Huawei files motion to toss ban on US government purchases

Posted:
in General Discussion edited May 29
Huawei on Tuesday night petitioned for summary judgment in a lawsuit against the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act, which blocked U.S. government agencies from buying its products.

Huawei


Hearings on motions by both sides will only take place in September, Reuters reported. Huawei claims that the 2019 NDAA is unconstitutional, but it likely faces a difficult battle, as American courts are normally reticent about challenging national security orders.

The government purchase ban on Huawei took effect in August 2018, likewise impacting fellow Chinese technology giant ZTE.

Huawei's greater problem is the twin bans the Trump administration added earlier this month. The first -- an executive order by President Trump -- invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, barring U.S. corporations from buying telecoms equipment from firms considered a national security risk, Huawei among them.

The second was Huawei's addition to a Commerce Department "Entity List," blocking it from acquiring tech from U.S. businesses. The company has been ejected from JEDEC, the Wi-Fi Alliance, and the SD Association, and faces losing vital American partners such as ARM, Google, Intel, Broadcom, Qualcomm, and others. It's currently operating under a temporary reprieve.

A review is underway to figure out ways of fighting the newer bans, Huawei's chief legal officer Song Liuping said on Wednesday. The White House is using laws to punish a single company, which "sets a very dangerous precedent," Song argued.

"Today it is telecom and Huawei, tomorrow it could be your company, your industry, your customers," the executive told a Shenzhen press conference.

The Trump administration claims that Huawei has ties with the Chinese government, posing the threat of backdoors into U.S. networks given regular hacking by state-sponsored actors. It has also leveled criminal accusations such as bank fraud and violating sanctions on Iran.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 27
    JFC_PAJFC_PA Posts: 358member
    The admin needs to lay out the case: documented proof of backdoors. Physical evidence of those spy chips has never materialized, so there’s that. 

    Its probable Huawei has stolen tech but that’s not the “security” issue being raised here. Proof is needed not anecdote. 

    On a related note it may be time for Congress to revisit that huge “national security threat” free pass they’ve given the office of the President. Arbitrary actions simply by declaring “security” with zero proof required is crazy. Opens the door way too wide for excessive executive action. Article One is ONE for a reason. 
    edited May 29 avon b7burnsidegenovelleroundaboutnowolsmuthuk_vanalingamRyanM76
  • Reply 2 of 27
    crossladcrosslad Posts: 501member
    Perhaps Google should sue the Chinese government for not allowing Google services on phones in China.
    racerhomie3JWSCqwerty52olsjbdragonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 27
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 2,012member
    This is similar to a burglar breaks into a home with intention to steal and whatever bad and than if get injured than sue home owner. This happens only in USA.
    This company reached this far by stealing US and others trade secrets,copying bluntly, hacking, spying by working with Chinese government and now it thinks US government is bad. Such kind of things only allowed is USA. Anyone can screw USA in the name of law and fairness.
    There are many known proof about Huawei's bad behavior so think about many stealing,hacking,etc happened undercover which publicly not known.


    racerhomie3anantksundarammwhiteqwerty52AppleExposedjbdragonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 27
    KuyangkohKuyangkoh Posts: 361member
    crosslad said:
    Perhaps Google should sue the Chinese government for not allowing Google services on phones in China.
    Yes....why is this no different??
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 27
    KuyangkohKuyangkoh Posts: 361member
    crosslad said:
    Perhaps Google should sue the Chinese government for not allowing Google services on phones in China.
    Yes....why is this no different??
    jbdragon
  • Reply 6 of 27
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 8,698member
    JFC_PA said:
    The admin needs to lay out the case: documented proof of backdoors. Physical evidence of those spy chips has never materialized, so there’s that. 

    Its probable Huawei has stolen tech but that’s not the “security” issue being raised here. Proof is needed not anecdote. 

