Home > Analysis, economy, trade > Chinese media criticism of Apple aims to rectify U.S. protectionism against Huawei

Chinese media criticism of Apple aims to rectify U.S. protectionism against Huawei

Apple’s Tim Cook formally apologized to Chinese customers today in response to media criticisms within China for unfair warranty and customer service related issues. China’s Consumer Association have also demanded Apple making a formal apology. While U.S. media in unison came to Apple’s defense before today’s apology, making light of Chinese consumer grievances, I think there is a bigger issue at stake. As I examined how ridiculous the U.S. media and some U.S. politicians are against Huawei back in August 2012, it’s a matter of time the Chinese government retaliates:

Huawei might need the Chinese media’s help in doing some defamation against Cisco before that American protectionism truly drops. It’s hard to imagine any other way. Huawei’s Chen Lifan is asking for ideas!

Instead of Cisco, Apple is an ideal target. For one, its user base is much larger than Cisco’s. Samsung’s phones with Android are better in my personal opinion, so iPhones are not indispensable. Apple’s customer service is probably above average in China relative to all the other companies. Certainly, there are legitimate grievances, but I wouldn’t consider them egregious. Also, remember, the Chinese media criticisms were targeting a basket of foreign firms. China is merely playing catch-up in this protectionism game others have been playing these last few years. In this kind of ugliness, everyone should remember who started first.

  1. April 1st, 2013 at 20:15 | #1

    Shaun Rein has great insights on this issue, and here he is on Bloomberg today:
    http://www.bloomberg.com/video/apple-ceo-s-apology-to-customers-in-china-E~~yDozdSu~ZdFYgon9~_Q.html

  2. Zack
    April 1st, 2013 at 22:13 | #2

    Right or not, even apple’s CEO recognizes the importance of the Chinese market; i do think it’s ridiculous that the other bearded guy on bloomberg equates the dissatisfaction with Apple being dissatisfaction with the Chinese government. what the hell are these people smoking and can i get some?!
    anyway,
    aye, it’s time the Chinese retaliation responded to the arrogance of the US protectionists; the yanks have been begging for a trade war since day one.
    Here’s a thought, in order to highlight the stupidity of the witch hunt against Huawei, perhaps Beijing ought to examine the national security implications of sourcing jet engines from Boeing.

    btw yinyang, whilst i respect Rein’s perspective on a lot of things, i do find his claim that ‘Apple…BMW…etc’ having ‘great customer service’ to be quite weak, mainly because there’s no proof for that nor his insinuation that China is on a protectionist drive. Whilst it is plausible, Rein shouldn’t emphasize these as being strong points because they’re not. These companies certainly have excellent marketing departments but that doesn’t translate into excellent customer service.

    Secondly, it’s high time Chinese domestic national Champions in the consumer brand market had their debut, and it’s a good thing the new First Lady sported domestic Chinese brands.

  3. Black Pheonix
    April 2nd, 2013 at 06:39 | #3

    I agree that Shaun is reaching for vague statistics on this one.

    My wife commented, “well, how often do Apple devices break down and need to worry about the warranties?”

    The answer is, That’s not the point. When they do break down, the Warranty needs to be on par with the rest of the World.

    We can’t talk about “customer service” in the abstract.

    Shaun should ask the customers who actually needed warranties in this case, and ask them whether they think that the Apple warranty was sufficient.

    On that note, there are also a lot of negative feedbacks in US regarding Apple products and services, (hence the “jailbreaking” craze for apple devices, which is actually near 100% in China, much higher than “jailbreaking” in US).

    If Apple was NOT arrogant, why would so many consumers find ways around Apple’s “great customer service” to get what they want??

    *Tim, while you are at it, Apologize to the World for keeping so many useful app’s out of iTune, causing so many of your customers to have to resort to “jailbreaking” to get those app’s.

