabrication created by Governments
On the contrary, it's quite reversed. Businesses set up and finance governments to protect their contracts. If the financing dries up, and is redirected towards the opposition, the government disappears, and a more compliant one is created.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by Improbus on Wednesday May 29 2019, @07:33PM
Totality and Totalitarianism, which you probably meant, are two different things. Look them up in a dictionary. Maybe consider ESL course.
(Score: 4, Informative) by ikanreed on Wednesday May 29 2019, @06:00PM (3 children)
Bills of attainder(and thus executive orders acting as bills of attainder) are unconstitutional as fuck.
(Score: 2) by Farkus888 on Wednesday May 29 2019, @06:27PM (2 children)
Yeah but nobody bothered to read that part of the constitution. Of the basically no one that did none of them looked the meaning of the new words they'd never seen before up. Of those people no one looked up the reasoning behind the law to see why we definitely should keep it. Just look at all the people who want weed crimes to be forgotten. Ex post facto is riding the same logical premise and overlooked for the same reason.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by ikanreed on Wednesday May 29 2019, @06:35PM (1 child)
I'm not sure expunging records fits the same model as ex post facto laws in any meaningful way.
"We should not punish people for things they could not have understood to be criminal at the time they did them"
and
"We should not keep punishing people it was wrong to punish in the first place"
aren't contrapositive to each other.
(Score: 2) by Farkus888 on Thursday May 30 2019, @12:00PM
They want to change the law, then change all charges related to said law to be as though it always was the way it is now. Certainly a difference in direction but it is definitely ex post facto by the definition of the words. The rational anarchist answer is that they still pay, they should have understood and accepted the risk before breaking the law.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by gtomorrow on Wednesday May 29 2019, @06:22PM
While I agree with what has been said regarding the totalitarian regime that is China, while I do find this legal motion deliciously ironic, this has nothing to do with the PRC's human rights issues.
This is strictly an issue of economic and control. Let's not lose sight of that. The US wants their tech (5G) to be bought and implemented worldwide. "The future, Mr. Gittes -- the future!" Anything else tacked on to the argument is diversion tactic.
We've seen this so many times in only the past 100 years or so. The US (public/private sector) sets up favorable regimes (in this case, a favorable economic regime) which only come back to bite it on the ass. Since 1972, American companies have practically obliterated domestic manufacturing, using the PRC as their personal factories. Obviously you have to supply the tech to your manufacturer. Now the "world's factory" has all the tech it needs to create its own product, IP be damned. Then again, you teach a man to fish...is he supposed to forget how to fish if he's catching more than you? Or maybe fish worse than you?
Please, everybody, there are no WMDs in Iraq. But there's oil and plenty of it.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday May 29 2019, @10:08PM (1 child)
and consolidate all work onto Linux/bsd.
Better security.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 30 2019, @12:47AM
American Redhat stole our scandinavian socialist software! Thank you Redhat.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 30 2019, @04:33AM (1 child)
Both US and China love and greatly favor their megacorps. What do you call it when Corporation and Government amalgamate? Fascism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 30 2019, @07:57AM
>He doesn't know that anything Government can't do, it just outsources, just like Corporations.
I suggest you lurkmoar in life.