    On a related note it may be time for Congress to revisit that huge “national security threat” free pass they’ve given the office of the President. Arbitrary actions simply by declaring “security” with zero proof required is crazy. Opens the door way too wide for excessive executive action. Article One is ONE for a reason. 
    Apple was an important Supermicro customer and had planned to order more than 30,000 of its servers in two years for a new global network of data centers. Three senior insiders at Apple say that in the summer of 2015, it, too, found malicious chips on Supermicro motherboards. 

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-hack-how-china-used-a-tiny-chip-to-infiltrate-america-s-top-companies
    qwerty52AppleExposed
  • Reply 7 of 27
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 7,318member
    JFC_PA said:
    The admin needs to lay out the case: documented proof of backdoors. Physical evidence of those spy chips has never materialized, so there’s that. 

    Its probable Huawei has stolen tech but that’s not the “security” issue being raised here. Proof is needed not anecdote. 

    On a related note it may be time for Congress to revisit that huge “national security threat” free pass they’ve given the office of the President. Arbitrary actions simply by declaring “security” with zero proof required is crazy. Opens the door way too wide for excessive executive action. Article One is ONE for a reason. 
    I would expect that kind of information to be classified but I’m also sure that members of the White Hat security community would have found something by now. Like you said, Bloomberg’s bullshit claim about server spy chips has never been confirmed. 

    But I continue to be amazed that so many commenters here actively support and defend the Chinese totalitarian communist regime in this. I guess hatred of America and the Western democracies trumps whatever the Chinese government and its corporate actors (Huawei) do. They’d rather buy a Huawei phone than an iPhone any day. 

    Oh, and as for anecdotes that hasn’t stopped the usual crowd here of pinning everything on Apple using only anecdotal reports. So why not Huawei?

    This place has a bad smell these days.
    racerhomie3anantksundaramtmayqwerty52AppleExposedwatto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 27
    AF_HittAF_Hitt Posts: 87member
    apple ][ said:
    JFC_PA said:
    The admin needs to lay out the case: documented proof of backdoors. Physical evidence of those spy chips has never materialized, so there’s that. 

    Its probable Huawei has stolen tech but that’s not the “security” issue being raised here. Proof is needed not anecdote. 

    On a related note it may be time for Congress to revisit that huge “national security threat” free pass they’ve given the office of the President. Arbitrary actions simply by declaring “security” with zero proof required is crazy. Opens the door way too wide for excessive executive action. Article One is ONE for a reason. 
    Apple was an important Supermicro customer and had planned to order more than 30,000 of its servers in two years for a new global network of data centers. Three senior insiders at Apple say that in the summer of 2015, it, too, found malicious chips on Supermicro motherboards. 

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-hack-how-china-used-a-tiny-chip-to-infiltrate-america-s-top-companies
    Look, I don’t agree with the OP either,  it referencing that Bloomberg article at this point is just being blatantly ignorant. It has been proven to be false so many times by so many credible sources that it’s asinine they haven’t retracted the story.

    But I always wonder what the reaction by the general public and media would be to this ban if it happened during the Obama administration. Anything Trump does is automatically the wrong decision, regardless of the actual outcome or result. It’s quite tiring for someone who normally sits on the middle of the fence and can see the pros and cons of both sides of the political aisle.
    JWSCmwhiteqwerty52jbdragonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 27
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 19,387member
    It was pitiful to see in the interview the CSO of Huawei bluntly admit that Huawei had, in fact, extensively copied from US companies in the past (Then, with nary a hint of irony, he claimed that they don’t do it anymore. Yeah, sure...)

    To all the Huawei bots here: please at least stop lying about Huawei’s theft of IP. Your boss admitted to theft on US television. 
    edited May 29 mwhitejbdragonJWSCwatto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 27
    kevin keekevin kee Posts: 1,093member
    Ignorance might be a bliss, but after the CSO confession, it would be beyond foolishness for everyone to still defend them for being thief.
    edited May 29 AppleExposedwatto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 27
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 4,702member
    "Today it is telecom and Huawei, tomorrow it could be your company, your industry, your customers," the executive told a Shenzhen press conference.
    Yes... today is Huawei and only Huwawei.  People seem to ignore the fact that ZTE is not on the list so good luck convincing OUR judge that the U.S. is attacking all Chinese tech firms.