  4. Black Pheonix
    April 2nd, 2013 at 06:58 | #4

    In apparent agreement with my sentiments:

    Western IT bloggers wonder “when will Tim Cooke apologize to the rest of the World”:

    http://blogs.computerworld.com/gov039t-legislationregulation/21988/tim-cook-grovels-china-apples-bended-knee-apology-itbwcw

  5. Black Pheonix
    April 2nd, 2013 at 07:16 | #5

    This is a Survey in China showing rate of Apple devices “jailbroken”:

    http://technode.com/2011/10/15/report-half-of-idevices-are-jailbroken-in-china/

    The title is actually underestimating and generalizing. The study was in 2011, and if you look at the graphs, you can see that the older iPhone (1G) had a 98.8% jailbroken rate!!

    as I said, near 100% (at least moving toward over time).

  6. Black Pheonix
    April 2nd, 2013 at 07:28 | #6

    The bigger question is, Do big Western companies have “image problems” that they have long ignored, reeking of Nationalism??

    What does that say about Western consumers who get shafted by their own big corporations, while knowing that they can’t do any thing about it (other than a few symbolic slaps on the wrist, like $7 million on Google for snooping private data across 38 states)?

    Microsoft continues to be a monopoly across many nations, while keeping to pay small amounts of “fines” every year for being a monopoly.

    Talk about flaunting the laws.

  7. April 3rd, 2013 at 10:19 | #7

    I agree with you guys Apple has been arrogant and has been unfair in their warranty and customer services. In Tim Cook’s apology, he suggested third-party support is inconsistent. And, I think what Rein said makes sense: about the existing Apple-owned stores, the customer service is better and more consistent.

    Okay, my opinion about Apple having generally decent customer service comes from talking to few people and reading some comments from Chinese consumers. To me, that makes sense, because it would be easier for Apple to simply enforce a consistent policy around the globe. I find it shortsighted if Apple would want to discriminate against any market. Granted, they debut products late in some markets, so there are some ‘discrimination,’ but overall I don’t think they meant to be egregious.

    I can see certain markets being treated as second-class due to half-hearted enforcement, training, and educating of support/service organizations.

    My post require some editing to make my thoughts clearer. I think the Chinese media are justified in criticizing these companies. I also think the best way to stop that mean and deceitful smearing of Chinese companies in the West is for the Chinese government to not allow Western companies in China get away with bad practices.

    Even that, the Chinese government is doing what’s right and fair for its citizens. If the Chinese media want to simply make up stuff about Western companies, that then would be on par with what’s happening against the likes of Huawei. But I don’t think the Chinese media would stoop that low.

    As you guys have already pointed out, when the Chinese media is trying to fight for its citizen’s justice, the “freedom”-loving Western media instead of criticizing the companies, demonizes the Chinese media.

    It’s comical they don’t realize what two-faced scum bags they are in the eyes of the Chinese!

  8. April 5th, 2013 at 22:08 | #8

    @YinYang
    Hmm… DOES the Chinese public see them as “two-faced scum bags”? I mean, we overseas Chinese generally have a comprehensive perspective, but are the Chinese on the Mainland equally so? Or do they blindly worship all things western?

  9. April 5th, 2013 at 23:52 | #9

    @Mister Unknown
    I know what you mean. In America, the majority of the people generally are just not interested in the ‘China’ topic. That’s also true about the Chinese in wanting to know the West.

    Having said that, I wouldn’t underestimate the number of people who do. As you know, anti-cnn.com was born to systematically track all the bias and false reporting in the West about China. They had millions of readers. anti-cnn.com would graduate and become April Media, which is well respected in China.

    Just one anecdote – in my conversation with Aminta Arrington, she told me that while she was teaching in China, her students would always ask her why the U.S. media are so hostile to China.

    My friends and relatives in China generally feel the same way.

  10. Zack
    April 6th, 2013 at 06:17 | #10

    @YinYang
    the psychological answer as to why the US media are so hostile to China is the equivalent of why the traditional fairytale stepmonther was always such a bitch to her husband’s natural children from his first wife: because she fears that resources that could go towards her own children will be given to children not of her blood, at the expense of herself and her own children.
    Similarly, US media are subconsciously hostile to China because they transfer their own country’s values and rise to that of China and reach the conclusion that the Chinese will similarly be like the 19th century white colonists who raped and pillaged to their heart’s content, unchecked by anyone but themselves. Mind you, none of this is based on an accurate assessment of Chinese culture or history, but rather on a ‘we were once like this, and therefore so must you experience these same things because i can’t believe that you can be anything but inferior to me in every way’.

