5 ms·

The problem is that, in general, when a company doesn't respect intellectual property laws or obviously makes use of industrial espionage (and I'm not suggestin

by Lio 5y ago

The problem is that, in general, when a company doesn't respect intellectual property laws or obviously makes use of industrial espionage (and I'm not suggesting either is true for Huawei) they are sending a clear signal that laws do not apply to them. So as a customer why would I trust any company with my most personal health, banking or own intellectual property if that company sees no reasonable limitations to its behaviour in any other sphere? The original purpose for branding was to allow customers to identify food products they could trust. The same is true for technology.

roenxi 5y ago
You might be the sort of person who takes a principled stand against intellectual property, so not see Huawei's behaviour as inconsistent with protecting consumer privacy? I don't personally trust Huawei to behave responsibly. But I don't really trust any other company either. Android is basically a Google anti-privacy play. Western IP law is arguably just a tool to delay Chinese progress (speaking from an international perspective). A Chinese company ignoring it doesn't really tell us much about how the company will behave towards its customers.
- toyg 5y ago
  > Android is basically a Google anti-privacy play. That's uncharitable. Android effectively started as a pro-web play: a way to ensure Google could deliver their services to mobile users regardless of what mobile manufacturers wanted (we're talking Nokia and Blackberry, which dominated the sector at the time and, together with phone carriers, could dictate what would or would not get to phones). They later got greedy with data-siphoning, but Apple effectively does the same, they're just a bit shy about over-exploiting it.
  - kaba0 5y ago
    I think it is unfair to say Apple does the same. It is night and day between the two platforms when it comes to privacy and I say it as someone who really dislikes Apple’s walled garden.
- mensetmanusman 5y ago
  Western IP law is a tool to protect the livelihoods of R&D departments, which would immediately shutter if competitors were legally allowed to bypass 10 year dev cycles.
- indymike 5y ago
  > Android is basically a Google anti-privacy play. Nope. Android is a mobile OS and is pretty well done versus the many other oses it replaced. > Western IP law is arguably just a tool to delay Chinese progress (speaking from an international perspective) I'm pretty sure IP law wasn't created to "slow down Chinese progress". It is there to provide an incentive for invention and creativity. The whole point is to grant a limited time where an inventor can profit with minimal competition so it slows everyone's progress. But to say IP law targets China is at best mistaken.
  - roenxi 5y ago
    IP law favours incumbents. Ignoring IP law has been the fastest way to secure Chinese prosperity, and that is what they did. It makes sense and it doesn't tell us how a Chinese company will treat their customers. Note that despite the argument that IP law promotes invention and creativity Huawei is a world leading tech innovator in 4G. Despite obviously having little respect for IP law. They'll probably discover the importance of IP law now that they have taken the lead but it IP law appears to have been more of a hindrance in getting the innovation started.
    - indymike 5y ago
      > IP law favours incumbents. Yes, that is the whole point. IP gives an inventor a reward in the form of limited or no competition for a period of time. > it doesn't tell us how a Chinese company will treat their customers. This is like saying your wearing the wrong running shoes to swim five miles.
      - roenxi 5y ago
        Huawei, and I suspect most of China, don't agree that they should be playing by rules that favour foreign incumbents. It is easy to see how a company could believe that and also believe in treating their customers well. It would be a very competitive company. > This is like saying your wearing the wrong running shoes to swim five miles. I don't follow your point but I agree would be foolish to wear running shoes while swimming.
em500 5y ago
I think practically speaking such concerns are way overblown. There are tons of megacorps with lots of very ethically questionable practices (not just tech wrt privacy issues, think about money laundering banks, food and energy companies causing environmental damage). The majority of consumers don't seem overly concerned unless they are very directly victimised by said practices.
- scsilver 5y ago
  Its telling that a comoany can get away with it in another country but not the US. It means that you atleast have some legal recourse with a US company.
foobiekr 5y ago
Just a gander at Huawei’s history is enough to conclude that intellectual property is not a concept they agree with.
akomtu 5y ago
IP laws is a fiction. If the US authorities want to enforce rules like "you can't paint your car green because the green color has been patented" they can, but I see no reason why other countries would adopt this nonsense. Besides, countries aren't governed by laws, they only have treaties and agreement between each other that they can enter and leave voluntarily.
mosselman 5y ago
I hadn’t even thought of this consciously: that having such disregard for authenticity also could mean they are playing it fast and loose with other, more important topics such as privacy. Thanks for this insight