    Obama never did anything because he was China's lap dog.  He sat around doing nothing while China was illegally militarizing the south Pacific islands.  Obama (and other presidents) did nothing while China and its tech companies ripped off American IP and technology, displayed blatant disregard to WTO rules, and dumped its cheap garbage on us (while we lapped it up) at below cost to put American business out of play.  I'm not a Trump fan, but I am happy that someone - ANYONE - is finally taking a stand to China.  It's LONG overdue.
    lkruppJWSCmwhiteSpamSandwichwatto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 27
    tmaytmay Posts: 3,954member
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/for-huawei-the-5g-play-is-in-europe--and-the-us-is-pushing-hard-for-a-ban-there/2019/05/28/582a8ff6-78d4-11e9-b7ae-390de4259661_story.html?utm_term=.0b593b0d155e

    "The Trump administration has moved to punish Huawei on national security grounds amid a bitter trade dispute with China. But in Europe, the world’s largest telecommunications equipment maker has received a different reception.

    Last month, the Netherlands’ leading wireless carrier chose Huawei to provide equipment for its next-generation 5G wireless network. The carrier, KPN, insisted the choice was based on quality. But Huawei had another advantage: price.

    Huawei underbid the existing vendor, Swedish firm Ericsson, by 60 percent, according to two industry officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter — offering a price that wouldn’t even cover the cost of parts.

    The company can afford to provide such steep discounts in part because it has a silent partner: the Chinese government. Huawei gets hundreds of millions of dollars in annual subsidies and, together with another Chinese firm, is guaranteed a majority share of the domestic market, the world’s largest."

    I"m certainly no fan of Trump either, but, yeah, enough with coddling China.

    mwhiteAppleExposedwatto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 27
    genovellegenovelle Posts: 978member
    crosslad said:
    Perhaps Google should sue the Chinese government for not allowing Google services on phones in China.
    We want our cake and eat it too. China has laws that prevent Google’s primary business. They are unapologetically a spy software. Keep in mind they are not allowed on most US government devices either without extensive modification. And just like we are now restricting what types of content can legally be presented online, China does the same. We just don’t like their choices. The other issue lies with servers storing Chinese data in a foreign country. We wouldn’t allow the controller of the internet to store all their US data in China, meaning that law enforcement or National Security Agencies would have to go through Chinese courts to get a subpoena for data access. The narrative is a fake outrage 
    muthuk_vanalingamgareth2210AppleExposed
  • Reply 14 of 27
    JFC_PA said:
    The admin needs to lay out the case: documented proof of backdoors. Physical evidence of those spy chips has never materialized, so there’s that. 

    Its probable Huawei has stolen tech but that’s not the “security” issue being raised here. Proof is needed not anecdote. 

    On a related note it may be time for Congress to revisit that huge “national security threat” free pass they’ve given the office of the President. Arbitrary actions simply by declaring “security” with zero proof required is crazy. Opens the door way too wide for excessive executive action. Article One is ONE for a reason. 
    You do realize this was an act of Congress that caused the ban on Huawei right. 
    sdw2001mwhite
  • Reply 15 of 27
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,062member
    A few things.  First, this lawsuit has a snowball’s chance in hell.  Challenging the NDAA?  Even the most liberal districts and circuits take a dim view of challenging legislated national security policies.  The other ban is an executive order, which more liberal courts have been fond of blocking under Trump.  The thing is, he’s using a duly-passed law that gives him the authority to declare emergencies.  Third, Huawei doesn’t have much political sympathy.  Even Schumer has stood behind Trump on China on general.  