  11. DalianPaul
    April 11th, 2013 at 00:11 | #11

    “China is merely playing catch-up in this protectionism game others have been playing these last few years. In this kind of ugliness, everyone should remember who started first.”

    I find this odd. Yes, the US are being protectionist in the case of Huawei. But then, no more so than China, who has always had provisions in place to protect its own telecoms industry. If in doubt, check the catalogue on foreign investments promulgated by the Ministry of Commerce (which details permissible, encouraged, restricted & forbidden sectors for foreign investment). You will that telecoms is heavily restricted. These measures have been in place since not long after China was accepted into the WTO.

    The Chinese government position – and an entirely reasonable one it is – is that the telecommunications backbone is a matter of state security i.e. a sensitive area where by foreign companies cannot participate i.e. forbidden.

    In other telecoms areas (the government position) they protect certain key pillar industries to allow Chinese companies to adapt with time to international standards & thus compete in the domestic market i.e. restricted, with foreign companies bring technology, IP, processes etc. to a Joint Venture with the Chinese counterparty owning a minimum 51% stake. This area is widely known as ‘value-added telecoms.’

    In the light of this, perhaps the author might want to reconsider the underlying tone that China has been the victim and that the statement: “China is merely playing catch-up in this protectionism game others have been playing these last few years. In this kind of ugliness, everyone should remember who started first.” be revised?

  12. Black Pheonix
    April 11th, 2013 at 14:25 | #12

    @DalianPaul

    “If in doubt, check the catalogue on foreign investments promulgated by the Ministry of Commerce (which details permissible, encouraged, restricted & forbidden sectors for foreign investment). You will that telecoms is heavily restricted. ”

    Define “heavily restricted”. And please, check and provide the link.

    “The Chinese government position – and an entirely reasonable one it is – is that the telecommunications backbone is a matter of state security i.e. a sensitive area where by foreign companies cannot participate i.e. forbidden.”

    I thought you said it’s “heavily restricted”, when did it just turn “forbidden”??

    That makes me doubt your source. Please cite link.

    Evidence also contradict your assertion: CISCO equipment actually occupy significant part of the backbone in Chinese telecom currently. (And some Human rights groups in US have sued CISCO for enabling Chinese “censorship”. If CISCO is “forbidden” in Chinese telecomm backbone, then why did those lawsuits arise in US? Hey, those facts don’t line up with your statement).

    China163 and China Unicom’s China 169 servers are the backbone of Chinese internet, and handle 80% of all Chinese internet traffic. Recently, in October 2012, both companies removed CISCO equipment from their servers, AFTER an investigation by U.S. lawmakers to assess potential threats posed by Chinese vendors Huawei and ZTE.

    I only brought that up because CISCO’s share market is being targetted as retaliation against US’s restrictions on Huawei.

    *Hey, if China “forbid” foreign investment in the telecomm backbone in China (from the very beginning according to you), then US has nothing to worry about.

    Otherwise, China IS playing catch up, (which you should do with your data research).

  13. DalianPaul
    April 13th, 2013 at 08:38 | #13

    @Black Pheonix

    I am surprised that an IP lawyer should find it so difficult to distinguish between trade & investment.

    Yes, the US, especially with various right wing hawks sounding off, have been making it difficult for Huawei to trade their products into the US …. I don’t agree with the US’ position on this, but equally I am not in favour of elements of China’s position with regard to protectionism in its own markets.

    As to your queries re. the Catalogue on Foreign Investment (yes, investment … not trade), this is amply demonstrated in a commentary here: http://www.lehmanbrown.biz/en/resources/class_view.asp?id=509 and in full (in word format in English) here: http://www.china-tax.net/law/doc/Foreign-trade-n-investment/Catalogue_GuidingFoInvestment20071201.doc.

