Senator Rubio Targets Huawei Over Patents (reuters.com) 178
hackingbear writes: While intellectual property violation is a major accusation against China in the on-going US-China trade war, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio filed legislation on Monday that would prevent Huawei from seeking damages in U.S. patent courts, after the Chinese firm demanded that Verizon Communications pay $1 billion to license the rights to patented technology. Under the amendment -- seen by Reuters -- companies on certain U.S. government watch lists, which would include Huawei, would not be allowed to seek relief under U.S. law with respect to U.S. patents, including bringing legal action over patent infringement.
Good if we trusted the watchlists to be honest (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
As with anything, restraint is essential.
If they "go too far", or start just placing any company on that list, then other nations will retaliate with the same.
However, there are a LOT of treaties between most countries with respect to intellectual property. I don't think there's much with respect to China. Which really is what everyone is going on about, so.. I don't see it as a big issue.
For example, should some Canadian or British firm end up on said watch list? Well, these countries have courts, follo
Re: Good if we trusted the watchlists to be honest (Score:1)
Qualcomm, in the last quarter alone, received $3.7 billion in licensing revenue. 2/3 of Qualcomm revenue is from Chinese smartphone manufacturers.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think there's much with respect to China. Which really is what everyone is going on about, so.. I don't see it as a big issue.
Yes. and still every company wants to do business there. "We don't respect intelectual property treaties". "Doesn't matter." "OK, we also require you to form joint ventures to give chinese partner companies easier access to your IP" "SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY! HOORAY!!"
and now they come back crying about "unfair treatment" Yes, a boxing match between me and Mike Tyson would be unfair. But this is like me hitting on his girlfriend in a bar Saturday evening and calling it an unfair fight next morning in hospi
Re: (Score:1)
Thanks for brining this up.
One of the missions of WIPO is to enable IP owners to establish patents in multiple countries. Patenting something in USA doesn't entitle you to worldwide protection. You need to patent your technology in at least each country to intend to do business, but you really should patent in every country to stop thieves patenting your technology in the countries you forgot about and earning their own royalties.
Re:Good if we trusted the watchlists to be honest (Score:5, Interesting)
No, this isn't open to abuse, it IS abuse. Quite simply, the proposed legislation alows for the US companies to sue others, while being granted legal permission to openly steal from them. All this after abusing a company because there there MIGHT be a possibility that said foreign company MIGHT potentially at some time cooperate with their government to spy on others, without there ever having been even the slightest shred of evidence to even raise the suspicion, let alone proof.
Of course in the meantime the US companies, such as Microsoft, Cisco, Apple, Google and others are known to be actively spying on foreign governments and are rewarded with hero status, massive tax benefits and lucrative government contracts.
All pretty typical of the US double standards of course.
Re: CALLING ALL HACKINGBEARS! HACKINGBEAR DO YOU R (Score:1)
American propaganda is at 11
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Could actually be a solution to the current US/China IP war. Both sides just agree to ignore each others' IP, the world gets flooded with knock-off iPhones that are identical to the real thing, America starts churning out knock-off Huawei 5G hardware, everyone wins???
Re: (Score:1)
Given that this would be preventing foreign actors from suing companies in the US I'm not sure I follow why we'd care.
Re: (Score:3)
Given that this would be preventing foreign actors from suing companies in the US I'm not sure I follow why we'd care.
Because soon this will be expanded to cover US actors from suing companies in the US depending on which Senator has more financial interests in what state.
See former Senator Carl Levin from Michigan . . . he was not interested in the needs of the US, but that of General Motors.
Should we block patent enforcement from Toyota and VW to protect the US big two, GM and Ford?
Re: (Score:2)
"Because soon this will be expanded to cover US actors from suing companies in the US depending on which Senator has more financial interests in what state."
And how exactly are they supposed to get US actors onto a federal ban list? You're suggesting we are going to block trade with ourselves over national security concerns?
That doesn't compute.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good if we trusted the watchlists to be honest (Score:5, Insightful)
American companies make a lot of money licensing patents in foreign countries.
