Xiaomi Wins Court Ruling Blocking US Restrictions On It (livemint.com) 113
"A federal judge in Washington blocked the Defense Department from restricting U.S. investment in the Chinese smartphone manufacturer Xiaomi Corp," reports Bloomberg:
In the final days of the Trump administration, the Defense Department placed Xiaomi on a list of companies with alleged links to the Chinese military, triggering financial restrictions that were scheduled to go into effect next week. But on Friday, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras put a temporary halt to the ban, siding with Xiaomi in a lawsuit that argued that the move was "arbitrary and capricious" and deprived the company of its due process rights. Contreras said Xiaomi was likely to win a full reversal of the ban as the litigation unfolds and issued an initial injunction to prevent the company from suffering "irreparable harm." After the ban was announced, the smartphone manufacturer faced the prospect of being de-listed from U.S. exchanges and deleted from global benchmark indexes.
Xiaomi is the third-largest smartphone manufacturer in the world by volume. In the third quarter, it surpassed Apple Inc. in smartphone sales, according to the International Data Corporation.
Xiaomi is the third-largest smartphone manufacturer in the world by volume. In the third quarter, it surpassed Apple Inc. in smartphone sales, according to the International Data Corporation.
China did it with Jack Ma (Score:2)
Too bad the USSR never thought of this (Score:5, Insightful)
All the USSR would have had to do is form a sovereign wealth fund, buy up American companies and then cry "muh due process" when someone asks if 1/3 of the workforce are actually KGB-affiliated.
The judiciary is often treated with a respect it doesn't deserve. An enormous amount of socio-political ills in this country originated with the judiciary just making shit p like "corporations are people," the "incorporation doctrine" of the 14th amendment, to "qualified immunity" (fuck you Congress and state legislatures, we'll decide how liability works!) and even rulings like Kelo v. New London.
This is why the hoi polloi are "anti-intellectual." They average joe sees that stupidity scales with intelligence and there are certain levels of dumbassery only possible with certain levels of IQ and education.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think people lose their rights as soon as they start working together? Preserving those rights is exactly what led to the decision that you distort as "corporations are people".
And the Fourteenth Amendment was all about protecting rights against state infringement -- incorporation, as you put it.
As for qualified immunity and Kelo, that's what you get when you demand a very active government: immunity for when it acts. If you want government agents to respect boundaries, set firm boundaries for
Re: Too bad the USSR never thought of this (Score:2)
They don't lose rights when multiple people form a corporation but they shouldn't get *more* rights than citizens have or treated like they do. Which is what happens now.
Re: (Score:1)
Corporations have far fewer rights than individuals do. They can't hold licenses to drive, practice medicine or law; they can't contribute to election campaigns; they can't run for political office. You failed to support your assertion because it is wrong.
Re: Too bad the USSR never thought of this (Score:2)
They absolutely can contribute to politicians. That was the _entire_ point of the USSC ruling that "money = free speech".
If you don't know the very basics of the topic please don't reveal that fact by posting some arrogant and entirely wrong nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly wrong. CU and SpeechNow resulted in corporations being able to SPEND money, not CONTRIBUTE money. That is, they can spend it on speech in support of something.
They still cannot directly contribute, nor coordinate.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly wrong. CU and SpeechNow resulted in corporations being able to SPEND money, not CONTRIBUTE money. That is, they can spend it on speech in support of something.
They still cannot directly contribute, nor coordinate.
Hairsplitting, corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money through Super PACS to support a candidate through media, social media and other types of publicity campaigns. Whether the candidate gets their money directly and spends it himself or whether the corporations' Super PAC spends the money after consulting with the candidate and extracting some prid-pro-quo doesn't make a damn bit of difference.
Re: Too bad the USSR never thought of this (Score:3, Informative)
And while we're at it there's another right they have that citizens don't.
By abusing their alleged free speech rights they influence corrupt politicians to abuse the eminent domain laws to directly steal private property for corporate profit.
Where do you live? Can I eminent domain your home? No. But a corporation with enough campaign dollars sure can. And it's happened many times.
Re: (Score:2)
And while we're at it there's another right they have that citizens don't.
By abusing their alleged free speech rights they influence corrupt politicians to abuse the eminent domain laws to directly steal private property for corporate profit.
Where do you live? Can I eminent domain your home? No. But a corporation with enough campaign dollars sure can. And it's happened many times.