    You will also find this useful reading on the subject ‘The Regulatory Framework of Foreign Investment in China’s Telecom Sector’: http://www.ptc.org/ptc12/images/papers/upload/PTC12_M5_David%20Livdahl.pdf from which I now quote, in summary:

    1) China’s telecom industry is dominated by three state owned companies: China Mobile, China Telecom and China Unicom
    2) It is very difficult for foreign investors to access China’s telecom sector due to heavy regulation and policy restrictions on foreign investment
    3) Most foreign investments in China’s telecom industry are in value-added services sector
    
    Referencing the word document above (p.22 under revised 2007 catalogue):
    Telecommunication companies: value-added telecommunication services (the proportion of foreign capital shall not exceed 50%), mobile voice and data services in basic telecommunication services (the proportion of foreign capital shall not exceed 49%), and domestic and international business in basic telecommunication services (the proportion of foreign capital shall not exceed 35%, at most be 49% before December 11th, 2007)

    So now that it is established that China has and continues to restrict foreign investment in the telecommunications industry to date, we can examine the investment issues between Huawei in the USA.

    The first instance of a Huawei bid for ownership of a US company being refused due to government intervention was the acquisition of 3com, a provider of network security products, some of which it was alleged were/are used in the Pentagon (and thus cited under national security concerns). This is notable as the bid was for ownership. When the bid was refused the response from the Chinese Ministry of Commerce was:

    “”To some extent, this obstruction and interference is affecting China-US trade and economic cooperation,” said the ministry, which encourages Chinese firms to expand overseas.

    The ministry said that it hopes “relevant parties” in the United States would “abandon prejudice, avoid protectionist measures and treat properly investments from China and other countries” with a fair, just and open attitude.” (China Daily Feb 22 2011)

    We should note that under Chinese guidelines on foreign investment in China that no foreign company can bid for 100% ownership of a Chinese entity operating in the area of networking security products, especially ones which are used in government/military applications (see p.25 of the word document). In fact, this provision which details “Projects that endanger the safety and performance of military installations” would be classified under the “Catalog of Prohibited Foreign Investment Industries”.

    So, we have a situation where MOFCOM is calling for the abandonment of prejudice and protectionist measures, when they themselves have had the very same measures in place since as early as 2001.

    Yes, research is important but so is knowledge. I have worked in foreign investment here and have, specifically worked in telecoms. These are the simple facts. China has employed far greater restrictions within its telecoms markets for a decade and longer. Long before you make the claim that the US ‘started it’.

  14. DalianPaul
    April 13th, 2013 at 10:07 | #14

    “Huawei might need the Chinese media’s help in doing some DEFAMATION [my emphasis] against Cisco before that American protectionism truly drops. It’s hard to imagine any other way. Huawei’s Chen Lifan is asking for ideas!”

    I can understand why this statement has been made as there is a precedent.

    When Huawei was caught blatantly stealing Cisco’s technology (see Neutral Expert’s Final Source Code Report, dated June 15, 2004, which explicitly state that Huawei accessed, copied, compromised and misappropriated Cisco source code), the Chinese state media, during the long-term litigation, went out of its way to portray Cisco as a bullying foreign multinational company. I mean just how dare Cisco try to defend itself!

    It’s a shame that in the search for a balanced media, both sides of the argument are not addressed.

  15. Black Pheonix
    April 14th, 2013 at 07:26 | #15

    @DalianPaul

    I’m not surprised that you would apply “selective reading/quoting”, especially when you don’t bother to define “trade” or “investment” when you accuse me of not able to distinguishing them.

    Nor do you define “restriction”. If you are implying share restrictions, then they are not that “heavily restricted”. 50% is “heavily restricted”??!

    Your own source material quotes:

    “The key restrictions include:

    – You must have a Chinese partner: a foreign invested
    telecom company must take the form of a Sino-foreign
    joint venture
    – Foreign investors’ equity interest in such company is
    capped at 49% (basic telecom services) or 50% (valueadded
    telecom services)”

    And you wrote: “This is notable as the bid was for ownership. When the bid was refused…”

    You got your basic facts wrong again.

