EU Accuses China of 'Power Grab' Over Smartphone Technology Licensing (ft.com) 88
The EU is taking China to the World Trade Organization for alleged patent infringements that are costing companies billions of euros, as part of what officials in Brussels claim is a "power grab" by Beijing [Editor's note: the link may be paywalled; alternative source] to set smartphone technology licensing rates. Financial Times reports: Businesses, including Sweden's Ericsson, Finland's Nokia and Sharp of Japan, have lost money after China's supreme court banned them from protecting their patents by securing licensing deals in foreign courts, the European Commission said. Chinese courts set licence fees at around half the market rate previously agreed between western technology providers and manufacturers such as Oppo, Xiaomi, ZTE and Huawei, it added.
The lower licensing fees set by Beijing deprive smartphone makers and other mobile telecommunications businesses of a crucial source of revenue to reinvest in research and development. "It is part of a global power grab by the Chinese government by legal means," said a European Commission official. "It is a means to push Europe out." Smartphone makers have agreed global standards for telecommunications networks. In return, technology manufacturers must license their patents to others. If they cannot agree on a price, they go to court to set it. Chinese courts generally set prices at half the level of those in the west, meaning their companies pay less for the technology from overseas providers. In August 2020, China's Supreme People's Court decided that Chinese courts can impose "anti-suit injunctions," which forbid a company taking a case to a court outside the country. Those that do are liable for a â147,000 daily fine and the judgments of courts elsewhere are ignored.
The lower licensing fees set by Beijing deprive smartphone makers and other mobile telecommunications businesses of a crucial source of revenue to reinvest in research and development. "It is part of a global power grab by the Chinese government by legal means," said a European Commission official. "It is a means to push Europe out." Smartphone makers have agreed global standards for telecommunications networks. In return, technology manufacturers must license their patents to others. If they cannot agree on a price, they go to court to set it. Chinese courts generally set prices at half the level of those in the west, meaning their companies pay less for the technology from overseas providers. In August 2020, China's Supreme People's Court decided that Chinese courts can impose "anti-suit injunctions," which forbid a company taking a case to a court outside the country. Those that do are liable for a â147,000 daily fine and the judgments of courts elsewhere are ignored.
when you make china your factory they take your ip (Score:5, Insightful)
when you make china your factory they take your ip and the courts of china will be very pro china.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
when you make china your factory they take your ip and the courts of china will be very pro china.
America First!!! What's the problem? ... None. ... Weeell you see ...
China First!!! What's the problem?
Either we all stop pisisng about and create a leve playing field or we continue this asinine pissing contest in which case everybody loses.
Re: (Score:1)
You're right. Let's make it a level playing field by getting rid of dictators like PooTin and Winnie.
Throw in Putin Orban and Donald Trump and you have a deal.
Re:when you make china your factory they take your (Score:4, Interesting)
False dichotomy. America doesn't invalidate the IP of foreign companies operating there. China does.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: when you make china your factory they take you (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The lower licensing fees set by Beijing deprive smartphone makers and other mobile telecommunications businesses of a crucial source of revenue to reinvest in research and development.
Yup, I'm sure the European cellphone vendors are going to invest every cent of the billions of dollars of pure profit they claim they're missing out on in R&D. It's exactly this huge previous investment in R&D that's seen them stay so far ahead of China in the 5G race so far.
Oh, wait...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
when you make china your factory they take your ip and the courts of china will be very pro china.
Dissemination of ideas is the natural order of things, and sharing should be encouraged. The thinking that one can own and monopolize ideas is the problem, and blaming another will not fix it. The US itself flourished in the absence of IP protection, and it is the pinnacle of hypocrisy to now decry China for "stealing our IPs". The west suffers from a dangerous delusion that they can outsource manufacturing for profit, and just collect monopoly rents in perpetuity. Not only have we lost manufacturing and ma
Re: (Score:2)
If no one can make a profit from spending time and money on inventing things or methods then no one will bother and progress stalls. Its this basic fact that lefty libertarians like you fail to understand.
Re: (Score:2)
Your theory is plausible, but can you find *historical* support for it? There is certainly evidence against it. During the Industrial revolution IP protection existed on paper but enforcement didn't cross borders and was notoriously weak in many countries, including the US.
My suspicion is that the theory may neither be perfectly *true*, nor perfectly *untrue*. It is true to a degree, and that degree depends on situation.
Re: when you make china your factory they take you (Score:2)
Go find iut why bug pharma hasn't bothered to develop new antibiotics in the last few decades.
