Huawei’s listing on the US Department of Commerce Entity List was enough to prevent the Chinese company from buying anything from America, and recent court filings indicate that the basis for the listing might have been little more than a “we think they might” engage in spying.

The ban led to Huawei commencing proceedings in the United States federal court system, seeking a declaration that Huawei’s inclusion in the Entity List was unlawful and improper. While the ban might ultimately push Huawei to decrease (and ultimately end) its reliance on American products, there’s one thing it can’t really get away without for now, and that’s Android. Hence, the court action to (amongst other things) secure access to Android going forward.

Huawei’s lawsuit challenges the legislative implementation of the US’ Huawei ban, saying that it amounted to Congress passing a so-called “bill of attainder” against Huawei, even though such a bill is prohibited. Congress is not supposed to use its power to single out companies or individuals for punishment, so the law says, and thus the US move is unlawful.

The US Government has filed a response to the claim, which – the New York Times reports – amounts to little more than a “so what?”. Specifically, the Times reports that even the mere potential for Huawei to act as a proxy for China’s state security apparatus is reason enough for the US to ban the company’s phones and other technology.

How will this all end up? Well, it could go a couple of ways:

  • The Trump Administration removes the Entity Listing for Huawei, and the problem – largely – just goes away
  • The listing remains, and Huawei succeeds in its court action, which again largely solves the problem
  • The listing remains and Huawei is unsuccessful, meaning it has to push forward with its own solutions

With news of a Huawei Developer Conference coming up next month, it seems as if Huawei’s hoping for the best but planning for the worst, forging ahead with development of its own mobile operating system.

Source: New York Times.
9 Comments
newest
oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
chris
chris
1 year ago

You know what we don’t need your comments. Please go away.

Joshua Hill
Joshua Hill
Reply to  chris
1 year ago

Tibb So been posting the same here for a while now. Soon as I see the name I’ve got the gist of the comment. No need to waste your time reading it 😉

Joshua Hill
Joshua Hill
Reply to  Joshua Hill
1 year ago

Do you have evidence that the Chinese govt. has asked Huawei to spy? If not what is the point of your first very emphatic post full of SHOUTING!!! As I replied to Ben here as every Chinese company might spy they should all be banned accoding to Trump’s logic. That would be a ridiculous situation. So I ask again what was the point of your comment given the context of this article in which you posted it? You don’t offend me. Your posts are off topic/irrelevant to topic, use hyperbole (are silly), etc. In general they are not accurate. I… Read more »

Berto
Berto
Reply to  chris
1 year ago

Which part of my comments offend you? Is it speaking up against the vile human rights abuses of the Chinese Dictatorship? Or it the way I continually associate companies like Huawei, etc. with the Chinese Dictatorship that is known for being evil? Ren Zhengfei and other CEOs of these Chinese Companies must be fully aware of the atrocities being committed by the leaders of the country they choose to continue to base their businesses in. These CEO’s choose money over caring about their fellow citizens. Huawei certainly has the resources to pivot it’s business base away from China but chooses… Read more »

Ben
Ben
1 year ago

Might? It’s more along the lines of ‘almost certainly would, if given the opportunity’.

Joshua Hill
Joshua Hill
Reply to  Ben
1 year ago

You mean like any company would spy on their competitor. The supposed issue here is that Huawei might give any info from spying to the Chinese govt. As all Chinese companies might do this and that is all that you need to be banned apparently then all chinese companies should be placed on the entity list.

Don’t think you thought through your comment or its implications as such a situation is clearly ridiculous as was the initial placing of Huawei on the entity list.

Ben
Ben
Reply to  Joshua Hill
1 year ago

Come off the grass. Do you think that an Australian Company would spy on anyone on behalf of the Australian Government? The main issue is that most of the big companies in China are closely linked with the Communist Party Dictatorship, so yes every large Chinese Company should be treated with caution and steps taken by Western Democracies to limit the potential damage of spying. That doesn’t mean an automatic ban on all of them but the application of common sense. This shot across China’s bow by Trump is a probably a good thing in the long run if they… Read more »

Joshua Hill
Joshua Hill
Reply to  Ben
1 year ago

I said any company would spy given the chance.
I didn’t say that any company would spy for their govt. I made it clear they where spying against their competitors but Chinese companies might pass on information to their govt. So why the Australian business passing on info to the govt question? It looks like you haven’t even accurately comprehended what I wrote!

As you couldn’t even read and understand the first point in my response I won’t bother replying to any of your other points.

Have a re-read of what I actually wrote and what you did 😉

Ben
Ben
Reply to  Joshua Hill
1 year ago

Yeah no thanks smartass.