Live data from Hacker News

Huawei’s Yearslong Rise Is Littered with Accusations of Theft and Dubious Ethics

wsj.com

101–110 of 116 posts

Re: Huawei’s Yearslong Rise Is Littered with Accusations of Theft and Dubious Ethics

#101
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The real theft that mainly originates from China (no matter if via the "legal" route of buying up Western companies or force "technology transfer" via joint ventures or via hacking) Honestly; how can you call it "theft" if it is done via buying or a joint venture?

> Honestly; how can you call it "theft" if it is done via buying or a joint venture? Joint ventures are compulsory. What China does is extorting market access. As for buying: Systematically undermining them by price-dumping and then buying up the carcasses isn't exactly fine business practices either. China is definitely going to be the enemy of the next 20-30 years, pitting a ruthless dictatorship against whatever f…

I think you are making a mistake here. You try to present the situation as if there were restrictions for doing business only in China, and no restrictions in developed countries. That is simply not true; US also has tariffs for importing goods, and also sets the rules on what foreign companies can or cannot do.

US also has much stronger negotiating power than China, and it makes international agreements that are mostly beneficial for them. China cannot do that.

For example, if you want to sell your goods in Western countries, your country is often required to join an organisation like WTO. But to do it, you have to comply with their rules. So basically, developed countries are setting the conditions for developing countries. Of course, it is their right, but then it is nothing like a "free" trade.

Also, disrupting Huawei's or Kaspersky's business in US without any international court case, without being able to defend itself, just because government suspects something, doesn't resemble free trade too. It resembles what China does though.

Re: Huawei’s Yearslong Rise Is Littered with Accusations of Theft and Dubious Ethics

#102
post #72

What's the big deal here? Couldn't other countries just steal technology back? e.g. couldn't a 5-eyes country consortium just rip off Huawei's 5G technology and run with it in their own markets?

Stealing stuff is OK because other people could also steal stuff? I don’t think that’s a valid point.

ok. but it might be a path to profitability. i mean, what is all this rhetorical heat and drama really about? it's about making money. it's not truly about ethics. US business is not exactly a lofty ethical model to hold up for global admiration. if accusing a big company of theft and security breaches can get them locked out of your market, that's one less competitor.

Re: Huawei’s Yearslong Rise Is Littered with Accusations of Theft and Dubious Ethics

#103
Accusations? They sold networking equipment with accompanying Cisco manuals. Ha.

Big picture, is the world better off with Huawei’s rise? It depends on your perspective.

If you care about the global environment, Huawei’s costs are so low because they do not have to satisfy environmental standards as they do in the west... That is the basis of most cost differentials outside of labor supply/demand.

Re: Huawei’s Yearslong Rise Is Littered with Accusations of Theft and Dubious Ethics

#104
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US economy has benifited enourmously from its trade with China; that those benifits have not gone to the rust belt is really America's own choice.

No surprise the rust belt is Trump's campaigning grounds. Americans didn't choose for the great lakes economies to collapse. It was the collective decision of the ownership class.

But didn't consumers also win from being able to buy cheaper goods manufactured abroad?

Re: Huawei’s Yearslong Rise Is Littered with Accusations of Theft and Dubious Ethics

#105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No surprise the rust belt is Trump's campaigning grounds. Americans didn't choose for the great lakes economies to collapse. It was the collective decision of the ownership class.

But didn't consumers also win from being able to buy cheaper goods manufactured abroad?

Why would anyone buy a $1000 phone when with the same amount of money, one could buy a laptop, smartphone, and digital camera (with a decent lens)?