The US government has worked very hard to make patent protection global. It's not perfect. There are still a lot of costs associated with filing patents in different countries around the world, but it works in general pretty well, which is why Qualcomm is able to not only collect royalties in the US, but also in Europe, China (yes, that China), South Korea, and many other countries, and why drug companies are able to fend off generics for a decade in most locations, except for a couple like India.
All that hard work goes out the window if we start discriminating against foreign owners of patents. And believe me, a lot of countries would love an excuse to not have to pay the US for its inventions.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
All that hard work goes out the window if we start discriminating against foreign owners of patents. And believe me, a lot of countries would love an excuse to not have to pay the US for its inventions.
The old saying : Penny wise and pound foolish fits what Rubio is doing, and the effects to the US patent system, as a result.
I live in a foreign land, and I can't wait for the day the world at large openly ignore legal liability of violating US patents. I, and millions of foreigners like me will rake in truckloads of money making stuffs without having to pay patent royalties.
Go ahead, Rubio, do what you do best, and we will in turn do what we do best.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not wasting any hard work when Huawei was already caught time after time cheating and were blatantly claiming to be untouchable.
I don't agree with Trump or Rubio on much but Huawei's open and continual spying and flouting American export laws is coming back to bite them in the ass.
They thought that access to the Chinese market would let them both profit from any foreign tech they needed to boot their company and gain advantages over their concurrents until they could develop their own IP, playing both
Re: Good if we trusted the watchlists to be honest (Score:2)
"I don't agree with Trump or Rubio on much but Huawei's open and continual spying and flouting American export laws is coming back to bite them in the ass."
Proof that if you repeat just about ANYTHING enough times people will start just assuming it's true.
Bruh, WHAT FUCKING SPYING? Do you have actual proof or are you just belching up Trump's latest fart? Both of you can either put up or STFU.
Re: (Score:1)
I happen to agree with this in concept because it makes no sense that a company unable to do business because they steal IP should be able to make money from that stolen IP, but I agree with you at the same.
Congress is not in control of the list at all: the President created it and controls it. Politicians, particularly at the individual level, can be swayed.
That being said, I suspect that Huawei would have zero trouble handing off the patents to a subsidiary and bypassing any such ban anyway.
Re: Good if we trusted the watchlists to be honest (Score:1)
What Huawei would do is the least you need to worry. Qualcomm alone had near (or over ?) $10 billion revenue in licensing in the last year. Thanking about 2/3 of it could be gone, one company, in one year.
Re: (Score:1)
As long as they are foreigners, I don't care. Your slippery slope argument doesn't faze me at all.
Re:Good if we trusted the watchlists to be honest (Score:4, Insightful)
Well don't complain when the rest of the world arbitrarily ignores US patents and copyrights.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm assuming you are a foreigner....
Re:Good if we trusted the watchlists to be honest (Score:5, Insightful)
If Verizon can call up a senator and ask them to draft legislation...
Why wouldn't Verizon (or any other corporation) just phone their senator (or governor, or president) and tell them to expect the legislation the corporation has drafted?
You might be confused about who runs America.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm off topic, but I read your sig:
You can't handle the truth! - Because I don't post left all my comments get modded down, bye bye Karma.
and I read your argument summary:
Sorry slashdot but you have been had by left wing on the troll button stealing our first amendment rights. I am thinking we who have been effected could take a class action against slashdot for suppressing our first amendment rights.
Perhaps I can help clarify?
The first amendment does not apply to a private, moderated platform like /. You and I "agree" to certain ToS when we sign up. Read it again (I did).
CaptainDork's 21st Corollary: "ToS: The only right we have is to leave."
I hope your Karma rebounds. I mean that.
Tit for tat on the table then (Score:3, Insightful)
China, India, Europe should all just treat American patents likewise. Finally a chance to kill off the IP vultures.
Re:Tit for tat on the table then (Score:5, Interesting)
We want China to honor IP so we are going to lead with a example of not honoring theirs.