Corporations also get to pay no effective taxes. Do you get to pay $0.00 effective taxes? I sure as hell don't and I'm pretty sure you don't either. Corporations don't have all the same rights as regular people do, but they sure as hell have a few really sweet rights peasants don't have.
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, it's not like the tax man doesn't get a cut of those corporate revenues. The salaries of employees
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations have no right to "eminent domain". And as you were told repeatedly, they cannot donate money to the elected officials who control the eminent domain power. That's all done by individuals.
You suck at identifying rights.
Re: Too bad the USSR never thought of this (Score:1)
Omg you are so dumb. Yes, they absolutely can donate to politicians. In the US. Are you in some other country?
Do I really need to find the USSC case for you? They ruled years ago that money = free speech and since corporations are just groups of people they CAN buy politicians.
Are you ignorant, non American or just arguing to be a dick?
Re: (Score:2)
Please, try to find the Supreme Court case(s) you are thinking of. The effort may finally convince you how wrong you are.
Re: (Score:2)
This simply clarifies that a group like Greenpeace can spend their money on ads denouncing whaling.
Re: (Score:2)
The amount that a corporation can contribute -- or directly spend -- to affect any federal election is $0 (https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/who-can-and-cant-contribute/). Many states also prohibit corporations from spending or contributing for state and local elections, and the Supreme Court seems to let those stand (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-election-idUSBREA360XH20140407).
Corporations can spend on issue advocacy, which will often align with o
Re: (Score:2)
The amount that a corporation can contribute -- or directly spend -- to affect any federal election is $0 (https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/who-can-and-cant-contribute/). Many states also prohibit corporations from spending or contributing for state and local elections, and the Supreme Court seems to let those stand (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-election-idUSBREA360XH20140407).
Corporations can spend on issue advocacy, which will often align with one party's policies, but the spending limit is on things affecting elections, not specifically limited to direct donations or coordinated speech.
You are hairsplitting. Corporations can set up Super PACs that have no spending limits when it comes to supporting a candidate through publicity and social media campaigns which is by far the most effective from of support anyway.. The only difference is that the money is spent through a Super PAC (legal) is probably going to be far more effective than money donated directly to the candidate (illegal) because corporations tend to be better at propaganda than the useful idiots they back for public offices
Re: (Score:2)
I, as a private individual, also pay doctors and lawyers and drivers to do what I want. I could back political causes through PACs (but choose not to). You didn't even try to rebut my point. Individuals do have a vast array of rights and opportunities that corporations do not; corporations have no unique rights. The basic idea of corporate personhood is very old, settled, and necessary law; the modern complaints against it are founded in willful ignorance and anti-business animus.
Re: (Score:3)
They don't lose rights when multiple people form a corporation
Actually, they do. A person can't be compelled to provide evidence against themself, a right enshrined in the 5th Amendment to the Constitution. A corporation can. This happened to Arthur Anderson during the Enron accounting scandal.
but they shouldn't get *more* rights than citizens
Example? Corporations have limited liability. So do people. If your debts exceed your assets, you can discharge those debts under bankruptcy law.
It is silly to have two sets of laws, one for people and one for corporations. It makes more sense to have a law that says "X i
Re: (Score:1)
> Actually, they do.
In your example, no person has lost a right.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you have an excellent point - in a case like the example of Arthur Anderson, the corporation is not being forced to testify against itself, a person in the corporation is compelled to testify against another person in the corporation. Now, if the corporation was one person (this happens), then that might be different, but in general it would be one person testifying against another.
You also can't sue yourself, but shareholders can certainly sue executives and boar
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.etymonline.com/sea... [etymonline.com]
Re:Too bad the USSR never thought of this (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't think the Soviets did stuff like that? Look up Armand Hammer [fortune.com], a man who was literally named after the logo of the Socialist Labor Party. Lenin deliberately transformed the obscure socialist medical student into a friendly and useful "Capitalist Prince", enriching him by giving him exclusive government concessions and using him to fence looted Russian art treasures.
Like any good spy, Hammer was everyone's friend, cultivating close relationships with important members of both US parties, so no matter who had the upper hand he was plugged in. The intelligence services knew he was shady AF, but he was untouchable because of his wealth and political connections.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
when someone asks if 1/3 of the workforce are actually KGB-affiliated.
Asking the question is precisely what due process is about. The USSR wouldn't have cried about it. They would have cried "muh due process" if no one asked, and just arbitrarily put them on a blacklist.