by Lio 5y ago

roenxi 5y ago

You might be the sort of person who takes a principled stand against intellectual property, so not see Huawei's behaviour as inconsistent with protecting consumer privacy? I don't personally trust Huawei to behave responsibly. But I don't really trust any other company either. Android is basically a Google anti-privacy play. Western IP law is arguably just a tool to delay Chinese progress (speaking from an international perspective). A Chinese company ignoring it doesn't really tell us much about how the company will behave towards its customers.

toyg 5y ago
> Android is basically a Google anti-privacy play. That's uncharitable. Android effectively started as a pro-web play: a way to ensure Google could deliver their services to mobile users regardless of what mobile manufacturers wanted (we're talking Nokia and Blackberry, which dominated the sector at the time and, together with phone carriers, could dictate what would or would not get to phones). They later got greedy with data-siphoning, but Apple effectively does the same, they're just a bit shy about over-exploiting it.
- kaba0 5y ago
  I think it is unfair to say Apple does the same. It is night and day between the two platforms when it comes to privacy and I say it as someone who really dislikes Apple’s walled garden.
mensetmanusman 5y ago
Western IP law is a tool to protect the livelihoods of R&D departments, which would immediately shutter if competitors were legally allowed to bypass 10 year dev cycles.
indymike 5y ago
> Android is basically a Google anti-privacy play. Nope. Android is a mobile OS and is pretty well done versus the many other oses it replaced. > Western IP law is arguably just a tool to delay Chinese progress (speaking from an international perspective) I'm pretty sure IP law wasn't created to "slow down Chinese progress". It is there to provide an incentive for invention and creativity. The whole point is to grant a limited time where an inventor can profit with minimal competition so it slows everyone's progress. But to say IP law targets China is at best mistaken.
- roenxi 5y ago
  IP law favours incumbents. Ignoring IP law has been the fastest way to secure Chinese prosperity, and that is what they did. It makes sense and it doesn't tell us how a Chinese company will treat their customers. Note that despite the argument that IP law promotes invention and creativity Huawei is a world leading tech innovator in 4G. Despite obviously having little respect for IP law. They'll probably discover the importance of IP law now that they have taken the lead but it IP law appears to have been more of a hindrance in getting the innovation started.
  - indymike 5y ago
    > IP law favours incumbents. Yes, that is the whole point. IP gives an inventor a reward in the form of limited or no competition for a period of time. > it doesn't tell us how a Chinese company will treat their customers. This is like saying your wearing the wrong running shoes to swim five miles.
    - roenxi 5y ago
      Huawei, and I suspect most of China, don't agree that they should be playing by rules that favour foreign incumbents. It is easy to see how a company could believe that and also believe in treating their customers well. It would be a very competitive company. > This is like saying your wearing the wrong running shoes to swim five miles. I don't follow your point but I agree would be foolish to wear running shoes while swimming.

em500 5y ago

I think practically speaking such concerns are way overblown. There are tons of megacorps with lots of very ethically questionable practices (not just tech wrt privacy issues, think about money laundering banks, food and energy companies causing environmental damage). The majority of consumers don't seem overly concerned unless they are very directly victimised by said practices.

scsilver 5y ago
Its telling that a comoany can get away with it in another country but not the US. It means that you atleast have some legal recourse with a US company.

foobiekr 5y ago

Just a gander at Huawei’s history is enough to conclude that intellectual property is not a concept they agree with.

akomtu 5y ago

IP laws is a fiction. If the US authorities want to enforce rules like "you can't paint your car green because the green color has been patented" they can, but I see no reason why other countries would adopt this nonsense. Besides, countries aren't governed by laws, they only have treaties and agreement between each other that they can enter and leave voluntarily.

mosselman 5y ago

I hadn’t even thought of this consciously: that having such disregard for authenticity also could mean they are playing it fast and loose with other, more important topics such as privacy. Thanks for this insight