Huawei Launches a Lawsuit in Texas

AlphaAtlas

[H]ard|Gawd
Staff member
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
1,713
Last year, the U.S. government reportedly tried to get its allies to stop buying Huawei equipment, and the Department of Justice charged the Chinese tech giant with 23 crimes late last January. But today, Huawei is firing back, as the company has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Government in Plano, Texas. More specifically, the company is challenging the constitutionality of Section 889 of the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act. Huawei reiterated that they are "not owned, controlled, or influenced by the Chinese government," and say that allowing the company to stay in the U.S. market would speed up 5G deployment and save billions thanks to the extra competition. How far this lawsuit will get remains to be seen, as some publications believe there's a good chance it'll be thrown out, but this particular case doesn't address the technology-stealing accusations against Huawei that started popping up earlier this year.

Huawei streamed the press conference, which you can watch here.

From Huawei's perspective, the NDAA restrictions prevent the company from providing more advanced 5G technologies to U.S. consumers, which will delay the commercial application of 5G, in turn, impeding efforts to improve the performance of 5G networks in the U.S. Beyond this, network users in rural and remote regions of the U.S. will be forced to choose between government funding and high-quality, cost-effective products. This will impede the network upgrade process, thus widening the digital divide. Even worse, the restrictions on Huawei will stifle competition, leaving U.S. consumers paying higher prices for inferior products.
 

velusip

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 24, 2005
Messages
1,577
Yeah, 'not influenced' isn't really something anyone can say honestly. One may not even be fully aware of the level of influence a secret actor has over your company.

However, Huawei has every right to challenge all these unconstitutional bans since they are based entirely on allegations without evidence. Hopefully this resistance encourages the accusers to declassify some evidence and demonstrate some tact.
 

Guarana [BAWLS]

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 3, 2001
Messages
1,905
Didn't know a chinese company was afforded the protection of The Constitution. Hope they don't decide they need to exercise their 1st and 2nd amendment rights as well.
Well, if they have a US Branch, and they almost certainly do, then their corporation has a lot of rights under US Law, including constitutional protections....
 

dvsman

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 2, 2009
Messages
3,365
Huawei derives half of their revenue from the China domestic market. To say the Chinese government has no influence over them is laughable. If the CCP decides to throw some random inspections or regulations to jam them up, it could.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
27,476

kju1

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 27, 2002
Messages
3,386
Well, if they have a US Branch, and they almost certainly do, then their corporation has a lot of rights under US Law, including constitutional protections....

Establishing a US Branch to effectively bypass the government probably wont go over well with the courts...
 

greenman

Gawd
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
586
No company is independent of any influence from their government else they wouldn't be a registered company under that government.
 

Carbon_Rod

Gawd
Joined
Apr 2, 2012
Messages
1,022
For those that are wondering, Huawei already has a USA branch and it's based in Plano, Texas.
 

Formula.350

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
1,102
"Beyond this, network users in rural and remote regions of the U.S. will be forced to choose between government funding and high-quality, cost-effective products."

I'm sorry? As a person who lives in an apparently-rural part of the US (*cough* I live not far, but just far enough, away from the first US city to roll out consumer gigabit fiber), I assure you that your mmWave signal is going to COST A FORTUNE because it's going to require 10⁴⁰ [arbitrary amount] of additional cell towers with an equal amount of increase in power output in order to provide signal coverage.

I live an 8mi drive from the closest cell tower, far less as the crow flies. I have a pretty high end Cradlepoint router+modem setup outside, with 15ft of low-loss very thick coax, running up to two $100 4ft omnidirectional antennas hoisted up in the air. Yet, even in the Winter when there are no water-dense leaves populating trees all over, this is what qualifies as "4G" speeds...
8095477651.png


Which if Huawei was being so helpful to the US prior to 5G, I don't think we'd be globally ranked #37 for Wireless Speeds! (Canada is #3, by comparison)

The higher frequencies of 5G are only going to be scattered by objects far more easily, which is why it'll do amazingly well in dense cities because it'll allow service providers to bounce signals rather efficiently off buildings. Problem is in rural areas, that signal is too weak to travel very far, and can't penetrate objects very well.

