Here is another story about hackers from China.
Allegedly some organization have tracked yet another hacking that originated from some computer from China.
Red alert – we are under attack from China!
I found it interesting that we never hear from hackers from U.S., Britain, Germany characterized as that. We are more specific than that. Bad hackers are individual bad apples. They may be deranged individuals or part of standard industrial espionage operations. But when it comes to hackers form China, it has to be “hackers from China” – they are coming after us!
It’s the same thing with lead toys, dry walls, or other products from China. Instead of focusing on specific manufacturers, supply chain (e.g. bad cars from Ford, bad batch of egg from this plant, etc.), we always jump the gun and slap the label China on it. We jump the gun to blame China. When toys are recalled, it’s China’s fault even though most of such problems arise from design flaws by Western toy makers, not manufacturing problems in Chinese factories.
Now, if it’s true that products from China are categorically unsafe, I am all for the governments of the countries to work on a way to remedy the situation. I doubt that’s true – given that high quality products like iPads and iPhones are made there – and given the huge amount of trade that already goes on (are consumers really systematically into unsafe products?). So when problems are isolated, let’s fix on the cases as specific, isolated cases – and not instinctively call out names of an entire country.
I hope the U.S. become more mature about trade and the promotion of win-win exchange between the two nations.
I am especially disheartened recently to see how Chinese companies who want to do business in the States are continually treated with suspicion, as “spies” even when all they are doing is do business. In a recent case, the government is looking into Hawai’s purchasing of U.S. patents.
Patents are public disclosures of technology. One does not need to buy patents to practice the technology per se. All the information needed are already publicly dislcosed. One only buys to practice the technology in a legal way – compensating the true inventors of the technologies. So when Chinese companies want to buy the patents – invest in American innovation, why the innuendos of theft and conspiracy? How do you expect China to invest in the U.S. to produce win-win results – as Japan did when it relocated car plants to the U.S. – in such environments?
We all want a world that is peaceful and prosperous. And a journey of one million steps must start with one. We can start here by stopping our instinctive itch to label China with innuendo and suspicion…
r v says
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/219665/huawei_refuses_us_panels_advice_to_divest_from_3leaf.html
Huawei has just announced that it will NOT voluntarily follow CFIUS’s recommendation that it reverse the purchase deal!
Apparently, I was right. Huawei is going to fight this tooth and nail.
Also in response to CFIUS’s blatant and childish interference in the legitimate business of Chinese companies, China created a similar body to review all foreign investments in China for national security purposes.
Tit-for-tat time!
r v says
“executives of Huawei believe that the White House will either force it to be unwound or place such extensive regulations in place that will effectively make use of the technology protected by the patents impossible, according to the Financial Times.”
Whitehouse has 15 days to decide.
NOTE: That’s effectively make use of the technology protected by the patents impossible “in USA”, not anywhere else!
RESULT: US shoots itself in the foot! Huawei can still make and use the technology outside of US! When the patents expire, Huawei will have a 17 year lead.
Allen says
@r v #2,
I don’t see how that this makes use of the technology protected by the patents impossible in the USA. Just because Huawei is prohibited from buying the patents does not mean people in the U.S. can’t practice the patents. I can see how Huawei might be locked of the U.S. market because of legal uncertainty of whether their products infringe these patents, but any of several companies can license and buy the patent to make competing products.
Am I missing something?
r v says
Allen,
The 2nd option mentioned above by Huawei executives, is that US Government will impose regulations on Huawei on the use of the technology, so that (a) it would hinder all practical uses of the technology for Huawei in US, but also (b) still give Huawei the patent monopoly to prevent others from using the technology.
This way, Huawei can keep its patent rights, but can’t use the technology in US.
Remember, Patents are government granted Monopoly rights to “exclude others from making or using”.
*But as I said, this option would effectively shoot US in the foot, and delay all entries of a technology for 17 years (and also hold back US technologically).
Huawei would use the technology OUTSIDE of US, work out all the kinks, take the market shares outside of US, and then 17 years later, come back in and dominate the US market as well.
Of course, fortunately, it’s only 7 patents. Not that big of a deal.
But I think Huawei wants this option, because this option would still let Huawei prevent patent trolls from getting hold of the 7 patents.
Allen says
@r v #4,
If you are right, it looks like the U.S. Government wants to make Huawei into a patent troll in the U.S…!
