Huawei challenging the Constitutionality of US's ban on its products

[Specterx]

It's comical to think that a foreign corporation based in a Communist dictatorship might have recourse to the U.S. constitution. The lawsuit ought to be summarily dismissed for lack of standing.

But with the judges we have these days, who knows. If they'd filed the lawsuit in California (rather than Texas) and claimed that the ban was motivated by racism, I'd give them even money.

 

[Cuddles]

It's comical to think that a foreign corporation based in a Communist dictatorship might have recourse to the U.S. constitution. The lawsuit ought to be summarily dismissed for lack of standing.

But with the judges we have these days, who knows. If they'd filed the lawsuit in California (rather than Texas) and claimed that the ban was motivated by racism, I'd give them even money.

How do you feel about American companies having standing in foreign courts? Would you be ok with the nationalization of said companies by a foreign entity and them having no judicial recourse?

 

[Specterx]

How do you feel about American companies having standing in foreign courts? Would you be ok with the nationalization of said companies by a foreign entity and them having no judicial recourse?

I think that the accommodations we choose to make (or not) for foreign persons and entities should be governed by international agreements / treaties, and laws written specifically for the purpose of implementing said treaties. There's no law guaranteeing the absolute right of a foreign corporation to sell products in the USA, so they want a judge to "find" one. Certainly, constitutional protections should under no circumstances apply to foreigners.

Any other approach is nonsensical, since American persons and entities in foreign countries are in practice at the mercy of those foreign governments and systems - thus all disputes like this are ultimately diplomatic ones, whether or not you pretend otherwise.

The Chinese have rightly seen the West's obsessive legalism as a huge weakness, readily exploitable. Their approach is to do whatever is best for China, following the letter of the law when it's convenient or when the cost of doing otherwise is too high. This case is all about avoiding the cost.

 

[Cuddles]

I think that the accommodations we choose to make (or not) for foreign persons and entities should be governed by international agreements / treaties, and laws written specifically for the purpose of implementing said treaties. There's no law guaranteeing the absolute right of a foreign corporation to sell products in the USA, so they want a judge to "find" one. Certainly, constitutional protections should under no circumstances apply to foreigners.

Any other approach is nonsensical, since American persons and entities in foreign countries are in practice at the mercy of those foreign governments and systems - thus all disputes like this are ultimately diplomatic ones, whether or not you pretend otherwise.

The Chinese have rightly seen the West's obsessive legalism as a huge weakness, readily exploitable. Their approach is to do whatever is best for China, following the letter of the law when it's convenient or when the cost of doing otherwise is too high. This case is all about avoiding the cost.

All the hypotheticals you want are bunk, as we have a system that IS.

 

[GRULSTMRNN]

What the heck are you talking about. Huawei has stolen IP and there are multiple pending lawsuits as well. This is illegal under American law. Any company that conducted illegal business in China would be stopped from conducting business until the company is cleared and if it is not it would be either kicked out or assessed a huge fine. Which part are you really disagreeing with here? Forget for a second the accusation it is spying other than for itself. It is accused and proven that it has spied for its own benefit and illegally obtained IP. You need to learn to take your anti Trump hat off when you think. Not everything Trump aggrees with is by definition bad.

All the hypotheticals you want are bunk, as we have a system that IS.

 

[El OchoCinco]

As someone who did some work in military spending/purchasing let me say to the following:

"Huawei’s chief legal officer Song Liuping said at press briefing that Huawei had filed a motion for summary judgment asking the court to rule on whether it is constitutional for the U.S. to implement a military spending provision that bars the government and its contractors from using Huawei equipment."

that China can go fuck themselves. The U.S. has and always is able to put purchasing conditions to its agencies and contractors when they are awarded federal contracts or budgetary line items. For example many overseas aid, donations and spending mandate money be spent on U.S. Flag vessel transportation (cargo preference). Many defense contract awards have Buy American clauses and requirements.

If the military is budgeting money it can bar the use of a country's technology based on military/national security risks of IP theft or spying or require contractors/awardees buy certain equipment from certain countries.

I think China must wear big pants to fit the pair of balls it is swinging around right now.

 

[El OchoCinco]

How do you feel about American companies having standing in foreign courts? Would you be ok with the nationalization of said companies by a foreign entity and them having no judicial recourse?

See Cuba and how successful American company lawsuits are in Cuban courts since the 1960s... Foreign entities can have standing in U.S. courts because we have a nice system of justice but the facts of this case are way against China.

 

[nooby_mcnoob]

I think China must wear big pants to fit the pair of balls it is swinging around right now.

They think they're mocking the American justice system, but actually, they're proving that it's better.

** As long as you're rich.

 

[Cuddles]

As someone who did some work in military spending/purchasing let me say to the following:

"Huawei’s chief legal officer Song Liuping said at press briefing that Huawei had filed a motion for summary judgment asking the court to rule on whether it is constitutional for the U.S. to implement a military spending provision that bars the government and its contractors from using Huawei equipment."

that China can go fuck themselves. The U.S. has and always is able to put purchasing conditions to its agencies and contractors when they are awarded federal contracts or budgetary line items. For example many overseas aid, donations and spending mandate money be spent on U.S. Flag vessel transportation (cargo preference). Many defense contract awards have Buy American clauses and requirements.

If the military is budgeting money it can bar the use of a country's technology based on military/national security risks of IP theft or spying or require contractors/awardees buy certain equipment from certain countries.

I think China must wear big pants to fit the pair of balls it is swinging around right now.

I will concede I may be confusing other sanctions against Huawei, with this case, which seems to focus on just government & affiliates. The government and it's hires are welcome to make contractual changes (if lawful) as they see fit. US vendors are welcome to file for breach of contract if such occurs.

https://www.natlawreview.com/articl...epartment-commerce-entity-list-what-to-expect

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...es-placed-on-us-trade-blacklist-idUSKCN1SL2W4

See Cuba and how successful American company lawsuits are in Cuban courts since the 1960s... Foreign entities can have standing in U.S. courts because we have a nice system of justice but the facts of this case are way against China.

I never said otherwise. In fact, I'm arguing that companies having standing in foreign courts is a good thing.

 

[athlonmank8]

You are clueless .

I think you might be. China is worse than Russia