    (1) the bid was NOT for ownership. Huawei, in fact was joined as ONLY a party to the bid. Bain Capital (Of Romney’s fortune) was the bidder for 3com. Huawei’s sole ownership was the patents and patent applications from 3com, which were already published, and thus not secret any more. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-3com.1.10258216.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    (2) in fact, out of all that mess, Bain Capital ended up acquiring a subsidiary of Huawei in 2011: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/07/huawei-bain-capital-3com_n_1947103.html

    Well, obviously, US side is far more “restricted” than the Chinese side.

    Again, US started first, and Chinese side had not retaliated as proportionally.

    “we have a situation where MOFCOM is calling for the abandonment of prejudice and protectionist measures, when they themselves have had the very same measures in place since as early as 2001.”

    Calling for proportional treatment is only fair. And you still haven’t defined the measures as being the “same”. By your own sources, the measures are in fact different, where China does allow foreign investments, with some restrictions, but far less than those of the blatant prohibitions on the US side with the flimsiest of excuses.

    I’ll wait until Huawei can acquire even 30% of stake in a US telecom company.

  16. Black Pheonix
    April 14th, 2013 at 07:28 | #16

    @DalianPaul

    “When Huawei was caught blatantly stealing Cisco’s technology (see Neutral Expert’s Final Source Code Report, dated June 15, 2004, which explicitly state that Huawei accessed, copied, compromised and misappropriated Cisco source code), the Chinese state media, during the long-term litigation, went out of its way to portray Cisco as a bullying foreign multinational company. I mean just how dare Cisco try to defend itself!”

    Which “Chinese state media” are you referring to here, that “went out of its way to portray Cisco as a bullying foreign multinational company”????!!

  17. DalianPaul
    April 14th, 2013 at 08:31 | #17

    @Black Pheonix

    Selective quoting? What else does the Catalogue on Foreign Investment mean? Foreign Trade …. really?
    If you choose not to read the detail, please do not blame others.

    So you claim a market sector is not heavily restricted when no foreign company can own a controlling share in a company operating in that market?

    You have oddly ignored the fact that 3com provided products that were used in the Pentagon.
    You have also rather oddly ignored the fact that China also blocks ANY investment in companies that provide products to its own military.

    Yet when Huawei and their partner Bain attempt to acquire 3com, and this was rejected due to political intervention, MOFCOM appealed stating …

    ““abandon prejudice, avoid protectionist measures and treat properly investments from China and other countries” with a fair, just and open attitude.”

    … when they themselves would have blocked any such measure in China through policies that had been in place since as early as 2001.

    No matter what you think are inaccuracies in how I have presented the acquisition, the simple facts speak for themselves. The Chinese government accused the US government of prejudice & an unfair attitude when they themselves had exactly the same measures in place.

    To then continue this notion that the US companies deserve what they get from the Chinese government because the US government ‘started it’ … is just plain wrong.

    It would also be helpful if you posted links that were not censored & blocked here in China. Apparently – and ironically in this case – they think that the NY Times does not report truthfully on China matters.

  18. DalianPaul
    April 14th, 2013 at 08:34 | #18

    @Black Pheonix

    I remember reading the China Daily and other Chinese language editions back at the time. I’ll try to dig it out for you though cannot be certain they will be available online now, since the articles would have appeared in 2004.

    I am sure, in that event, you will subsequently claim that without online evidence that you cannot accept the assertion, but hey ho, if its happened once (with Apple) why wouldn’t you to believe it couldn’t have happened before?

  19. Black Pheonix
    April 14th, 2013 at 08:53 | #19

    @DalianPaul

    Because even the Apple case, people didn’t expect the negative coverage. (Hence, this was not some common occurrence).

    the CISCO’s case was much hyped in US as a general accusation of “Chinese espionage”. I don’t recall seeing much of any media response from the Chinese media, which are NOT in the habit of commenting on US court cases.

    (And the complaint against Apple was more related to Apple’s conduct in China).

    Surely, you can find some evidence in US media, which nearly always pounce on Chinese “state media” for any negative coverage of US companies??!

    NO?

