Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Who Owns Huawei?

papers.ssrn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 334 posts

Re: Who Owns Huawei?

#181

Post by p1esk »

baddox wrote: post #171
smacktoward wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We know Apple has. If you believe there are Russian or Chinese companies that have acted similarly, that’s fine, but to convince the rest of us the burden is on you to provide some examples.

I disagree on where the burden of proof lies. I live in the US and keep up with US tech company news, so I would expect to hear about Apple’s conflict with the US government. I know of very few Russian or Chinese companies, and I wouldn’t expect to hear domestic news about companies in those countries having conflict with their government. Note: the original claim is that companies in those countries DO NOT attempt t…

Russian social network Vkontakte tried to resist. The founder and CEO got fired, and the company was taken over by Kremlin associates.

Re: Who Owns Huawei?

#182

Post by _ptgt »

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #176
_ptgt wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't really incompatible with GP's point. It's really hard to be a global telecom spy network when you're nobody wants to buy your equipment because it's overpriced and low-quality... In fact, that would give the beneficiary government a lot of incentive to advance your interests with something like a state-sponsored IP theft program and massive subsidies

If you make things up, anything is possible. How about this possibility, which is actually supported by real, known facts? Huawei began with simple equipment they could manufacture cheaply, made money, and have invested in R&D to move up the value chain. Recognizing that Huawei is an important Chinese tech company, the Trump administration is holding it hostage in the trade negotiations. Americans are now being bomba…

I honestly haven't seen conclusive evidence that Huawei has spied or been asked to in the past. Alas, imo, that's irrelevant because I'm aware that Huawei would not be able to turn down a spying request and continue to exist as a company.

That Huawei has engaged company-spondored IP theft has been widely reported, as well as the fact that the Chinese government widely disseminates the IP it obtains via forced technology transfers that are required to do business in the country.

Re: Who Owns Huawei?

#183

Post by antimora »

sprafa wrote: post #99

There’s also something the Chinese state calls “fusion centres” which is one of the most interesting facets of this intelligence-industrial complex in China. Essentially the state decides, let’s say high tech cutting edge batteries for storing renewable energy is where they want to invest in. They gather a few companies into a building that can do it or are interested. They then have state representatives who effecti…

This makes me think that the whole IP sharing/stealing is in the cultural fabric of Chinese business dealings. And it would be nearly impossible for Trump to fix it through his current trade negotiations.

Re: Who Owns Huawei?

#184

Post by Rapzid »

watertom wrote: post #142

As usual with China we are focused on the wrong issue and asking the wrong questions. Who owns Huawei is irrelevant, who ultimately controls Huawei is the issue, but it’s a simple answer, the Chinese Government. I was in China on business, we were meeting the one of the largest and most successful tech companies in China. We were meeting with the Chairman/CEO and his team. Everyone was introduced except one man, ever…

It annoys me to no end how much beating around the bush there is on this topic; particularly on NPR. They have the kid gloves on and pundits that won't come out and say the obvious.

"But why the concern about Huawei and not Facebook and Google". Because they are controlled by a fascist government, a point we have largely been ignoring for decades while they weren't the 2nd largest economy?! Recently they had a guy on saying the USA intelligence/military community saw China as the biggest "strategic challenge" in the future. I'm PRETTY darn sure they mean and have said "threat to national security". He was also insinuating the the idea we couldn't coexist with their government was absurd because we "have been since 19xx". Well, were they the second largest economy in 1950-20xx? No they were not and their soft power plays are becoming much more bold.

It's almost like the NPR and the media have given up on the ideals of liberal democracy? Good grief.

Re: Who Owns Huawei?

#185

Post by olau »

joejerryronnie wrote: post #157
throwaway94857 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China is not Communist or Socialist though. They are basically fascist, or if you want to be strict about the definition of fascism they represent an entirely new form altogether.

Doesn't communism and socialism eventually lead to fascism though? It's an inherent flaw in these ideologies. They are too optimistic and fail to account for the basic human nature that a show of weakness will immediately be capitalized on by a more aggressive party. It's a cynical take but humans have always been a kill or be killed species, and modern day capitalism has been the most successful system at controllin…

I don't understand your thought process. If you have a system where a corrupt organizer can end up amassing power uncontrolled, then sure you're going to end up with dictators. The system is self-selecting for a catastrophe. But this does not really say much about humanity in general.