The judiciary is often treated with a respect it doesn't deserve.
So far you have failed a basic understanding of the term due process so already the judiciary gets a lot more respect than your post which is full of accusations, and speaking of IQ you quote a lot of things without having a clue as to what they are about or why they were ruled in the way they were.
Thank god t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
While we do agree on corporate personhood and even the qualified immunity (you've forgotten civil asset forfeiture), AGW denial is definitely not a sign of anti-intellectualism.
Yes it is. Really.
The greenhouse effect has been known for well over a century and is very well understood. It is central to how we understand the temperature of all planets in the solar system, not just Earth. It is supported by massive amounts of data (not just global temperature). And it was not at all controversial... up until the late 1980s, when suddenly the fossil-fuel industry noticed "holy shit, they are suggesting reducing the amount of fossil use!" and started a multi-million dollar campaign
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I do get a little exasperated by people who give a definite deadline (like, "we have twelve years to solve this".) Humans LIKE to have definite deadlines, but climate change is a problem of which the longer we wait, the more change we will see. There's no binary yes/no date. So I tend to react with s
Re: (Score:2)
I'm glad that you are citing sources, but the choice of what blogs you think are reliable suggests that you're not really interested in the actual science. You should just know that blogs labelled "American Enterprise Institute" and "Competitive Enterprise Institute" really aren't science sites. These are "think tanks", which is the word used for advocacy groups: industries that turn out public-relations releases under the guise of "research". These particular ones are "right wing" sites (but of course t
Re: (Score:2)
I'm glad that you are citing sources, but the choice of what blogs you think are reliable suggests that you're not really interested in the actual science.
I quoted NASA and Forbes, among other things.
You did. The NASA source you quoted was an article about the southern polar cap of Mars receding during the summer. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the climate change on Earth. The Forbes article said, basically, "don't get your science information from politicians." I agree.
Before that, however, you had cited three different blogs.
Not being a scientist, no, I am not interested in "actual science", which is usually an euphemism for "science that disagrees with my ideas".
Being a scientist, I am passionately interested in actual science. If you are "not interested in actual science," then stop saying things like the statement you made whi
Re: (Score:2)
Being a scientist, I am passionately interested in actual science. If you are "not interested in actual science," then stop saying things like the statement you made which I was responding to:
I doubt that you're a scientist.
Doubt all you like; doesn't matter to me.
Very few things in science are actually settled,
I'm not sure why you would say this. I suppose if most of your popular science reading is sensationalism, where every other article is about some new theory that "might disprove relativity!" or an observation "upsets our view of the universe!" you might think very little science is actually settled. Why, tomorrow they might disprove the periodic table! But don't bet on it. Really, a lot of science is very well understood. Again, the basic knowledge of the greenho
No, there isn't global warming on Mars (Score:2)
There is global warming on Mars:
https://science.nasa.gov/scien... [nasa.gov]
No!
You should read articles before you post them. That article [nasa.gov] is about the south polar cap receding because spring is coming to the southern hemisphere. Mars has seasons like Earth. It gets warmer in the summer, cooler in the winter.
The article isn't even about global temperature. If you'd read a little farther, you would have gotten to this sentence: "Remember, though, there are two polar caps on Mars--north and south. While the south polar cap is vaporizing the north polar cap is growing."
97% of the scientists agree that global warming on Mars is not caused by the human activity,
100% of sci
Re: (Score:2)
The tl;dr summary is what I said in my previous post: we haven't had infrared thermal mapping in orbit around Mars for long enough to say whether the climate is currently changing.
The New Scientist [newscientist.com] article you posted is about climate myths. It says "it is rather early to start drawing conclusions about long-term climate trends on the outer bodies of the Solar System" (essentially just what I said: we haven't had infrared thermal mapping in orbit around Mars for long enough). It does link to another [newscientist.com] article
Re: (Score:2)
The conclusion is that anthropogenic greenhouse gasses are not the only thing that change climate. They are, however, the thing that is making the particular climate changes we currently see on Earth, which is occurring much faster than the changes driven by orbital changes.
Exactly how much faster? Does the human contribution warrant huge power grab by the government?
Bingo!
So, it's not about the science at all. Your argument is against the government, not the science.
...Let's be honest and stop justifying bad political power grab by very questionable science.