  20. DalianPaul
    April 14th, 2013 at 09:05 | #20

    @Black Pheonix

    Perhaps, but even after Apple users pushed back (not least because of CCTV’s rigging comments from influential weibo users), the state media went on the warpath. We both know that Cook wasn’t apologizing to consumers, he was apologizing to draw a line under the state’s campaign and ensure that Apple has a long term market in China (name one foreign firm that can be successful here, if the government chooses to target them over the long term). By apologizing, the government had no choice but to halt the campaign. However it is portrayed by media in China or the US, it was the smart move for Apple to make.

    On Cisco/Huawei, there is plenty of comment on the behaviour of the media. Just haven’t found the articles yet. Still digging.

    It is worth noting the comments from the Cisco counsel who stated that the entire lawsuit was ultimately probably not worth it given the (outcome) nature of relations with MIIT & central government & its damaged reputation in the marketplace (due to how they were portrayed by the Chinese media as a foreign MNC bully).

  21. Black Pheonix
    April 14th, 2013 at 09:11 | #21

    @DalianPaul

    A recent negative coverage is not an evidence of past evidence. Your inference is a big premature.

    “On Cisco/Huawei, there is plenty of comment on the behaviour of the media. Just haven’t found the articles yet. Still digging.
    It is worth noting the comments from the Cisco counsel who stated that the entire lawsuit was ultimately probably not worth it given the (outcome) nature of relations with MIIT & central government & its damaged reputation in the marketplace (due to how they were portrayed by the Chinese media as a foreign MNC bully).”

    I like to see those comments from the CISCO counsel, since you tend to selectively quote your sources.

  22. Black Pheonix
    April 14th, 2013 at 09:40 | #22

    “Still, investors had speculated whether Cisco would choose not to take legal action, for fear of offending the Chinese government. Asked about the issue at an investor conference earlier this month, Cisco Chief Executive John Chambers played down the concerns, saying: “I don’t see that as a big issue for Cisco.”

    Mr. Chandler said Cisco has found Chinese officials “very respectful” and doesn’t expect any impact on sales to the region.”

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1043337053732688864.html

  23. Black Pheonix
    April 14th, 2013 at 09:50 | #23

    Indeed, CISCO’s own massive lawsuit against Huawei in 2003 (which included injunctions in Europe), should rather indicate that CISCO did not receive negative media coverage in China. That they felt free to lay accusations without fear of retaliation.

    And indeed, CISCO is only recently targetted (in October 2012) in China as retaliation against US prohibitions of Huawei and ZTE.

    For all that time, CISCO had significantly penetrated Chinese telecom market. And even acquired some Chinese companies: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac49/ac0/ac1/ac259/dvn.html

  24. DalianPaul
    April 14th, 2013 at 10:09 | #24

    @Black Pheonix
    OK, enough of the barbs. My selective quoting? Provide your evidence.

    Oh, and by the way, going out of your way to find a quote from the Cisco CEO when he is play ‘good government relations strategy’ could be considered somewhat selective. Especially when you consider that the quote took place before the alleged behaviour (from state media) actually took place.

    I cannot access the article from here, so would appreciate that you post it in full.

  25. DalianPaul
    April 14th, 2013 at 10:16 | #25

    @Black Pheonix

    This is rather disingenuous. You are using a quote at the outset of the situation where the CEO spoke his anticipated reaction from Chinese government. Anticipated. Opinion.

    Had you even considered that despite Huawei having being shown to have stolen technology (at a much later date, publicly) that the fact they settled without having to admit publicly to any theft may have had some influence? That the settlement simply ensured that Huawei remove offending IP from products & that the entire agreement was done in private, confidentially?

    You seem to think these issues are simply black & white. They are part of complex long term strategies played out by companies.

  26. DalianPaul
    April 14th, 2013 at 10:21 | #26

    @Black Pheonix

    Wikileaks, US Cable (there are other references)
    Feb4, 2010

    “8. (SBU) Tao Taodi of Cisco Systems offered a differing view, claiming Cisco was a textbook case of how litigation in China can backfire and hurt a company’s long-term interests. She noted Cisco now had regrets over having sued state-owned [glaring error – my insertion] telecommunications giant Huawei in 2003 because, during the suit, Cisco was portrayed by the Chinese media as a bullying multi-national corporation trying to crush a local competitor. Ultimately, Tao argued, the damage to Cisco’s reputation in China outweighed any benefit achieved through the lawsuit. Tao recommended that other companies seriously consider the long-term implications of pursuing civil actions in China.”