The trick is to design systems with checks. Well-run states have these checks, both in the state organizations themselves and towards other sectors. Even if you're rich, there are limits to what you can get away with in a Western society.

And yes, these checks are not perfect, defending against corruption is really hard.

As we get better at automation, unless we screw up in the Western world, I have a hunch we're going to end up with universal income and a Star Trek-like society, probably not that far from what Marx imagined when he was ranting about the horrible conditions for factory workers at that time. The trick is to make everything so cheap that the universal income is affordable for society.

Re: Who Owns Huawei?

#186

Post by nabla9 »

ordinaryradical wrote: post #5

The most informative comment I’ve heard about Chinese business is that one needs to take the western conception of state / military / corporation and chuck them out the window. In essence these are all descriptive functions of the same entity in China, and any apparent separation is just that—apparent. I know some may reply that, for example, Lockheed effectively lives at this nexus also. It’s a good argument, and pr…

To some extent has been true for every big country that has successfully become a first world country after the WWII devastation. After the WWII Japan, South Korea, and Germany all had trade policies where the government coordinated closely with big export sector companies. Japan was famous for copying everything. Japanese businessmen toured western factories as potential customers with cameras, went home and build the same factory.

The trick to success is to expose companies to free competition in the global markets while protecting and supporting them in every other way. State aid in financing loan guarantees was the norm. Protecting home markets from competition was the norm.

Re: Who Owns Huawei?

#187

Post by kharak »

joejerryronnie wrote: post #151
throwaway8879 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>By that premise, Norway controls Microsoft and Apple because they own part of the companies Even so, Norway's political/ideological/moral objectives are in line with the west's. There is a difference between the Norwegians having some influence in something, as opposed to the Chinese.

[flagged]

That's the most out of touch American thing I've ever read on this site.

Re: Who Owns Huawei?

#188

Post by mytailorisrich »

ordinaryradical wrote: post #5

The most informative comment I’ve heard about Chinese business is that one needs to take the western conception of state / military / corporation and chuck them out the window. In essence these are all descriptive functions of the same entity in China, and any apparent separation is just that—apparent. I know some may reply that, for example, Lockheed effectively lives at this nexus also. It’s a good argument, and pr…

That is not true at all.

There are state-owned companies, and there are private companies. Competition is intense.

The links of private companies with party officials is not caused by some cultural difference that makes boundaries fuzzy but by plain old unchecked power and corruption: The Party can make or break you so you need to stay on "friendly" terms with them.

This tends to happen everywhere there is no separation of powers and rule of law. In China it is simply perhaps better organised (or perhaps not).

A corollary is that being a Party member is useful for one's career. The Party also recruits as a way of keeping control.

Re: Who Owns Huawei?

#189

Post by hos234 »

sprafa wrote: post #99

There’s also something the Chinese state calls “fusion centres” which is one of the most interesting facets of this intelligence-industrial complex in China. Essentially the state decides, let’s say high tech cutting edge batteries for storing renewable energy is where they want to invest in. They gather a few companies into a building that can do it or are interested. They then have state representatives who effecti…

So govt bureaucrats are driving innovation? To the point where they create market leading mega corps. Is that the claim?

Sounds like magic if you have ever met government bureaucrats.

Re: Who Owns Huawei?

#190

Post by darawk »

roboys wrote: post #144
ma2rten wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Market performance is not the real driver of the company’s decisions. Every company has different stakeholders, who have different interests. The German state of lower saxony has a 20% stake in VW. That doesn't mean that VW does not compete with other car makers.

Also it seems disingenuous to act like boards of US Fortune 500 companies aren't filled with ex-government/intelligence/military staff that play a role in aligning the company's interest with the government's interests. It's soft power that results in similar outcomes. Look at Theranos's board, it's not as unique as people think when compared to other majors...

Usually power is flowing the other way there though. Those people are on those boards so that they can influence government, rather than the other way around. I'm not sure if that's better or worse, though.
Post reply on HN