Re: (Score:1)
USA snubbed Taiwan back in 1979 and set up business relations with China, things sent to be manufactured there copied of course by China without regard for patents. China doing this for decades but big money people back in USA wanted the goods to sell and imagined they'd have the emerging market there. Since then we've made home business compete with place with no regard for safety or life of workers and we've made China wealthy and well armed.
Re: (Score:2)
Historically, EVERY country in the world have started wars sometime during its story, so that is a weird argument.
Number of people dead depends of the war tech and the number of soldiers involved, so yes, all or nothing wars are specially deadly, every time they happen in story (look to the mongol siege of Baghdad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] )
One think that makes people be civilized is stopping doing war to settle disputes and share power
Re: and americans are just pissed off (Score:2)
Post-Ancient times European wars weren't, on average, that deadly compared to wars elsewhere on a percapita basis.
The Mongol conquests, for example, killed the equivalent of 10% of the global population of the time. Not 10% of the populations they were fighting, mind, which would have been a mere classical decimation, the kind the Roman Empire did many times, inckuding agains their own soldiers to impose discipline. No, 10% of the entire world. Which mean, for the populations they were actually fighting, th
Re: (Score:3)
"Post-Ancient times European wars weren't, on average, that deadly compared to wars elsewhere on a percapita basis." ...), European wars of the last 1,000 years didn't usually really target civilians. As armies were relatively small, even wiping them out completely didn't make much of a difference.
While there are exceptions (World War 2, ethnical cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, Reconquista,
On the other hand, European empires and the subsequent "colonization" had a pretty bad track record outside Europe
Re: (Score:2)
While there are exceptions (World War 2, ethnical cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, Reconquista, ...),
Yes, Europeans did extraordinary damage to specific populations, but if we consider deaths per capita as a global percentage, and the quantity and size of those specific populations they targeted for military elimination, both numbers pale compared to Asian wars. Evidently, this doesn't mean much for the members of the populations targeted, whose descendants are 100% in the right to accuse Europeans' ancestors for their evil ways, as well as their living descendants who remain unapologetic, unwilling to try
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
they didn't do it first.
Meh. The rest of the world creates, and the EU just waits at the finish line to pick the winners to sue.
Seems the EU can't do stuff, only extract from those who do.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you on about? The only companies outside China that do 5G base station technology are in EU. They literally are the ones that "do stuff".
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the European 5G R&D is with partnerships with US companies, so it is a pretty moronic food fight.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the European 5G R&D is with partnerships with US companies, so it is a pretty moronic food fight.
But I'd wager at least a beer that within a year or two, we'll be hearing how the EU is handing out a few billions in fines to the deepest pockets they can find.
The first shots across the bow: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1806.103... [arxiv.org]
The paper has all of the ground settings for the upcoming money grab. If they fine enough people enough money, they quickly become dependent on the fines as a way to get funding.
And that's my point - they stand at the finish line, and pick the winners to extract money from. If
Re: (Score:2)
I recommend mathematics, as they will typically start by explaining how zeroes at the end matter. All the fines put together, even if you assume they're all collected and not blocked by courts wouldn't form a significant meaningful portion of EU budget, because EU budget is utterly colossal.
Re: (Score:2)
I recommend mathematics, as they will typically start by explaining how zeroes at the end matter. All the fines put together, even if you assume they're all collected and not blocked by courts wouldn't form a significant meaningful portion of EU budget, because EU budget is utterly colossal.
Well, then all snark noted, if the fines mean nothing and they have no need for that money. - then just shutting the offenders down makes all that much more sense. Mathematics, amirite? Unnecessary money is unnecessary no mater how many zeros . Nothing fixes a problem like getting rid of it, instead of what seems like a rounding error in the colossus of the EU budget.
Re: (Score:2)
Shutting the offenders down straight up would be illegal. Rule of law exists in all member states of EU.
Something that might be confusing to someone coming out of the system where rule of law is conditional on political will, like in US.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you on about? The only companies outside China that do 5G base station technology are in EU. They literally are the ones that "do stuff".
Or maybe not. I'm not certain if you are considering LG and Erricsson as your example of "doing stuff" or what, but the whole 5G system's development is quite international in scope. Building the phones is just building the phones. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
There are three companies in the world that do 5G base station technology. Nokia, Eriksson and Huawei. US or Korea didn't have any companies in the field in at least a decade, more likely two.
I've no idea why you're trying to talk about various other topics like 5G phones in a topic where China is complaining about 5G base station technology licensing.
Re: (Score:2)
There are three companies in the world that do 5G base station technology. Nokia, Eriksson and Huawei. US or Korea didn't have any companies in the field in at least a decade, more likely two.