  27. Black Pheonix
    April 14th, 2013 at 10:38 | #27

    @DalianPaul

    Sorry, there was no “litigation in China” by Cisco against Huawei in 2003. I don’t know what new drug the US diplomat was on.

  28. Black Pheonix
    April 14th, 2013 at 10:40 | #28

    @DalianPaul

    “Had you even considered that despite Huawei having being shown to have stolen technology (at a much later date, publicly) that the fact they settled without having to admit publicly to any theft may have had some influence? That the settlement simply ensured that Huawei remove offending IP from products & that the entire agreement was done in private, confidentially?”

    Lots of companies settle. You want to 2nd guess their motives, be my guest. But that would still be your “2nd guess”.

  29. DalianPaul
    April 14th, 2013 at 10:42 | #29

    @Black Pheonix

    This is not a verbatim report.

    The fact that you choose to nitpick over what she is referring to (Huawei/Cisco lawsuit that took place in the US, concerning Huawei’s activity in China), doesn’t surprise me.

    Can you just deal with the opinions expressed?

  30. Black Pheonix
    April 14th, 2013 at 10:44 | #30

    @DalianPaul

    “I cannot access the article from here, so would appreciate that you post it in full.”

    subscription required. I only quote relevant portion for “education” purposes, under “FAIR use” doctrine.

    I don’t want to get sued for copyright violation for taking more than I need for “education”.

    🙂

  31. DalianPaul
    April 14th, 2013 at 10:45 | #31

    @Black Pheonix

    2nd guessing. Just about as accurate on your assertion that because Cisco managed to achieve market share later that the government/state media at the time could not have actively targeted Cisco in 2003/2004.

  32. Black Pheonix
    April 14th, 2013 at 10:48 | #32

    @DalianPaul

    Well, give the “verbatim report”.

    The fact that you choose to quote only a 2nd hand summary of her full opinion, doesn’t surprise me.

    Can you actually back up your assertion?

  33. Black Pheonix
    April 14th, 2013 at 10:49 | #33

    @DalianPaul

    “2nd guessing. Just about as accurate on your assertion that because Cisco managed to achieve market share later that the government/state media at the time could not have actively targeted Cisco in 2003/2004.”

    I let the result show for itself. FACT: CISCO wasn’t restricted apparently in the RESULTS.

  34. DalianPaul
    April 14th, 2013 at 10:52 | #34

    @Black Pheonix

    This happened at a Round Table in private. Her remarks are being noted, presumably by a State Department representative.

    The fact that you are ignoring the sentiments reported and are now nitpicking for a verbatim report does not surprise me in the slightest either. It’s the kind of tactic employed by someone who doesn’t want to address the issues raised.

  35. DalianPaul
    April 14th, 2013 at 10:58 | #35

    @Black Pheonix

    Can you back up that assertion with full authority?
    What RESULTS? The fact that they have been able to supply goods into the market?
    What about e.g. timelines on license, incorporation, regional branch approvals in 2004, 2005?

    The simple fact is that you don’t know. Simply stating that the result shows for itself 6 years later is not enough evidence in and of itself.

  36. Black Pheonix
    April 14th, 2013 at 11:03 | #36

    @DalianPaul

    You are off your rockers. The Shanghai IPR Roundtable is public event.

    One might have to join a club or pay fees, but it’s hardly a secret.

    The fact that you can’t find any other evidence, except a non-verbatim report of 2nd hand opinion, says you are just spamming the forum.

  37. Black Pheonix
    April 14th, 2013 at 11:08 | #37

    @DalianPaul

    “The simple fact is that you don’t know. Simply stating that the result shows for itself 6 years later is not enough evidence in and of itself.”

    It’s clearer evidence than your mere suggestion that China’s restriction on JV ownership on telecomm (at almost 50%) is somehow amounting to equal to the prohibition that US government imposes on Huawei and ZTE.

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.