Let's be honest and stop saying the science is "questionable" when it's the politics that you don't like.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's be honest and stop saying the science is "questionable" when it's the politics that you don't like.
Every science is questionable, by definition.
In a pedantic sense of the word "questionable", yes. But the answer to a question can be "this is well understood, and supported by large amounts of data and measurements."
Yes, you can question whether DNA carries genetic information, or whether the Earth really is a sphere or might not actually be flat, or whether hydrogen actually exists. The answer to those questions is "we know all these things with a high degree of confidence."
Again: you are being disingenuous. Your argument is with the politics, bu
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Good for Americans (Score:2)
FYI, Dyson sell quite well in China, but I've read they actually haven't withstood the test of time and have earned a less-than-stellar reputation for reliability and ease-of-use.
Re: (Score:2)
They probably tried selling cheaper versions there. Fluke do the same thing, sell lower quality models for the Chinese market.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Good for Americans (Score:2)
Maybe, but I own a Dyson both inside and outside of China and I don't notice any difference in quality.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, this post pissed off some sinophobes.
Here's a tip for you. If all you can do is try to silence people saying your competitors make good stuff, you are probably fucked.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Best vacuum cleaners on the market (outside Japan), only rivalled by Dyson.
No love for Numatic?
For those non Brits, Henry is a brand of vacuum cleaner commonly seen in shops and offices that looks like a cross between a light commercial vacuum cleaner and a kids toy: it's a cylinder vac with a smiley face and the hose is the nose. Also often seen in the back of a builders van covered in paint splats and scratches.
I love my cheery little Henry. Good suction, nice wide hose, and can pick up any crap, includ
Re: (Score:2)
I know some people love Henry... But outside of rough service stuff I'm not very impressed by them. Even for rough service a wet/dry vac might be a better option.
They just don't clean anything like as well as a Xiaomi or Dyson, both of which are rated A on hard floors and carpet compared to C for the Henry in EU standard tests. Henry emissions are only C as well, although I haven't checked the allergy model.
It's the lack of a brush-bar that is the limiting factor I think. I have friends who swear by them, I
Re: (Score:2)
I know some people love Henry... But outside of rough service stuff I'm not very impressed by them. Even for rough service a wet/dry vac might be a better option.
I have no idea about the EU tests, but they've been tested by Which (the UK equivalent of "Consumer Reports" for the Americans reading), and the Henry allergy does very well on emitted fine particulates, one of the best apparently.
They just don't clean anything like as well as a Xiaomi or Dyson, both of which are rated A on hard floors and carpet
Re: (Score:2)
How is the brush bar? I have one for an AEG that wasn't cheap and it's terrible. Hopefully Henry did a better job.
For allergies the cleaning really needs to lift dust out of carpets. The brush bar really helps there, like beating the carpet. Suction alone won't lift it, it needs agitation as well. The brush bar also reduces the amount of effort required to clean, since it is doing more of the work rather than you having to push fixed bristles through the carpet fibres.
The AEG one is turbine driven, the Xiao
Re: (Score:2)
How is the brush bar? I have one for an AEG that wasn't cheap and it's terrible. Hopefully Henry did a better job.
It seems OK, it's air driven, not electrical, and definitely keeps spinning better than the old Vax one I have, it doesn't seem to bog down much. With that said, I removed most of the carpets in the house because I felt the carpets it came with were a bit naff and it turns our the old floorboards look pretty nice when they haven't been lightly fucked by careless previous owners of the house.
The
Re: (Score:2)
I have a couple of "mattress" attachments for the Dyson, really just smaller heads that I keep separate so they don't pick up dust from elsewhere. I do the bed and the sofa with them and it's amazing how much difference that makes to allergies. Non-motorized of course, pure suction power.
Preliminary. (Score:3)
If there is truth to the allegations then this merely a delay in the process, not a victory for one side or loss for the other but merely a delay. However, I'm confused as to why the judge would prevent the delisting if DoD classification automatically triggered the delisting process. Is it expected the DoD should only classify them after winning a court battle? Something about that doesn't make sense.
Re: Preliminary. (Score:3)
What doesn't make sense? Is the DOD above the rule of law?
Re: (Score:2)
What doesn't make sense?
Specifically why would the classification trigger automatic delisting in the first place if it's just going to result in a judge stopping the delisting? Is this the first time it's ever happened? Is this a new protocol?
Is the DOD above the rule of law?