What could possibly go wrong.
On the bright side, the Whitehouse may be off the list for today's least thought out thing to do.
Re: (Score:2)
If that was the intention, sure that's stupid.
On the other hand, maybe the intention is to reverse the integration of China into global trade started by Nixon and to re-isolate them. To restart a cold war with Russia, China and allies on one side ... and the rest of the world on the other.
If that is the intention, this is par for the course.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe but it isn't a joke. This isn't some two-bit dictator in the desert we propped up for oil, the Chinese government are real life monsters the world has been ignoring for profit.
We can just stop with the profit but I don't teach my children they should merely stop hanging out with the bully but rather that they should defend the bullied.
Re: (Score:2)
China is pretending to be an open and free market, but the opposite is true. They prop up their industries, and many of the largest companies are government owned. Their human rights abuses are worse than North Korea's- many people know about how they treat the Uyghurs [wikipedia.org], and how they imprison and people to take their organs. They have no protections on any kind of free speech, and they have heavy government ce
Re: (Score:2)
Are you stupid or crazy? A real war between nuclear powers that also have advanced bio-tech capabilities that have been publicly weaponized, but probably are?
I can easily see restructuring the economic goals and treaties, but that's a lot different than what you're proposing. I expect that even Trump is too sane to heed your advice, though. Even Kim whatever-his-name is in North Korea is too sane, despite his playing ... what did Dulles call it? Brinksmanship.
Re: (Score:2)
No need for bombs anymore. Subtle social media interference is the new weapon of choice.
"It's on the Internet, it must be true!"
Russia wrote shit that supported gun control and then wrote anti-gun control shit.
Ever wet your finger and rake it across the path of ants coming and going in single file? They go squirrelly until they can lay down another path.
That's the 2016 election. How clever. Now, America has planted malware in Russian power grids. No bombs, no hard evidence, no people were killed in manufact
Re: Tit for tat on the table then (Score:1)
Wow you don't like war but you want war with China to save it's oppressed billion people? Well if saving people is killing and making them suffer then I guess war is a good saving. If oppressed is raising more people in history from poverty then I guess the Chinese government has oppress their billion there.
Is double speak a new thing in American propoganda?
Is karma a real thing? I guess we will find out if America's roosters start coming home. It must be getting awefully dangerous to be American in the wor
Re: (Score:2)
"Well if saving people is killing and making them suffer then I guess war is a good saving."
They are being killed and tortured now. But the ones killing them would be the regime using them as human shields. They could always dismantle their government and allow peacekeeping forces to come in and support free and open democracy.
"If oppressed is raising more people in history from poverty"
The US did that via trade kicking off a trend that spread. Mao killing 35-45 million via starvation and outright crushing
Re: (Score:2)
Russia is not going to retreat from Crimea while Putin leads and that doesn't seem likely to change soon, regardless of paper democracy.
If Putin can get out from under embargoes (maybe by sacrificing Syrian to Sunni head-choppers and abandoning Iran) he's probably not interested in a new cold war ... but he certainly seems to be considering it.
https://www.politico.eu/blogs/... [politico.eu]
Re: (Score:2)
"Arguing that they feel oppression"
That is a strawman whether you meant it to be or not. Whether the majority of the population "feels" something when they've never known anything else really doesn't matter. They would "feel" something when it went away. But your argument ignores the millions who are active victims being tortured, abused, burned alive, rounded up in concentration camps and genocidal action.
I mean really the vast majority of Germans likely didn't feel much of anything in Nazi Germany either
Re: (Score:2)
"was ever employed"
Incorrect. Having been a part of something wrong yesterday doesn't mean we have to be a part of it tomorrow.
"Furthermore, you have to make sure no ethnic Chinese person was ever employed by the companies you do business with"
Why are we supposed to have something against people of Chinese ethnicity as part of mission to stop people from being abused, tortured, and executed based on their ethnicity? There will probably a few ignorant individuals who wrongly feel that way, there always are a
Re: (Score:2)
"Hmm, by that logic, it seems like your apparent awareness of the meaning of the phrase "Yellow Peril" must also indicate that you too are racist."