Re: Huawei’s Yearslong Rise Is Littered with Accusations of Theft and Dubious Ethics

#106
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe US experience was different - I certainly remember that impression through the seventies, and the reputation mainly being with the Euro makes - Dual, Grundig, Quad, Tannoy etc. Sony TV had reputation for poor colour. I think they modified their NTSC designs to PAL, or shared something with the US standard. Enough to be noticed by customers anyway. That reputation stuck around a while, but was fading when Walkma…

Sounds like it. None of the brand names you mention were known in my part of the US at the time, and I don't even recognize any of them today except for Gundig. For TVs, Japan very conveniently for the US shares the same NSTC standard, their only issue is that half of Honshuu, the big island, is on 50 cycle power, the other on 60 cycles (both at 110-120V for consumers like the US with our 60 cycle power). So with the…

Interesting, I didn't know Japan was also on NTSC. That explains the way PAL turned out. I found a reference on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitron

"The decoder inside the UK-sold Sony color Trinitron sets ... had an NTSC decoder adapted for PAL. ... Any phase errors could then be compensated for by using a tint control knob on the front of the set, normally unneeded on a PAL set". Presumably also applied in other PAL countries too, or they entered those markets a little later.

TV's to choose in 1979 were probably British Ferguson, Dutch Philips, and German Grundig. In 1989, replace Ferguson (I think they were taken over sometime in the 80s) with Sony. Philips were the most likely to innovate and bring out new ideas, like Laserdisc (with MCA) or V2000 video recorders, that was best quality of the three, and first format to leave the market.

I also only started being aware in the 70s. Portable Radios seems a very similar picture to the US - Sony was here, but no one really had the market. So plenty from Philips, Braun - with that iconic design that gave the iPod design, Brother at the more expensive end, along with lots of cheaper makes from both Europe and Japan. ITT was about the only non-professional US make I can remember with much presence here. There's bound to be one I missed. Short wave was Grundig and Philips for the hobbyists, with a few from Brother.

Brother are still going, and doing quite well in DAB radios, especially with models that are digital versions of 50s and 60s successes. Tannoy is the common generic term for a PA system here, they moved into home audio and speakers. They're long bought out into a group making hifi and speakers, along with Quad and Wharfedale. German Dual are still around, and were one of the mid range but quality audio and turntable makers of late 70s and early 80s. Now I think just expensive turntables after a buyout or failure or two.

Walkman was, of course, huge. I think that and the ghetto blaster fashion pushed all the Japanese brands right to the front of the market in the early 80s. Even though the boombox was also a Philips idea they were never the most desired brand. Philips kept their reputation for TV though, with some of the best late-CRT models.

So Japan and Sony race ahead, Sony's former mixed reputation being thoroughly forgotten, and in the process completely transformed the market. Few of the older brands could keep up. All the Japanese makes became a success - Pioneer, Sanyo, Sharp, Aiwa, Marantz, Panasonic/Technics, Hitachi etc, even though one or two weren't very good yet! Then Sony upped the stakes with the remarkable pro Walkman models - that few could respond well to.

Japan ended up taking the reputations for just about everything except high-end hifi and notably speakers - where they struggled, but even there they made some inroads. Several Japanese brands started designing and making speakers in Europe or using Wharfedale or Tannoy. I think Panasonic/Technics and Denon may still.

I'm sure I forgot a few bits of the timeline. :)

Re: Huawei’s Yearslong Rise Is Littered with Accusations of Theft and Dubious Ethics

#107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like you went in with preconceived notions about the subject. Either way you chose maybe the least relevant example of Huawei's activities in your straw man construction of a counter argument to the article. The first two paragraphs alone detail attempts at massive exfiltration of proprietary information that dwarfs issues of a camera-phone patent. If Huawei's crime is cheaper products, it got there on the b…

> It seems like you went in with preconceived notions about the subject. This rather seems more applicable to the wsj and you. The op points out how weak some of these claims are, which is a sign that the wsj is desperately throwing everything at the wall and hope something sticks. This figures given they're a largely conservative pub prone to supporting the gop/Trump econ policy, which I might add a disturbing propo…

Your last paragraph makes little sense. You can advocate for a world where software shouldn't be patented, while still respecting existing IP laws.

Thinking everyone should play by the same rules, even if you disagree with those rules, is not hypocritical in the slightest.