Is there a law indicating you have the right to be listed on the stock market despite nation security concerns? I would think national security would take precedence.
There is so much that doesn't make sense to me about this decision and it seems like there are multiple conflicting interest
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a law indicating you have the right to be listed on the stock market despite nation security concerns? I would think national security would take precedence.
Is there any proof of these 'national security concerns'?
So show the judge and get your ban.
Re: (Score:2)
What doesn't make sense? Is the DOD above the rule of law?
Um no. A military wants to make sure its weapons and tools work. To do so, they make sure their suppliers are friendly. Xiaomi is clearly connected to the CCP and the Chinese military. It makes sense that the US military wouldn't want to buy from them nor would it want its suppliers using their phones. And that is their (the US military's right). Nothing about that is illegal. Do you doubt that Xiaomi has ties to the Chinese military? Because that's what this case is about. The phones the employees
Re: Preliminary. (Score:2)
Perhaps the restrictions should be limited to their suppliers then, rather than investments in general?
BTW, personal insults don't work, and just reduce your argument. You can't derive many conclusions from a low I'd except that I've been here for a long time...it doesn't really seem like a long time, and most people on here are incredibly idiotic, yet speak and act like they know everything, with extraordinary arrogance, especially when it comes to China, in my experience.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it expected the DoD should only classify them after winning a court battle?
No. But it is expected that DoD should act on actual evidence rather than as a tool for petty political feuds.
Re: (Score:2)
False, this ruling will be tossed.
The executive branch makes national security determinations. Overruling those is what requires proven evidence, and the evidence has to be of bad faith.
Re: Preliminary. (Score:2)
That doesn't seem wrong to you?
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares?
No, it doesn't seem wrong. These are matter of war and peace that deal with foreign countries. Judges have no business being in between the elected Commander in Chief and the determinations.
That's why you have to prove that the determination was in bad faith.
Re: Preliminary. (Score:2)
It's unusual but can happen. If the DoD rushed it and doesn't have enough evidence to make their case, at a later time, the defendant has more damages they can seek. So Judges will assess not just the current damages but how likely of case success, and also the "making whole" costs afterward.
My guess is that this is the case here. The Judge is protecting the US taxpayers and giving the DoD the hint & time that they need to have a more solid case before going further.
Re: (Score:2)
See, now that makes sense and is a prudent decision. I would assume that Trump pushed them into action which is a bad move as it tips the hand of the DoD when they may not have sufficient evidence.
Bad decision, Fed judge (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
We have to assume that Chinese technology companies like this one are at least being twisted by their own government, if not willingly and gleefully participating in compromising U.S. national security. There's more than enough precedent to back this assumption.
I don't disagree with you here, but the US reason for the action is both "more than nothing" and at the same time "not the strongest case in the world". They admitted last week in the case that they have 2 reasons for wanting to blacklist Xiaomi.
1) Xiaomi's CEO got an award within China for something or other, but the group that gave it out has ties to the Chinese military. So the US is using this to argue "U R korrupted dood! Chinese military ties R U!"
2) A bigger reason is that Xiaomi also last y
Re: (Score:2)
A lot depends on how dumb you think the Chinese military is. If Lei Jun is their super-secret asset in undermining the West, why would they give him a special award?
The real problem is deeper and more pervasive than one man in one company; it's the effect of national sovereignty in a one party state with a puppet judiciary. If the government *wanted* to diddle around with a company's products, it wouldn't need some kind of secretive, personal relationship with the CEO. It could do whatever it wanted and
Re: Bad decision, Fed judge (Score:2)
It also makes democracy pretty much useless, and your points do not prove anything like that actually is taking place in China.
What changes due to elections in many democracies is pretty minor. What does NOT change due to elections is where the significant power lies, and in the US it is in the military and security services.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Bad decision, Fed judge (Score:2)
Thank you, yes.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
I don't give a flying fuck what someone else did, we are talking about an expansionist country whose political system is diametrically opposed to our own and who would gleefully destroy ours if it meant they could advance their own international agenda! I am a U.S. citizen; are you? I don't agree with the Chinese government agenda for the world because it involves d
Re: (Score:1)
LOL at one nut Schumann. As always. It doesn't matter if the US is doing equally if not worse bad things. Afraid that his culture is being taken away from him. Chasing ghosts again. There was a guy born in Austria who had similar thoughts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's more than enough precedent to back this assumption.