The logic depends on what one assumes not what one knows or has heard of. Being aware of slur has no logical parallel to projecting racism onto the motivations of others and therefore does not relate to "that logic" at all. Knowing that cracker is a racial slur toward "white people" doesn't suggest you are racist, assuming that someone who suggests some sort of a
Re: (Score:2)
"they're holding a smaller percentage than we are in immigration detention centers"
You are comparing holding people who knowingly and intentionally broke laws that are common to most every nation in temporary housing while we process and release them to gathering up millions in concentration camps for murder to harvest organs, actual torture not for information but fun, etc? These aren't crimes against humanity in the sense of OMG the Trump ordered the same thing Child and family services does to thousands
Re: (Score:2)
I came here to make this observation. It's kinda like slamming China for human rights violations when America can't fix its own human rights abuses.
Re: Tit for tat on the table then (Score:2, Informative)
"regime that tortured and murdered millions and tried to convince the world that handing over your communications to the the people operating the great information and history rewriting"
America?
Re: (Score:2)
This is about blocking the frivolous suits of a brutal regime that tortured and murdered millions and tried to convince the world that handing over your communications to the the people operating the great information and history rewriting digital wall of China wasn't a security risk.
It isn't even remotely the same as some petty squabbles about IP between parties in legitimate states.
Military action to liberate the people of China and free those trapped in concentration camps waiting for their organs to be
Re: (Score:2)
China has a lot more to lose going nuclear than the US. The great myth about nuclear power v nuclear power is that everyone would launch and the world be destroyed. Nobody will launch because it is suicide. The whole thing is predicated on a bluff. Ultimately the regime in China wouldn't go nuclear because their personal odds of surviving and escaping with wealth and a world to live in under some assumed identity are much better if they fail at conventional war.
China has a bigger population but their conven
Hypocrisy (Score:1)
They are stealing all our patents, so we must steal theirs!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm having a hard time feeling sorry for either side. If all patents went away today, nothing of value would be lost.
Abolish patents (Score:5, Insightful)
>> China doesn't respect patents, so why should the US?
Yep, I concur totally. Time to abolish patents altogether, without compromise on countries, companies, lists and other bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, that's the way the patent law reads. You are in violation if you use a patented implementation without authorization of the patent holder. Doesn't matter that you bought it at a store, YOU are in violation. (So was the store, if they went after the store.)
Patent law doesn't just cover manufacturing, it covers all uses.
Re: (Score:2)
They are stealing all our patents, so we must steal theirs!
This is all so wrong in many ways.
The US used to pride itself in taking the moral high ground.
And the legislative and judicial branches should be separated. This seems to be an attempt from the legislative branch from blocking the job that they are supposed to do.
abolish patents (Score:2)
Yep, I concur totally. Time to abolish patents altogether, without compromise on countries, companies, lists and other bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the reminder! (Score:2, Informative)
Hackingbear, congratulations on finding another evidence of American hypocrisy! We thank you for sending us the weekly reminders of that. But do you think we Americans care? No, we are the most powerful superpower on this planet! We can bully you anyway we want, hypocritical or not.
What a mess... (Score:2)
Text of the actual amendment (Score:2)
Actually looks like it was submitted last Thursday, according to the Congressional Record [congress.gov]:
Mr. RUBIO submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 1790, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2020 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy,
to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place in title X, insert the following:
SEC. ___. PROHIBITION ON RELIEF RELATING TO PATENT
INFRINGEMENT.
(a) Definition.--In this section, the term ``covered
entity''--
(1) means an entity that--
(A) is owned by, controlled by, affiliated with, or acting
at the direction of an entity that is organized under the
laws of, or otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of, a
country, the government of which is on the priority watch
list established by the United States Trade Representative
pursuant to section 182(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
U.S.C. 2242(a)); and
(B) has engaged in an action that is prohibited under--
(i) section 1(a) of Executive Order 13873 (84 Fed. Reg.