In closing, I don't foresee 5G being a boon to "rural and remote regions of the US" as they claim :shifty:
 

ordray

n00b
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
17
"Beyond this, network users in rural and remote regions of the U.S. will be forced to choose between government funding and high-quality, cost-effective products."

I'm sorry? As a person who lives in an apparently-rural part of the US (*cough* I live not far, but just far enough, away from the first US city to roll out consumer gigabit fiber), I assure you that your mmWave signal is going to COST A FORTUNE because it's going to require 10⁴⁰ [arbitrary amount] of additional cell towers with an equal amount of increase in power output in order to provide signal coverage.

I live an 8mi drive from the closest cell tower, far less as the crow flies. I have a pretty high end Cradlepoint router+modem setup outside, with 15ft of low-loss very thick coax, running up to two $100 4ft omnidirectional antennas hoisted up in the air. Yet, even in the Winter when there are no water-dense leaves populating trees all over, this is what qualifies as "4G" speeds...
View attachment 146557

Which if Huawei was being so helpful to the US prior to 5G, I don't think we'd be globally ranked #37 for Wireless Speeds! (Canada is #3, by comparison)

The higher frequencies of 5G are only going to be scattered by objects far more easily, which is why it'll do amazingly well in dense cities because it'll allow service providers to bounce signals rather efficiently off buildings. Problem is in rural areas, that signal is too weak to travel very far, and can't penetrate objects very well.

In closing, I don't foresee 5G being a boon to "rural and remote regions of the US" as they claim :shifty:
Also living in a rural area, I think that the best bet that we'll have for a reasonable wireless solution is something like what AT&T has been testing in rural Georgia. Results sounded quite promising, and they're supposedly close to a commercial launch. That sounds more likely to me since they can mostly partner with local power companies to piggyback off of much of their existing infrastructure and minimize investment in new towers.
https://about.att.com/story/2018/airgig.html
 

GT98

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 29, 2001
Messages
1,251
However, Huawei has every right to challenge all these unconstitutional bans since they are based entirely on allegations without evidence. Hopefully this resistance encourages the accusers to declassify some evidence and demonstrate some tact.

That isn't going to happen-it will fall under National Defense protection-we aren't going to tip our hat to as what we know and how we know it.

Establishing a US Branch to effectively bypass the government probably wont go over well with the courts...

Even though they already have a US based subsidiary-they would still be required to follow US laws. I know from working in the DOD world-the company I used to work for was owned by a UK based company and more or less the company had to keep a hands off position for many things so they didn't unduly control the company-like our UK parent having a initiative to make the company greener by not using certain materials that are needed to produce items for the US DOD.

5G and other networking devices could fall under vital national interests like Power Generation and other things, which would require government oversight of them and extra control like I stated before.

Personally I don't trust the Chinese NOT to put a backdoor into their equipment.
 

darrpara

Gawd
Joined
Apr 26, 2011
Messages
680
So they want it both ways then: They want to be immune to criticism and consequences for known and documented espionage and infringement while also wanting to be considered equal to all the other companies that largely follow the rules of commerce.

Good fucking luck with that.
 

Oldmodder

Gawd
Joined
Aug 24, 2018
Messages
706
It is not nice to beat a guy with his own stick.

Thats not much of a 4G speed, i get this off my cheap Chinese ( not Huawei ) phone.

8076072779.png


I have complained about the poor upload, somehow i never see it over 300 Mbps
 

PenGunn

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
349
"Beyond this, network users in rural and remote regions of the U.S. will be forced to choose between government funding and high-quality, cost-effective products."