I've no idea why you're trying to talk about various other topics like 5G phones in a topic where China is complaining about 5G base station technology licensing.
Is that what the article is about? Seemed to me like the EU folks complaining about licensing issues decided by Chinese courts.
Just to make certain - there are no other companies making 5G technology other than the three you mentioned? I found a few on the intertoobz.
https://www.thomasnet.com/arti... [thomasnet.com] The reason I being up smartphones is that they are kinda part of the 5G ecosystem.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm confused why you're throwing out all those red herrings. First it was "5G" then it was "5G antennas". What's next, wiring used to connect them?
Yes, it probably comes from Chile. So?
Re: (Score:2)
There are three companies in the world that do 5G base station technology. Nokia, Eriksson and Huawei. US or Korea didn't have any companies in the field in at least a decade, more likely two.
Why do you constantly just make stuff up Luckyo?
Google Samsung 5G base station [google.com]
Oh look, they make 5G everything, end to end. [samsung.com]
In early 2016, the company created its Next Generation Business Team. The mandate of the new team was to give Samsung a coordinated company-wide position on developing commercial 5G network solutions and devices. The group included R&D members from its wide-business portfolio including its semiconductor, device, consumer electronics, and networks business units. This work has paid off for the company. Samsung can now provide end-to-end 5G solutions with devices (smartphone and CPE), 5G new radio (5G NR) in both mmWave and sub 6GHz, virtualized 5G core, and network automation and optimization tools. The company has worked with HARMAN to create the first 5G-ready telematics control unit (TCU); TCU is the foundation of the connected car. With Verizon, Samsung had the first FCC-certified, end-to-end 5G offering. Its 5G investment results do not stop there.
The company manufactures its own semiconductors for use in its radio kit. In February 2019, the company announced its second-generation 5G chipsets that will help reduce base station power consumption and allow for a smaller base station footprint. These chipsets will also help operators reduce their network total cost of ownership; an important trend to address as 5G will require more network sites than 4G. The multiplication of existing sites, without reducing the cost of each site, will make 5G profitability difficult.
Samsung Networks has been instrumental in making 5G a commercial reality by helping launch the first networks. The company is the key radio supplier to all three South Korean mobile operators. In April 2019, the company claimed it had deployed over 64% of all 5G base stations in its home market. Overall, the company now claims to have deployed over 100,000 base stations globally. Each base station is carrying commercial traffic. In the first half of 2019, the company helped both Verizon and Sprint launch 5G in the US.
It's not like you could have just read the article and noticed Japan either...
That's at lest 2 others, there are no d
Re: (Score:2)
Chinabot, desperately producing out of context quotes, pretending that a local actor behind extreme protectionist regime having only a small majority in their own domestic market and being absent everywhere else... is evidence of them being a major international player.
Cute.
Re: (Score:1)
That all you got? Point the finger at America? Get a life.
They knew this would happen (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If the patented tech has been popular enough to be reverse engineered by everyone + dog, and the patent holder has moved on to newer technologies, then what is the use of the next 20 years of patent "protection"?
I ask the question with the understanding that some edge cases are indeed highly profitable even just in patent obeying countries for the full term of the patent, but that most probably are not.
Re: (Score:3)
Not all technology is obsolete in 5 years. Also, newer technology doesn't render the older stuff obsolete.
Re: (Score:1)
So ideas are deserving of a perpetual monopoly until obsolete? Should we still be paying royalties for the wheel? More often than not, ideas are not even unique; they are a natural combination of other ideas, that are obvious once preconditions are met. There are so few truly revolutionary ideas, that it is highly dubious whether granting monopolies on any of them is a net benefit to society.
Re: (Score:2)
Where did I even hint at the idea of perpetual patents? No where. I never made such a claim.
The previous post was arguing that patents should only be 3 to 5 years. I simply pointed out that inventions, even when something better comes along, is still valuable. I didn't even get to the point about it typically taking several years to go from patent to production. A patent period that short would be useless.
Re: (Score:2)
Hm. 3-5 years might be the time required to steal/reverse-engineer most tech, but that doesn't make it the natural lifespan of a patent. Even after the tech is widely understood, most advanced countries will honor a patent period, allowing for the holder to be rewarded for their success at inventing something.
Re: (Score:2)
China has no problems stealing current top level chip tech. They make great designs today. What they don't have is the ability to manufacture them, because of things that they can't yet manufacture.
This lack is likely temporary, as we have seen in jet engines. Until very recently, they could make good jet engines, but their manufacturing capability meant that they were either matched on specs and couldn't survive for more than a handful of hours, or they could survive for a while but couldn't match performa
12, not 20+, and that IS the purpose (Score:2)
How long it takes before someone copies it depends very much on how valuable it is to copy it. If you're selling 100 million / year, people will be much more motivated than if you're selling thousands.