22689; relating to securing the information and
communications technology and services supply chain); or
(ii) any regulations issued in response to the Executive
Order described in clause (i); and
(2) includes any subsidiary, affiliate, employee, or
representative of, and any related party with respect to, an
entity described in paragraph (1), without regard to the
location or jurisdiction of incorporation of that subsidiary,
affiliate, employee, representative, or party, as applicable.
(b) Prohibition.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law or regulation, no covered entity may--
(1) bring or maintain an action for infringement of a
patent under title 35, United States Code;
(2) file a complaint with the United States International
Trade Commission for an investigation under section 337 of
the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337); or
(3) otherwise obtain any relief under the laws of the
United States, including for damages, injunctive relief, or
other redress, with respect to a patent issued by the United
States Patent and Trademark Office.
Re:Text of the actual amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like the US is withdrawing from the WTO.
You can argue that that's good or bad, but if that passes and is applied, then the US is likely to be found in violation, and to have judgments against it to the effect that the US cannot enforce patent or copyright laws against various injured parties under WTO based treaties. This has happened before for lesser causes.
Re: (Score:1)
Pretty much, yes. Trump has said quite often he doesn't like to be subject to these international bodies.
Well, guess what? That's a two way street ... if the US doesn't wish to play by the rules of the WTO, they don't get any of the protections of the WTO, and any sane country would pretty much have to say any treaties related to the IP of American companies are null and void because clearly the US doesn't intend to honor any reciprocal agreements.
Trump likes
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like the US is withdrawing from the WTO.
The WTO is largely a toothless entity. The US filed dozens of complaints against China for their patent violations and closed markets, and got nowhere. The only remedy that the WTO has anyway is to allow a country to enact tariffs and other trade barriers. After trying for years or decades to work through the WTO, the US got sick of this and just threw up tariffs anyway. It's the only lever available if the other country isn't playing ball with trademarks, copyrights, patents, and government subsidies.
Unconstitutional? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, I'm not a lawyer, but doesn't this totally violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment? You can't just declare that certain parties can't go to court to seek relief for violations of the law.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be quite willing to argue that corporations are not people.
The let the CEO sue (Score:3)
I'd be quite willing to argue that corporations are not people.
REN Zhengfei is a person. Why shouldn't he have standing to sue in his official capacity as representative of the Huawei patent portfolio?
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, I'm not a lawyer, but doesn't this totally violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment? You can't just declare that certain parties can't go to court to seek relief for violations of the law.
It would, except Senator Rubio is lawyer enough to write it [slashdot.org] generically. It's "any organization subject to the jurisdiction of a government on the priority watch list of the United States Trade Representative." So no individual and no organization is named in the law, so it's not technically a bill of attainder. The list [ustr.gov] currently has 11 countries on it. It applies to every company and every individual in those 11 countries.
Algeria, Argentina, Chile, China, India, Indonesia, Kuwait, Russia, Saudi Arabia
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't even conclude that Rubio read it.
Takings clause of 5th. Govt/taxpayers pay instead (Score:4, Interesting)
Ok, I'm not a lawyer, but doesn't this totally violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment?
I'm not either, but the constitution and amendments were supposed to be understandable by ordinary people, too.
You may be right on equal protection. Also on Article I Section 9's prohibition on bills of attainder.
But IMHO it's also a Fifth Amendment "taking":
This means that, having recognized that a patent-granted limited monopoly and the licensing of what it protects constitutes a thing of value, if the government takes away that value, it must pay for it. Blocking the corporate owner from using the courts to enforce his property rights is a denial of due process and a taking (without the denied due process) of a things of value.
(Corporations are "persons" as a convenient shorthand method of handling, in legal proceedings, the enforcement of the collected rights and responsibilities of their stockholders.)
Re: (Score:2)
I mostly agree with you, but isn't passing a law "due process of law"?