I'm sorry? As a person who lives in an apparently-rural part of the US (*cough* I live not far, but just far enough, away from the first US city to roll out consumer gigabit fiber), I assure you that your mmWave signal is going to COST A FORTUNE because it's going to require 10⁴⁰ [arbitrary amount] of additional cell towers with an equal amount of increase in power output in order to provide signal coverage.

I live an 8mi drive from the closest cell tower, far less as the crow flies. I have a pretty high end Cradlepoint router+modem setup outside, with 15ft of low-loss very thick coax, running up to two $100 4ft omnidirectional antennas hoisted up in the air. Yet, even in the Winter when there are no water-dense leaves populating trees all over, this is what qualifies as "4G" speeds...
View attachment 146557

Which if Huawei was being so helpful to the US prior to 5G, I don't think we'd be globally ranked #37 for Wireless Speeds! (Canada is #3, by comparison)

The higher frequencies of 5G are only going to be scattered by objects far more easily, which is why it'll do amazingly well in dense cities because it'll allow service providers to bounce signals rather efficiently off buildings. Problem is in rural areas, that signal is too weak to travel very far, and can't penetrate objects very well.

In closing, I don't foresee 5G being a boon to "rural and remote regions of the US" as they claim :shifty:
You poor guy. Mine is about the same distance and I get 60 15 most of the time. That's with nothing at all. It is a Huawei P10 though and a Canadian tower. ;)
 

PenGunn

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
349
Dear Huawei: Go fuck yourself.

Dear Leica: LOL!!
You have no idea how good my Camera is do you? The Leica setup on my P10 is just amazing. The dedicated B&W is wonderful. I ran a 4x5 for quite a few years and I do know what I'm talking about.
 

Formula.350

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
1,102
Also living in a rural area, I think that the best bet that we'll have for a reasonable wireless solution is something like what AT&T has been testing in rural Georgia. Results sounded quite promising, and they're supposedly close to a commercial launch. That sounds more likely to me since they can mostly partner with local power companies to piggyback off of much of their existing infrastructure and minimize investment in new towers.
https://about.att.com/story/2018/airgig.html
I presume this is them trying to jazz up "Microwave" connections? Or is there a little more to it...
Either way, while I'm hopeful it'll come out in ~2yrs in my area... I know it won't due to population density :\ Same reason AT&T has DSL 1/5th a mile down the road (further away from town than me) but won't bother to upgrade equipment to service us.

Also TN passed a law allowing local electric companies to roll out their own internet, and so our's is also doing 'trials' of Powerline Ethernet... But again... Volunteer Electric services quite a large area, and it takes years to "vet" hardware (BS excuses really) and roll it out. So once more, I don't expect anything.


You poor guy. Mine is about the same distance and I get 60 15 most of the time. That's with nothing at all. It is a Huawei P10 though and a Canadian tower. ;)
Coincidentally, Canada's average that got them that #3 rank is 65mbit. So you're right at the average hah Unfortunately, TN isn't anywhere near the Canuckistan border :( lol


It is not nice to beat a guy with his own stick.

Thats not much of a 4G speed, i get this off my cheap Chinese ( not Huawei ) phone.

View attachment 146577

I have complained about the poor upload, somehow i never see it over 300 Mbps
Since there's no DISlike option. Here you go (n)
Also :asshat:

That is all. lol
 

zehoo

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Messages
386
When it comes to vital national infrastructure (communications) you’re always best to use your own stuff so all the backdoors are your own and not someone else’s.
 

Ebernanut

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 15, 2010
Messages
1,394
The no control or influence claim is laughably bad. It's almost like they think they can control the US media and courts the same way they do their own, then again this might be a move to try to help legitimize their propaganda at home.

You have no idea how good my Camera is do you? The Leica setup on my P10 is just amazing. The dedicated B&W is wonderful. I ran a 4x5 for quite a few years and I do know what I'm talking about.

I wouldn't consider any phone camera to be good and Leica's claim to fame was always cameras built like a tank(good) that had lenses so crappy they gave images a "soft, artsy" look(crap in my mind).