Re: Huawei’s Yearslong Rise Is Littered with Accusations of Theft and Dubious Ethics

#108
post #85

My friends in telcom from years ago would regularly tell us about H techs who would come install equipment. And while doing so would disassemble every rack and switch in the room and photograph everything. Thats an unprovable allegation, but I know these folks to be reliable sources of information. Having read about the internal incentives for techs providing IP intel and outright rewarding of theft, I'm convinced.

Why wouldn’t Huawei just buy a switch? Why would the customer tolerate someone spending 10x longer on an install and taking apart all their other crap? For that matter why were they able to take apart the other switches at all? Wouldn’t that have taken the system down? Were they storing inactive equipment in their live rack? None of this makes a lot of sense.

> Why wouldn’t Huawei just buy a switch?

Maybe they weren't allowed to? Telecom equipment isn't exactly mass market stuff you can anonymously buy at a local Best Buy, and a competitor would undoubtedly be squeamish selling direct to the compeition. If Huawei wanted to buy one, they'd probably need to do it through a front company. However, their IP-theft MO seems to be very opportunistic.

Re: Huawei’s Yearslong Rise Is Littered with Accusations of Theft and Dubious Ethics

#109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like you went in with preconceived notions about the subject. Either way you chose maybe the least relevant example of Huawei's activities in your straw man construction of a counter argument to the article. The first two paragraphs alone detail attempts at massive exfiltration of proprietary information that dwarfs issues of a camera-phone patent. If Huawei's crime is cheaper products, it got there on the b…

> It seems like you went in with preconceived notions about the subject. This rather seems more applicable to the wsj and you. The op points out how weak some of these claims are, which is a sign that the wsj is desperately throwing everything at the wall and hope something sticks. This figures given they're a largely conservative pub prone to supporting the gop/Trump econ policy, which I might add a disturbing propo…

The OP literally picked the most shallow of the IP theft claims, and nothing else, to critique the article. That is not pointing out how weak the article is, that is setting up a straw man of the article's claims in order to knock it down.

There's also no need to risk derailing a discussion of the merits of the article by inserting opinions about presidential politics. The proportion of techies supporting Trump is irrelevant to the more narrow question of whether or not Huawei has stolen IP, and if the potential theft is what has facilitated their leap in front of competition.

And yes, I did go into the article with preconceived notions because I was already very much aware of the details of their activities over the years. The OP chose to gloss over nearly every piece of content in favor of an emotional argument that people don't like Huawei because they are successful.

So let's boil this down: the OP chose the weakest example, and an emotional argument. I provided a more detailed counter argument. Your response is also an emotional one, that you don't like that people sharing my point of view tend to support Trump. Again, these do not comprise a cogent contribution to a discussion on the merits of the article.

And since you brought it up, I am heavily liberal in outlook, dislike nearly all Trump policy, and dislike the current state of IP law. That doesn't preclude me from believing Huawei acted improperly. There's nothing hypocritical is saying, "I don't like the current law, I think it should be changed. But it is the law, and breaking it is still more damaging to society and the rule of law than respecting it and pushing for change."

Re: Huawei’s Yearslong Rise Is Littered with Accusations of Theft and Dubious Ethics

#110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most financial powers when rising up have stolen technology. This is very much not unique to US-China. Maybe reading up on the history of America brazenly stealing from other countries could provide some contrast here. https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/12/06/we-were-pirates-too/

The British were at it before the US, post-war Japan was at it. The US was built on it. The first few incarnations of US patent law only allowed US citizens to hold a patent - so foreign inventors and corporations could not protect their inventions in the US. It's such a common phase of growth that it is surprising people are surprised at China following along.

slightly off topic but IIRC the only time Adam Smith mentioned 'an invisible hand' in his Wealth of Nations book was to explain why English companies _wouldn't_ do this. Nothing to do with a market reaching equilibrium etc.

It was very much a cultural assumption that doing something like that 'just wasn't cricket' and no true Englishman would offshore their company!...

wiki: The only use of "invisible hand" found in The Wealth of Nations is in Book IV, Chapter II, "Of Restraints upon the Importation from foreign Countries of such Goods as can be produced at Home."

Post reply on HN