Huaweis Ban and the reprocustions - Page 2
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 109
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Northern Il
    Posts
    1,280
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    672
    Likes (Received)
    1214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spinit View Post
    They would not have the product if they had not secured the IP. The advantage is based on R& D from other countries and is completely relevant to the discussion.

    It is a major topic of conversation and concern when taking into account doing business with China.
    It is also one of the key issues that have caused the trade negotiations stalemate.

    IP has an incredible value when you don't have to develop it but get to sell it in direct competition with the very groups that did pay for the development.

  2. Likes Spinit, ratbldr427 liked this post
  3. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Flushing/Flint, Michigan
    Posts
    7,606
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    378
    Likes (Received)
    6351

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spinit View Post
    They would not have the product if they had not secured the IP. The advantage is based on R& D from other countries and is completely relevant to the discussion.

    It is a major topic of conversation and concern when taking into account doing business with China.
    So is your view that stole the IP they use to gain market dominance?
    That alone they are not capable of building such products?
    Was it a bigger theft than windows from Apple?
    Is there a point coming when we will be "stealing" such IP from the Chinese or piggybacking on their tech?
    They produce engineers at a much higher rate than we do. We certainly outdo them in producing lawyers.
    Bob

  4. Likes PDW, JoeE. liked this post
  5. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Country
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    4,727
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2488
    Likes (Received)
    2291

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spinit View Post
    They would not have the product if they had not secured the IP. The advantage is based on R& D from other countries and is completely relevant to the discussion.

    It is a major topic of conversation and concern when taking into account doing business with China.
    Is there some part of 'more advanced than the US competition' that isn't clear?

  6. Likes PDW, adama liked this post
  7. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Denver, CO USA
    Posts
    10,215
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    58
    Likes (Received)
    5695

    Default

    Funny thing...
    If the TPP were still in place we would have leverage across the entire trade group.

  8. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Denver, CO USA
    Posts
    10,215
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    58
    Likes (Received)
    5695

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spinit View Post
    They would not have the product if they had not secured the IP. The advantage is based on R& D from other countries and is completely relevant to the discussion.

    It is a major topic of conversation and concern when taking into account doing business with China.
    Come on...
    The wrote rules.
    Our companies followed those rules.
    You can’t make things without the people that make them learning how.

    Corps didn’t care about IP until there was competition, and then it’s only Disney and the drug companies.

  9. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Denver, CO USA
    Posts
    10,215
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    58
    Likes (Received)
    5695

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CarbideBob View Post
    So is your view that stole the IP they use to gain market dominance?
    That alone they are not capable of building such products?
    Was it a bigger theft than windows from Apple?
    Is there a point coming when we will be "stealing" such IP from the Chinese or piggybacking on their tech?
    They produce engineers at a much higher rate than we do. We certainly outdo them in producing lawyers.
    Bob
    And pure science as well.
    Only our cleaner air and political environment makes us attractive.

  10. #27
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Texas
    Posts
    2,599
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3052
    Likes (Received)
    479

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CarbideBob View Post
    So is your view that stole the IP they use to gain market dominance?
    That alone they are not capable of building such products?
    Was it a bigger theft than windows from Apple?
    Is there a point coming when we will be "stealing" such IP from the Chinese or piggybacking on their tech?
    They produce engineers at a much higher rate than we do. We certainly outdo them in producing lawyers.
    Bob
    Spinit

    ”They would not have the product if they had not secured the IP. The advantage is based on R& D from other countries and is completely relevant to the discussion.


    It is a major topic of conversation and concern when taking into account doing business with China.”

    I know they secured the IP because they have a product.

    “Stealing” of IP is something which has been a issue in trade discussions with China. There is more ore to learn here. I doubt the US would bother to get involved if there were not valid concerns.

    Several critical components are needed from the United States which now are not flowing to the Chinese and so they have not completed their offering with their own tech.

    One thing with Huawei also is their alleged violation of the trade sanctions with Iran.



  11. #28
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Texas
    Posts
    2,599
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3052
    Likes (Received)
    479

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Miguels244 View Post
    Come on...
    The wrote rules.
    Our companies followed those rules.
    You can’t make things without the people that make them learning how.