There's enough tinfoil hattery in your post to reject the assumption as well. What would make sense then is a targeted approach to secure against specific allegations instead of an outright ban by an administration that was stuck in a childish dickwaving contest.
If you're going to outright ban a company on trade grounds you better put up some reasonable evidence and engage in due process to back your assertions. At least if you're in a democratic western nation and not a country run by some authoritarian di
Allegedly tied to China Military?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Is there ANY large company in China that isn't?
Re: (Score:2)
It's all just innuendo.
Should we distrust US companies because they take military contracts, or use crypto that the NSA was involved in? Or any of the companies listed in the Snowden leaks?
Re: (Score:2)
Should we distrust US companies because they take military contracts, or use crypto that the NSA was involved in? Or any of the companies listed in the Snowden leaks?
Yes, we should.
Re: Allegedly tied to China Military?? (Score:1)
In my experience it is not just made up noise and assumptions.
When I do deals in China their reps ALWAYS are concerned about how it will be perceived by the government and in the case of larger business "partners" there they actually have a real honest to god CCP member "advising" the board.
So, yes, the CCP does literally right here in the real world no joke control all the big companies there and many of the interesting mid-sized ones, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Similar experience doing deals in the US. For example a US government department was trying to develop technology to compete with ours, which was allowed because we were a foreign company. There was a worry from some customers that the government might mandate US tech eventually.
Solution was to set up a subsidiary in the US, basically just a shell staffed by British people, since apparently the rule is that the US government can't compete with US companies.
Re: Allegedly tied to China Military?? (Score:1)
Apples n oranges.
One of my companies was selling video games to end user consumers. Why did my Chinese partners fear the government's response for that?
Yours sounds like it was involved in some military related or dual use technology. Every government should be concerned about that sort of tech being under foreign control.
Video games. Not even combat games. Puzzles and other casual games for bored people.
Re: (Score:2)
This was scaring fish. Not military.
Video games are regulated in China, to protect the children. Similar to the West but stricter. Gambling in games is a big concern.
Re: Allegedly tied to China Military?? (Score:1)
Also, I'd bet my soul the USG didn't assign an advisor or minder to your board of directors, either, like happens in China.
We just like our regulations and paperwork here, same as you guys. I found tons of things to sign and deal with in the UK that was very similar to the US. Except you guys can't spell properly. :-)
Re: Allegedly tied to China Military?? (Score:2)
Americans just assume that everyone else is as bad as they are... projecting their own immorality onto others. Just because it is what they do and/or would do, doesn't prove others are doing the same, or will do.
Re: (Score:2)
Well I mean the same can be said for America right. Actually most countries have companies somehow tied to their military. The military is a huge economic machine and one of the largest customers in many nations to most suppliers.
Americans vote with their wallets. (Score:2, Insightful)
Americans are delighted to subsidize the PLA. PLAN and the rest of the Chinese military via their consumer goods purchases and this will never be different. It is reasonable for our courts to remove obstacles to public desires.
What the US says means little but what does means everything. It's time we gave up pretending this country stands for anything but the Demublican and Repocrat fighting for the profits of power.
China is the natural master of Asia with US messianism being very late to the party. The mis
Re: (Score:2)
DoD theoretically deters Chinese aggression but if that REALLY mattered we'd not be finding new ways to send money to the Chinese corporate state. Likewise building Soviet and German industry through trade between the world wars showed our true color, green.
Snap. We're the Earth's Ferengi nation.
Don't expect thanks (Score:3)
Good luck thinking that China's party beholden courts do anything close to a due process when it comes to the interests of foreign companies there
I would give you mod points if I had them. (Score:4, Informative)
Many pro-free enterprise types will hail this ruling, but not mention the complete asymmetry of rights by country.
Re: I would give you mod points if I had them. (Score:2)
China is still a developing nation, and the situation in China has been and is getting progressively better, while it seems the opposite is true in the USA.
The USA is no longer the model for how anything worthwhile should be.
Re: (Score:2)
but not mention the complete asymmetry of rights by country.
And with good reason. Just because we're dealing with an authoritarian dictatorship that doesn't support the rights of its people or provide due process to its corporations doesn't mean we should sink to their level.
I'd sooner let them off the hook than deconstruct the democratic institutions we have built in the west.
A federal judge (Score:2)
"A" Federal judge = Rudolph Contreras. Appointed by... one Barack Obama. Surprised?