Medium format cameras are great for creating larger prints and the ability to tweak perspective but all but the best I've used still had not so great optics because even most of the high end ones haven't had the design updated since the 60s or 70s when optics were much worse. For reference I have a late 60's Pentax with Asahi glass only sold in Japan which was as good as it got in terms of glass for the time and the fixed 50mm f1.4 has much worse contrast ratio and light gathering capabilities as well as vignetting than my worst kit zoom lens from the late 90s at f5.6 which was entirely due to the lack of modern glass coatings, IME most medium format cameras have optics closer to the Pentax lens.
 

TheOne&OnlyZeke

100% Irish
Joined
Jul 21, 2000
Messages
10,669
Well the one thing this lawsuit could do is force a disclosure of what evidence the US government had on Huawei
At the moment there's no details of note.
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,710
I wouldn't consider any phone camera to be good

Phone cameras can match output acuity, contrast, and apparent color, and if the scene doesn't have excessive dynamic range, they can match the noise too. They're also backed by processors that can do fast, intelligent denoising that makes up quite a bit of ground.

As tools, cellphone cameras are actually very good. Remember that the best camera in the world is...

Leica's claim to fame was always cameras built like a tank(good) that had lenses so crappy they gave images a "soft, artsy" look(crap in my mind).

Leica has been and remains a leader in optics. They have a range of lenses, some which fall into the low-contrast 'dreamy' category, and some that are world-beating sharp. Most of their cameras are tanks though.

Medium format cameras are great for creating larger prints and the ability to tweak perspective but all but the best I've used still had not so great optics because even most of the high end ones haven't had the design updated since the 60s or 70s when optics were much worse.

The limit for large prints is system resolution, and the need for resolution varies by viewing distance. Cellphone cameras absolutely provide enough resolution, but perhaps are not flexible enough for certain applications. Once you move up to 135-format / 35mm, all available systems provide ample resolution.

The larger disparity then is in terms of 'tweaking perspective', which can be accomplished with smaller formats and lenses designed specifically for this purpose (Canon T/S, Nikon PC), but even those lenses are more limited than the freedom that many larger format systems brought to the table.

Unfortunately, as software and resolution have advanced and output resolution has dropped (we're on phones and 1080p computer screens!), the real need for perspective adjustments in the optical path has dwindled significantly.

For reference I have a late 60's Pentax with Asahi glass only sold in Japan which was as good as it got in terms of glass for the time and the fixed 50mm f1.4 has much worse contrast ratio and light gathering capabilities as well as vignetting than my worst kit zoom lens from the late 90s at f5.6 which was entirely due to the lack of modern glass coatings, IME most medium format cameras have optics closer to the Pentax lens.

A 50/1.4 lens is a 50/1.4 lens. Coatings aren't going to make much of a difference in terms of light gathering (a small amount, but not close to a single stop, let alone four stops). And even an ancient 50/1.4 lens stopped to f/2.8 will best most kit zooms today; at f/5.6, it should humiliate them. Note that neither Canon nor Nikon have really updated their 50/1.4 and lenses for modern sensors (yet), with really just Sony and Nikon pushing out great f/1.8 lenses and Sony alone at f/1.4, and those all being for the newer mirrorless systems. Yet these lenses, stopped to f/5.6, can still resolve up to 50MP.
 

Ebernanut

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 15, 2010
Messages
1,394
Phone cameras can match output acuity, contrast, and apparent color, and if the scene doesn't have excessive dynamic range, they can match the noise too. They're also backed by processors that can do fast, intelligent denoising that makes up quite a bit of ground.

As tools, cellphone cameras are actually very good. Remember that the best camera in the world is...

Cell phone cameras make very passable images these days but do so mostly through heavy processing that makes them inaccurate and unpredictable both of which I would consider detrimental to serious photography. The bottom line is that the two most important aspects on a digital camera are the lens and sensor, and on a phone camera they are too small to be good with current technology(hence the heavy processing).