The U.S. really should encourage not discourage Chinese companies to buy U.S. IP. By plowing Chinese profits into the creators of IP in the U.S., it is one way by which the manufacturing prowess of China can be used to power the innovation engine of the U.S.
r v says
Yes,
Preventing use of technology by Huawei in this case will only encourage Huawei to become an aggressive patent troll.
How else can it recoup the $2 million it spent on the patents? Sue the pants off US companies, of course!
Looks like Huawei doesn’t have too many options at this point in US, since it has been shut out of several recent businesses deals.
And let me tell you, Huawei has learned to be very aggressive lately, and it is not taking BS lying down any more.
Several US competitors of Huawei had accused it of IP theft, and recently, Huawei won a case against Motorola and Siemens. (I should say Huawei countersued Motorola, because Motorola actually sued Huawei first).
In the past, Huawei was very eager to settle things, but it looks like the final straw broke Huawei’s back, and it’s mad and it won’t take it any more.
Hey, if US won’t let Huawei do business, Huawei will spend its money and time in the courts, all over the world, filing injunctions against US competitors.
YinYang says
Anecdotally, I have heard Cisco is very fearful of Huawei. The really big head-ache for American firms is that their cost structure is much higher. Network equipment is very standards driven, and Huawei has proven it can make standards-based products well.
I have read in the past John Chambers talking to government officials about improving the nations IT infrastructure, so he probably has good connections to the U.S. government. On one hand there is sinophobia, on the other is Cisco having strong political connections.
The U.S. has indeed created a very tough and unfair environment for Huawei to operate in. More than Chinese companies, the day-in and day-out of the “labeling” in the Western media will some day have an impact on people of Chinese heritage in the West too. See “Opinion: Citizens of Chinese heritage in the West to also bear the brunt of Western media bias.”
I just hope things don’t get so bad.
r v says
I’m pretty sure that Cisco, 3com, Motorola are all very fearful of Huawei. They are all very litigation happy against Huawei, but they settle up and shut up really quickly in the courts when Huawei shows up.
A lot of accusations, but not many lawsuits won against Huawei.
I don’t know what it is, maybe it’s just good lawyers at Huawei.
SilentChinese says
I offer another perspective.
Ericsson and Nokia is doing huge amounts of lobbying in US on the Huawei case.
ZTE and Huawei is making huge strides in Africa/Middle East/S.A. Europe Was one of Ericsson/Nokia’s most profitable peice but ZTE and huawei effectively cracked it.
Now America is their last stand.
They loss america and they are screwed. forever.
TD-LTE will effective rule the world for the next 20 years. Ericsson don’t have a shot in TD-LTE, ZTE and huawei has a very good lead (TD-LTE was developed with China mobile)
if they lock ZTE/huawei out of US they stand a chance for recovery (of-course US will loss out on infrastructure upgrade). if they do not? Ericsson dies as a mobile equipment maker.
r v says
Such a strategy from Ericsson would be self-defeating.
Even if they have the market in US by keeping ZTE and Huawei out, that will only make them survive a little longer, they will only lag behind on the technologies.
SilentChinese says
@r v
Ericsson has their own standards and wares to push-forward. if they can Push their preferred version of LTE into US and saturated it then they can survive to fight the next round.
Allen says
So I ran across this story about how U.S. officials pushed Chinese government to go easy on a U.S. company making products deemed unsafe by China. This story shows not just the hypocrisy of those who attack Made-In-China junk but protects Made-In-USA junk, but the problems of corporate culture today.
I really think the Corporations ought to take more responsibility when bad products show up. Blaming China might be convenient as China is the factory of the world. But the responsibility for keeping our products safe lie with the companies who sale, market, and brand these products – which is why we have brands in the first place, so there are actors in the marketplace who look to ensure products are made to certain quality.
Allen says
May 5 (Bloomberg) — Orville Schell, director of the Center on U.S.-China Relations at the Asia Society, talks about the outlook for Chinese investment in the U.S. U.S. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will meet with Vice Premier Wang Qishan and State Councilor Dai Bingguo at the Strategic & Economic Dialogue in Washington on May 9 and 10. Schell talks with Matt Miller and Carol Massar on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” (Source: Bloomberg)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKLQOV4EFo4
YinYang says
That’s a really good recommendation from Orville Schell. Timothy Geithner on Charlie Rose with Chinese Vice Premier Wang Qishan made the same comments – the U.S. more clearly define what is national security concern and what is not so investments in non-sensitive areas are allowed to proceed. Makes it harder too for red herring to be in the way.