    Corps didn’t care about IP until there was competition, and then it’s only Disney and the drug companies.
    So you are saying ignore the law?

  12. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Australia (Hobart)
    Posts
    3,538
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    561
    Likes (Received)
    2676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CarbideBob View Post
    So is your view that stole the IP they use to gain market dominance?
    That alone they are not capable of building such products?
    Was it a bigger theft than windows from Apple?
    Umm I think you mean Apple's theft of the windowing system from Xerox Palo Alto campus. They, IIRC, did it forst and if not first, well before Apple.

    Distant memory now but I'm pretty sure that's one reason Apple couldn't sue Microsoft over Windows.

    PDW

  13. Likes Mark Rand liked this post
  14. #30
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Texas
    Posts
    2,599
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3052
    Likes (Received)
    479

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rand View Post
    Is there some part of 'more advanced than the US competition' that isn't clear?
    No. It is like a horse race that is not complete yet. Besides critical components are bought in the US only of which China does not make. Buy that stock if you believe it for sure.

    Are they more advanced if they can not make the product because the US is the only source they can get it? I would say no.

  15. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Flushing/Flint, Michigan
    Posts
    7,606
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    378
    Likes (Received)
    6351

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PDW View Post
    Umm I think you mean Apple's theft of the windowing system from Xerox Palo Alto campus. They, IIRC, did it forst and if not first, well before Apple.

    Distant memory now but I'm pretty sure that's one reason Apple couldn't sue Microsoft over Windows.

    PDW
    Xerox for all practical purposes gave it to Apple. One of the big management mistakes in computer history but it was a money losing operation so upper level mangers did not care.
    Apple (Steve) and Microsoft (Bill) certainly wrangled over it and one should remember Apple's pirate flag.
    A interesting time full of what might be consider "tricky" moves and maybe what we would now call IP theft.
    Back then the protection of such was not what is is now.
    One can not say US companies have not and do not do the same as China.

    I worked a program called the GM-10 which got totally scrapped as Ford came out with the exact same car 6 months before we were scheduled to start production.
    I wonder how that happened.
    Bob

  16. Likes JoeE. liked this post
  17. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Vt USA
    Posts
    6,736
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    736
    Likes (Received)
    2316

    Default

    When China was dumping cheap goods on us, that was OK . sort of, I never liked the crap.

    Then their cheap labor allowed wallmart and the auto parts business to sell low priced but "inferior" goods. Everyone flocked to "low prices".

    Now China is playing with real stuff. We can not afford to let them have the market just because we still like "low prices". There needs to be fair competition. That is how the economy works.

    Apple and IBM, iPhone and Android. We NEED to keep the choice option. Even if it takes a somewhat nationalist view.

  18. Likes Spinit liked this post
  19. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Country
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    4,727
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2488
    Likes (Received)
    2291

    Default

    No problem with taking a somewhat nationalist view, bearing in mind that China is both the manufacturer and the largest market for many of the products involved. There is a great problem with conflating better products and lower prices (i.e. competition) with national security.

    If the US does not want Huawei to remain as the largest mobile phone manufacturer in the World and the World leader in 5G technology, its businesses need to improve their product designs and prices, not make unfounded accusations based on rumour and innuendo.

    OK FUD was invented in the US by IBM, but that doesn't mean that it's a valid business model.

  20. Likes adama liked this post
  21. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    West Coast, USA
    Posts
    7,666
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    472
    Likes (Received)
    5092

    Default

    I think there's a valid case to be made against Huawei.

    Along with creating a lifetime dictator position for Xi, the Chinese government recently passed a "National Intelligence Law" that says, in effect, that any Chinese company (or individual) must spy for the government if asked to do so. Here's one review of that law:

    The Real Danger of China’s National Intelligence Law | The Diplomat

    Huawei and 5G represent a combination of the single best intelligence-gathering vehicle of the future (5G) as well as one most crippling in any future cyber war, with a company happy to cut corners for its own economic benefit, and a government that has just given itself the right to compel Huawei to do pretty much whatever it asks.