    Finally, the skeptics of these bans don’t seem to understand this isn’t necessarily about security risks right now (spyware, spying hardware) or “stolen” technology.  This is about Huawei being a major player in 5G, one that could end up with a strong hardware footprint in our markets.  The problem with that is the relationship between the communist Chinese government and their corporations.  You could end up with an oppressive, somewhat aggressive and expansionist regime basically controlling a big portion of the Internet and dominating next gen wireless.  Believe me even I tell you...we don’t want that.   

    mwhiteanantksundarambeowulfschmidtwatto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 27
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 19,387member
    sdw2001 said:
    A few things.  First, this lawsuit has a snowball’s chance in hell.  Challenging the NDAA?  Even the most liberal districts and circuits take a dim view of challenging legislated national security policies.  The other ban is an executive order, which more liberal courts have been fond of blocking under Trump.  The thing is, he’s using a duly-passed law that gives him the authority to declare emergencies.  Third, Huawei doesn’t have much political sympathy.  Even Schumer has stood behind Trump on China on general.  

    Finally, the skeptics of these bans don’t seem to understand this isn’t necessarily about security risks right now (spyware, spying hardware) or “stolen” technology.  This is about Huawei being a major player in 5G, one that could end up with a strong hardware footprint in our markets.  The problem with that is the relationship between the communist Chinese government and their corporations.  You could end up with an oppressive, somewhat aggressive and expansionist regime basically controlling a big portion of the Internet and dominating next gen wireless.  Believe me even I tell you...we don’t want that.   

    Superbly put. US courts will generally not second-guess the Congress or the Executive on national security matters, and we don’t want a communist authoritarian state in charge of our communications backbone. Not in a thousand years. 

    I feel badly for Huawei’s owner’s daughter who’s awaiting extradition. The courts are not going take kindly to her, and neither Congress nor the Executive will have any incentive to ask for mitigation. It occurs to me that someone may be about to lose their bluster very soon, and acquiesce to US demands. 
    sdw2001
  • Reply 17 of 27
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,417member
    By the way, a petition for summary judgment is standard legal procedure. The standard answer from the court is usually “no”.
    tmaysdw2001
  • Reply 18 of 27
    AppleExposedAppleExposed Posts: 1,538unconfirmed, member
    lkrupp said:
    JFC_PA said:
    The admin needs to lay out the case: documented proof of backdoors. Physical evidence of those spy chips has never materialized, so there’s that. 

    Its probable Huawei has stolen tech but that’s not the “security” issue being raised here. Proof is needed not anecdote. 

    On a related note it may be time for Congress to revisit that huge “national security threat” free pass they’ve given the office of the President. Arbitrary actions simply by declaring “security” with zero proof required is crazy. Opens the door way too wide for excessive executive action. Article One is ONE for a reason. 
    I would expect that kind of information to be classified but I’m also sure that members of the White Hat security community would have found something by now. Like you said, Bloomberg’s bullshit claim about server spy chips has never been confirmed. 

    But I continue to be amazed that so many commenters here actively support and defend the Chinese totalitarian communist regime in this. I guess hatred of America and the Western democracies trumps whatever the Chinese government and its corporate actors (Huawei) do. They’d rather buy a Huawei phone than an iPhone any day. 

    Oh, and as for anecdotes that hasn’t stopped the usual crowd here of pinning everything on Apple using only anecdotal reports. So why not Huawei?

    This place has a bad smell these days.

    iKnockoff users are now hoping for the downfall of America in hopes it will hurt Apple.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 27
    AppleExposedAppleExposed Posts: 1,538unconfirmed, member
    The U.S, should say "Sure, but you can't use Apple patents"

    lol
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 20 of 27
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 4,212member
    The U.S, should say "Sure, but you can't use Apple patents"

    lol
    Are you aware of how many Huawei patents Apple licences?
    prismatics
Sign In or Register to comment.