31–40 of 332 posts
> The DoJ alleges that Huawei and a number of its affiliates used confidential agreements with American companies over the past two decades to access the trade secrets of those companies, only to then misappropriate that intellectual property and use it to fund Huawei’s business. These American companies thought they could build their products for a fraction of the price in China and increase margins. They didn't sto…
Surely evidence would reveal that, but this DOJ press release doesn't appear to be concerned with that.
>As revealed by the government’s independent investigation and review of court filings, //
Mwah-ha-ha-ha! They know how to tell 'em.
>the new charges in this case relate to the alleged decades-long efforts by Huawei, and several of its subsidiaries, both in the U.S. and in the People’s Republic of China, to misappropriate intellectual property //
Aren't new charges a new case? Aren't these extending speculations rather leading for a case that is in process, shouldn't they make the allegations and present any evidence - if they wish - rather than make extended claims bracketed by "allegedly". I can't believe that this has been written as anything other than a chance to make unsubstantiated claims ... have the courts hear the charges and then expound at length about the conviction.
I thought these sorts of things from one of the main parties involved (the USA government) were strongly decried by courts as they tend to colour juries and judicial bodies; aren't the DOJ perverting the course of justice here with such a diatribe?
>"Huawei’s efforts to steal trade secrets and other sophisticated U.S. technology were successful. Through the methods of deception described above, the defendants obtained nonpublic intellectual property relating to internet router source code, cellular antenna technology and robotics. As a consequence of its campaign to steal this technology and intellectual property, Huawei was able to drastically cut its research and development costs and associated delays, giving the company a significant and unfair competitive advantage."
That may all be true, but if you're currently prosecuting a case and have to determine if it's true it would be nice, as a DOJ, to not making statements that -- despite legal ass covering -- is clearly intended to presuppose the guilt of the defendant.
When USA decided to go after Huawei to bolster their own telecoms companies, I wondered if they realised they'd end up stooping so low?
You can charge a company with RICO? Maybe we can charge a political party then.
>Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
A corporation is an organization. Also, if you go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corru..., there's list of instances of companies and even government agencies being charged.
> The DoJ alleges that Huawei and a number of its affiliates used confidential agreements with American companies over the past two decades to access the trade secrets of those companies, only to then misappropriate that intellectual property and use it to fund Huawei’s business. These American companies thought they could build their products for a fraction of the price in China and increase margins. They didn't sto…
I'm sure the quarterly reports looked good though!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
in a lot of cases the low-cost competitors are not only lower cost but have more features and/or better performance. They side-step a lot of the planned obsolescence and intentional feature scarcity US companies have become so dependent on to avoid meaningful R&D. Its hard not to see a lot of them as sort of a Robin Hood. On topic though, Most of the pot-banging from Washington is at the behest of AT&T and other US c…
> Most of the pot-banging from Washington is at the behest of AT&T and other US carrier/handset/chip companies who are rightly livid that Huawei made it to market with 5G before they had a chance to monopolize it. Nope. Pretty sure most of the issue has to do with the spying, backdoors, and overall lack of ethics. This is the from same country that brought us a potential global pandemic because they spent weeks lying…
USA bad, China good Remember opium wars and Snowden
Remember Snowden? I guess you’re implying that the US intelligence service spies on its own population. Well, if that makes the US bad, China is objectively bad by the same criteria. Also, the Opium Wars was a British/Chinese issue, not America.
> The DoJ alleges that Huawei and a number of its affiliates used confidential agreements with American companies over the past two decades to access the trade secrets of those companies, only to then misappropriate that intellectual property and use it to fund Huawei’s business. These American companies thought they could build their products for a fraction of the price in China and increase margins. They didn't sto…
I'm sure the quarterly reports looked good though!
> The DoJ alleges that Huawei and a number of its affiliates used confidential agreements with American companies over the past two decades to access the trade secrets of those companies, only to then misappropriate that intellectual property and use it to fund Huawei’s business. These American companies thought they could build their products for a fraction of the price in China and increase margins. They didn't sto…
in a lot of cases the low-cost competitors are not only lower cost but have more features and/or better performance. They side-step a lot of the planned obsolescence and intentional feature scarcity US companies have become so dependent on to avoid meaningful R&D. Its hard not to see a lot of them as sort of a Robin Hood. On topic though, Most of the pot-banging from Washington is at the behest of AT&T and other US c…
They also “side-step” the capital and years of research required to come up with the products.
Why invest in R&D when you can invest in corporate espionage for a fraction of the cost?
> The DoJ alleges that Huawei and a number of its affiliates used confidential agreements with American companies over the past two decades to access the trade secrets of those companies, only to then misappropriate that intellectual property and use it to fund Huawei’s business. These American companies thought they could build their products for a fraction of the price in China and increase margins. They didn't sto…
in a lot of cases the low-cost competitors are not only lower cost but have more features and/or better performance. They side-step a lot of the planned obsolescence and intentional feature scarcity US companies have become so dependent on to avoid meaningful R&D. Its hard not to see a lot of them as sort of a Robin Hood. On topic though, Most of the pot-banging from Washington is at the behest of AT&T and other US c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
U.S. law says corporations are people. People can be charged with RICO. It may be weird, but it's consistent.
Corporations are people mainly when it’s convenient. I am not aware of a company being sent to jail or sentenced to death. Regular persons can’t always settle things by paying a big (or small) fine.
Exactly. Right now it's convenient for the DOJ that Huawei is a person and can be charged with RICO. Frankly I'm glad to see the "corporations are people" farce being used for good for once.