It still falls afoul of the "without just compensation clause" but that only applies if the property was taken for public use, so ultimately, I do not think the 5th applies.
It seems like it should be violating so many previous laws that it should be absurd to even suggest making this list... WTF is going on with America and its people?
Re: (Score:2)
Sig checks out.
Wow .. and so it begins ... (Score:5, Insightful)
And here we see the beginning of the point at which US law becomes malleable to subvert it to political whims, and the US ceases to be any of the things it claims itself to be.
Are the patents valid? Were they lawfully assigned? In which case, how can you do that?
Since Trump has said several times he would change the blacklisting of Huawei if he got a better trade deal ... or that he would intervene in the extradition of the Huawei CFO from Canada if he got a better trade deal ... at that point every other country and company in the world would be forced to reach one inescapable conclusion, American laws are now political tools to be applied as they wish to get what they want.
How is anybody supposed to believe these things are anything but bargaining leverage? And if America is going to bend her laws for that, America has lost all credibility, you could add any company to that list to basically strip them of their legal rights if it got you some leverage to screw people over in negotiations.
This is America blatantly saying they will make their laws not uniformly applied so they can punish foreign corporations when the President is already saying he would intervene for trade ... are they breaking the law, or is this bullshit? That Trump would intervene says it's hard to believe the claims are real.
Now, imagine another country did this, Americans would be screeching and howling and decrying it as unlawful.
So, really, take your pick ... either America is a country with rule of law and an independent judicial system ... or America is now essentially a banana republic where the laws are what the leaders say they are to get what they want. This law basically says the latter is now true and that the law in America is a purely political tool.
If that's the case, the Americans should shut the fuck up, and accept that other countries might decide to change laws on a whim to give themselves an advantage in a trade dispute.
If this is what America is turning into, then it's time we all stopped pretending to care what the fuck America has to say on any topic because we can't trust you to not be lying assholes.
This is literally America gaming their own legal system to give themselves an advantage, so the expectation should be that everyone else will do it to you.
Congratulations, America, you are becoming the asshole most of us have been warning of for years. Making up laws as you go and changing the rules midway through the game to suit yourself.
You should expect China to basically retaliate in kind, and do it quite severely.
Congratulations, you are now governed by crooks and thugs who think they can do anything they want with the law, just like China. I honestly didn't expect to see this kind of a low in my lifetime, but at this point the US cannot ever be taken at face value on anything if they pull shit like this.
Rubio sounds like he hasn't got the barest idea of the complete cluster fuck of international relations and law he is creating here, and he's establishing the precedent that the US laws are bullshit tools of political gain when it suits them, just like every other corrupt country the US likes to complain about.
Wow, just fucking wow, The Republicans have now become the Banana Republicans.
American Exceptionalism has finally spilled over to tainting your judicial system, you should all be very proud, just don't be surprised when someone does the same to you. Just remember, you have lost the moral standing to complain and are little better than any piss pot dictatorship.
Re: (Score:2)
This has been going on for a while, it just became even more obvious. It also either indicates extreme stupidity (if China has much more to gain if it can now ignore US patents) or it indicates that US patents are worth less than Chinese ones by now. Not good at all in both cases. It also is the official beginning of the US as a pirate nation, after it had styled itself as exactly the obvious for a long time.
I have an idea (Score:2)
So Rubio is now a patent pirate accomplice? (Score:3)
Because what he suggests amounts to legalized theft. Give that the Chinese have much more to gain if they can simply ignore US patents, this is a move that could not be much more stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Give that the Chinese have much more to gain if they can simply ignore US patents, this is a move that could not be much more stupid.
U.S. patents are enforced in the U.S., generally based on activities that take place entirely inside the U.S. What exactly are you proposing the Chinese are going to do to "ignore" U.S. patents, and how are they going to do that?
Re: (Score:2)
You think the Chinese are only selling to the US?
Re: (Score:2)
You think U.S. patent rights can be enforced on sales outside the U.S.?
Re: (Score:2)
That is why you get an _international_ patent, obviously.