Leica has been and remains a leader in optics. They have a range of lenses, some which fall into the low-contrast 'dreamy' category, and some that are world-beating sharp. Most of their cameras are tanks though.

They might have sharp lenses but every photographer I've ever known or heard of that was a Leica fan was into the soft look and the ones that shot multiple brands used the Leica only when they wanted that look so I would still consider it their claim to fame. Perhaps I was a bit harsh in regards to how that relates to a phone camera however.

A 50/1.4 lens is a 50/1.4 lens. Coatings aren't going to make much of a difference in terms of light gathering (a small amount, but not close to a single stop, let alone four stops). And even an ancient 50/1.4 lens stopped to f/2.8 will best most kit zooms today; at f/5.6, it should humiliate them.

I would have thought the same thing if I hadn't directly compared the two under identical circumstances and my experience with other old cameras seems to confirm it. In case your wondering the Pentax and lens were in immaculate condition and had been recently serviced and checked by someone very familiar with those old cameras. My point there was all but one of the dozen or so high end and modern(late film era) medium format cameras I've used displayed these same tendencies.

You make some good points and I agree with more than a few of them but I stand by what I said.
 

Etherton

Will Bang for Poof
Joined
Aug 7, 2006
Messages
6,997
Leica's claim to fame was always cameras built like a tank(good) that had lenses so crappy they gave images a "soft, artsy" look(crap in my mind).

The second half of your statement is simply not true. Just because that is your personal experience doesn't make it true.

Speaking of Leica:

If you're a history buff you'll like this article about the Leica Freedom Train. They've been around for a minute.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 3, 2017
Messages
794
can't wait for the discovery

then wait 3 years then we will get a nice juicy docu-drama series about this. ( ie when someone having access to proceeding start to publish their inevitable book)
 

Laowai

Gawd
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
534
No company as big as Huawei is free of government bullshit in any country they do business in.
True. In China though, many private companies have CPC officials present on-site to be sure things go according to their requirements. China always dials shit up to 11.
It would be like having an IRS agent looking over your shoulder as your're doing your taxes.....and another one examining your receipts....and another one questioning your motives behind your purchases....and another searching your home for illegally obtained currency.....and another one telling you you're not patriotic enough because you have a Samsung phone and TV....and another questioning your loyalty to the motherland because you had Korean BBQ for lunch...and all are looking for 'red envelopes' (bribe) to let your inevitable transgressions slide this time.
 
Last edited:

motomonkey

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 17, 2009
Messages
1,488
Cell phone cameras make very passable images these days but do so mostly through heavy processing that makes them inaccurate and unpredictable both of which I would consider detrimental to serious photography. The bottom line is that the two most important aspects on a digital camera are the lens and sensor, and on a phone camera they are too small to be good with current technology(hence the heavy processing).


I would have thought the same thing if I hadn't directly compared the two under identical circumstances and my experience with other old cameras seems to confirm it. In case your wondering the Pentax and lens were in immaculate condition and had been recently serviced and checked by someone very familiar with those old cameras. My point there was all but one of the dozen or so high end and modern(late film era) medium format cameras I've used displayed these same tendencies.

Proof is in the pudding as they say, and it's all about what you intend to do with the image. Most people that use cell phone cameras never make prints, or if they do, it's from someplace like shutterfly with terrible 4x6" prints. doesn't really matter what brand of phone you are using, or the lens or processor on it. I have never used any of the Chinese phones but it's hard to fight physics. tiny lenses with tiny sensors take terrible pictures when compared to what can be done with a dedicated platform. but if that's all you need, then it's good enough.

I've been a big fan of Pentax lenses for years, and started reusing some of my old Pentax lenses on a Sony Alpha with an adapter. the 50mm f1.4 Pentax A manual focus lens holds up extremely well, and makes prints comparable to modern designs optimized for digital, most of the others, not so much, but it's still fun to use them. playing with the 500mm mirror lens was interesting, and very "artistic", if not very sharp.
 
Top