It also depends on how we easily it's copied.
How ask what's the point of the "additional 20+ years of patent protection". First, it's about 10-12 more years, not 20+. The term of a patent used to be 17 y ara after it's issued. That was changed to 20 years after the application is filed, which is roughly abou
Re: They knew this would happen (Score:2)
Often you see Chinese knockoffs of stuff on Amazon within days of release, even when the original isn't made in China.
Re: (Score:2)
That isn't true and I have direct commercial experience to back it up. These days a lot of companies get stuff made in China, e.g. Apple, and the manufacturers of course make sure that their IP isn't stolen so that they keep getting business.
It's rarely worth bothering to steal the IP anyway, because a lot of stuff doesn't work without firmware or backend services, and even if it did it's difficult to get it into the target market due to legal protections.
Where it is useful is where you can copy specific pr
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
It's like a train wreck - it's terrible, but you just can't look away!
Re: Truth Social is out (Score:3)
Most train wrecks have innocent people in them...
Play their game. (Score:2)
It's actually a simple game, if they do not play by the rules set forth then show them the logical end of what they have done. In this situation, the EU should do something absurd like say any any company from a country requiring technology transfers forfeits their right to legal recourse in the EU. This would mean that no patent by a Chinese company would be enforceable and people could steal their assets with impunity.
If you don't punch a bully in the face then they won't stop picking on you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The greedy capitalists who run the West saw a huge pool of cheap labour to exploit, and a potential new market to sell to, so they dived right in.
Now they're reaping what they sowed.
I'm not arguing that the EU should not push back, but let's not pretend any of this is a surprise to anyone.
The only way to really reign in China is
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, there are certain less than common natural resources for which China is the primary producer, some of which are essential to industrial chip manufacturing.
Doh!
Re: (Score:2)
China used capitalism's oldest trick and lowered their price to make the competition go away.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is not the production capacity, or the production monetary costs.
The main issue seems to be the ecological impact, which doesn't actually matter in China.
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, there are certain less than common natural resources for which China is the primary producer, some of which are essential to industrial chip manufacturing.
If you mean rare earths then I'll tell you this: they aren't rare. In fact, they can be had just about everywhere. The reason China is the primary producer is that they destroy their local ecology and sacrifice the health of their workers to extract it faster for less money... but it's only cheaper by a few pennies per kilo! Frankly, I think there should be a tax on everything made using materials that are extracted without regard to health, safety, or the environment.
Re: (Score:2)
Their base is probably not good enough to compete against the West on equal terms.
However, in the Chinese market there are no equal terms.
(Nor in the USA market, as Huawei found out).
Re: (Score:3)
Now they're reaping what they sowed.
I'm fully aware of this and I have no pity for them.
The only way to really reign in China is to stop doing business with them
That's not true because all you need is an angle.
For example, pass a law so that when a "technology transfer" occurs with another country then the technology itself becoming public domain in order to maintain a fair competition between nations. You would see companies immediately scale back their operations with China, ensuring to keep anything sensitive out of reach.
Re: (Score:2)
The only way to really reign in China is to
...be a high-ranking member of the party.
You shouldn't use words and phrases you don't understand.
Re: (Score:2)
Then the CCP reverse engineer & make a knock off that's cheaper and put it on Amazon...
Isn't that what Amazon themselves do though...
Re: (Score:2)
Naah, Amazon just find some company in China to do the knocking off and then pay that company to put an Amazon badge on it...
Cry me a river (Score:3)
Now that it's imaginary property that is being put in jeopardy, big companies recognize that there is a problem with unlimited globalization and cry for help. Well, quit whining and roll up your sleeves! Embrace competition!
Re: (Score:2)
Dammit, USA used to have the (Score:1)
...best patent troll lawyers. Now China is eating our troll lunch.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Patent trolls use a variety of tricks, some of them happened to be mentioned in TFA, like getting the trial to be in a "friendly" jurisdiction (location).
trumped (Score:2)
Back a decade the EU, US and a lot of other western nations planned to unite their market power so they could easily counter china and press their rights so things like that mentioned won't happen.
The name of the project was TTIP. It was trumped.
So the EU did it without the US. And because the EU outdwarved every other partner by a mile they simple dictated the rules. The whole western world has already joined. Well, except the US which has litterally no soft power at all against china. A market of 1,2 bill
This is not the Funny you were looking for (Score:2)
Yet another discussion without Funny.