Re: (Score:2)
That is why you get an _international_ patent, obviously.
Oh, this is getting more fun by the minute (so fun I'm going to ignore for the moment that you're moving the goalposts from your original statement about how China could just "ignore US patents"). Where do I go to get an "international patent"? What rights do I get from one? What body grants those rights? What body enforces them? I'll wait.
Re: (Score:2)
The Chinese would ignore and/or not grant Chinese patents owned by U.S. assignees based on activities that occur in China.
Re: (Score:2)
The Chinese would ignore and/or not grant Chinese patents owned by U.S. assignees based on activities that occur in China.
Very possibly, but what has that to do with OP's original proposition that China could "simply ignore US patents"?
Did OP mean issuer or assignee? (Score:2)
Because what he suggests amounts to legalized theft. Give that the Chinese have much more to gain if they can simply ignore US patents, this is a move that could not be much more stupid.
U.S. patents are enforced in the U.S., generally based on activities that take place entirely inside the U.S. What exactly are you proposing the Chinese are going to do to "ignore" U.S. patents, and how are they going to do that?
The Chinese would ignore and/or not grant Chinese patents owned by U.S. assignees based on activities that occur in China.
Very possibly, but what has that to do with OP's original proposition that China could "simply ignore US patents"?
What it has to do depends on whether by "US patents" OP meant the legal meaning of a a patent issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), or the colloquial meaning of a patent issued by any country's patent office and assigned to a U.S. firm. The featured article is about a proposal to have the United States block a Chinese company from asserting said company's patent issued by the USPTO. The mirror situation, which I understood to be the expected retaliation, would be China blocking a
Re: (Score:2)
What it has to do depends on whether by "US patents" OP meant the legal meaning of a a patent issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), or the colloquial meaning of a patent issued by any country's patent office and assigned to a U.S. firm.
I think you're trying too hard to salvage OP's simply wrong-headed proposition. If that's really what he was trying to say (there's certainly no generally understood "colloquial meaning" to that effect), it's passably strange he didn't explain that himself instead of just vanishing into the woodwork.
Re: (Score:2)
it's passably strange he didn't explain that himself instead of just vanishing into the woodwork.
I imagine part of that is because has been half broken for a month from now. The Slashbox that used to link to your inbox [slashdot.org] no longer does.
Huawei owns at least 1/3 of all 5g patents. (Score:2, Interesting)
This is US attempts to steal China's patents after it finally was able to leap frog US tech, which owns almost no patents in 5g. Congrats, instead of insidiously stealing tech., you just outright steal it in broad daylight.
Should see some awesome stuff come out of China (Score:2)
Awesome, should be a heap of great, cheaper stuff coming out of China soon.
If the US doesn't respect a Chinese company's legally filed US Patents.....China shouldn't have to respect any legally filed US Patents either.
brilliant (Score:1)
this will annul any copyright claims US has against China...
Funny... (Score:2)
I don't get it (Score:3)
So the government/lawmakers and technology firms work together against the foreign competition?
Isn't that exactly what people accuse China of doing?
Ok Rubio is a moron, but anyway, people around him could point out the irony, but I guess he's immune to that, being Republican and all.
Bad move (Score:2)
America's power stems almost entirely from its position as protector of fair business. Our currency is the world's currency because the world trusts our laws will continue to be enforced and they will preserve the status quo in business interests, contracts, IP, etc.
This undermines America's power by telling foreign companies our courts won't protect their interests if Congress and the president have a bad week.
Re: (Score:1)
so the British will add youre nation in first place to it's list.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Good (Score:2, Informative)
So Qualcomm will last a few billion a year in licensing revenue in addition to the business it loses because of Huawei been.
Yes, that China pays several billion each year to Qualcomm to license its 4G patents. 2/3 of Qualcomm's revenue comes from, you didn't know it, China.
umm what language do you speak ?? (Score:1)
infringed
https://www.merriam-webster.co... [merriam-webster.com]
#hashtagsarefordouchebags