    US companies and our own NSA aren't shining knights in armor on this. But there is a court process involved to authorize spying on any individual -- and companies like Apple and Google have pushed back. And while our current President might well admire and wish for the powers of a Xi, Kim, or Putin -- he isn't entirely without constraint.

    Maybe a decade ago, I would have considered Huawei just another global competitor, who ought to be given access to Western markets. Given the duplicity, IP theft, the consolidation of Xi's power, a China bent on finessing or suppressing dissent, and the new National Intelligence Law-- I agree with others above (Jancolic etc.) that they represent a threat to democratically-elected governments and free markets.

  22. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Madera county california usa
    Posts
    2,400
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    21
    Likes (Received)
    594

    Default

    In the US any encryption technology that a manufacturer creates must be submitted to the government for them to figure out how to crack it.

    Motorola developed a system back in the day and had to delay deployment for years until the feds could crack it.

    It was basically DES squared.

    Chinese maybe not, so they could come up with new encryption that we cannot crack so harder to spy on them.

    The data flowing through a cell switch is similar to that of a huge router.

    The switch passes it if it is encrypted at the ends but having subscriber units made by same as switch allows switch to ask subscriber for key maybe.

    There are far too many levels of activity for most if us to understand at a high confidence level.

    We have worked with this equipment in Clearvire and other networks and they seem to be similar to Samsung and Lucent.

    Having deep tunneling that can harvest and forward data without trace would not be difficult to do given the amount of traffic it would not be noticed.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

  23. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Country
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    4,727
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2488
    Likes (Received)
    2291

    Default

    As noted above. Any US business is subject to National Security Letters if they are issued to them by the current government, without judicial recourse. How is this different from the Chinese laws?

  24. #37
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Vt USA
    Posts
    6,736
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    736
    Likes (Received)
    2316

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Rand View Post
    As noted above. Any US business is subject to National Security Letters if they are issued to them by the current government, without judicial recourse. How is this different from the Chinese laws?
    The difference? The Chinese government doesn't find that objectionable.

  25. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Tennessee
    Posts
    446
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    139
    Likes (Received)
    117

    Default

    Maybe I am simple. Huawei had/has backdoor for china (us has something for nsa), the reason why we will not supply them is Huawei could use it to gain anaylitics without paying google. The driod os is designed for collecting information, they just found a way to use it without paying to play.
    Cambridge Analytics had brilliant track record, what did them in was not paying facebook for information - which they could have, quasi legally.
    Nothing to do with country policy and stance of tech/privacy/rights, everything to do with government being muscle arm of business.

    How many officers/agents help if your widget is being knocked off? How many show up if Nikes are found at a flea market?

  26. #39
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Country
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    1,939
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    898

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteM View Post
    US companies and our own NSA aren't shining knights in armor on this. But there is a court process involved to authorize spying ...
    Snowden, Snowden .... does that name ring a bell ? Or Assange ? Or the other one that they harassed for months and put in prison ... Oh yeah. Court process.

    Do they hve to import kangaroos from Ozztralia for those courts, or do we have enough at home ?

    ... democratically-elected governments and free markets.
    Sometimes you are cute, PeteM

  27. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    California
    Posts
    415
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    8
    Likes (Received)
    114

    Default

    To understand why Huawei has gotten as big as they have and why they are a security threat as well one must understand how they do business. They are basically a state owned (chinese government) entity. They win business deals because the chinese government or state run banking agencies provide financial backing of their deals. Huawei has volume advantages because they are very big in the chinese market, and huge financial advantages in doing deals internationally because of government financial packages that go hand in hand with their sales activities. By western standards, they don't play fair. Adding further concern, because they are effectively a state owned company, the supply chain of technology that is used to build their products is totally corrupted and there is no way to know whether back doors have been created in their products as the back door could reside all the way deep inside the underlying hardware (e.g.chips) of their products. Telecoms like to buy their stuff because of the massive financing (loans) they are given as part of the sales process. It is not clear to me at all that they have any technical advantages in the marketplace, but they most definately have much stronger financial backing than their competitors.


Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •