Huawei Lawsuit Against the US Says Equipment Ban Is Unconstitutional

Huawei Lawsuit Against the US Says Equipment Ban Is Unconstitutional

"We want to have open competition".

The decision by China's leading telecom company is the latest chapter in the ongoing battle with Washington.

While Huawei had very little market share in the USA telecoms market before the bill, it viewed Section 889 as a stumbling block to addressing broader problems with Washington as its existence prevented any steps toward reconciliation.

Huawei says the new law would make it illegal for anyone working for the US government to buy the company's products.

For some time, mobile operators have been briefing reporters in private that a complete ban on using Huawei equipment would be seriously damaging to the UK's 5G future. Its strategy for the United States is to argue that its government's actions in restricting Huawei's activities violate the country's own laws and even its written constitution.

Huawei is playing a risky game.

Huawei's suit might also survive long enough to reach the discovery stage, at which point the company would be able to demand USA government documents it could search for evidence that the ban on its products is political in nature.

Guo Ping, the company's rotating chairman, said the ban is illegal and prevents the company from "engaging in fair competition", which harms American consumers.

Today, Huawei held a press conference at its Shenzhen headquarters to issue an important statement where it revealed that the company has chose to sue the U.S. government. "We look forward to the court's verdict, and trust that it will benefit both Huawei and the American people".

Huawei's chief legal officer, Song Liuping, said the two cases were different in terms of evidence and scope, and that the Chinese firm's case had "full merits".

Vodafone said last month it had paused the use of Huawei components in its core networks in Europe until governments had assessed the risks. He also said there is no "evidence" against Huawei. "No contrary evidence has been offered". "Huawei's approach to security by design development and deployment sets a high standards bar that few can match".

What's going on with Huawei? Maybe that will be a more clandestine front in this escalating conflict.

The US has yet to present anything close to a "smoking gun" with respect to Huawei as a national security threat and has largely relied on a general suspicion of dodginess to justify its actions.

What's behind Chinese telecom Huawei's espionage allegations? You can see the full press conference below, from which we've extracted some juicy quotes underneath, in case you don't fancy sitting through the full 37 minutes.

By hiding Skycom's connection to Huawei, Meng is accused of personally misleading USA banks into clearing cash connected with transactions between the two companies. It has hacked our servers and stolen our emails and source code.

The goal isn't to repeal the US ban on Huawei networking equipment, but rather to expose to other countries that the USA government has no evidence to support the charges.

Huawei said Thursday it was suing the United States for barring government agencies from buying the Chinese telecom giant's products, following warnings that they could serve as a tool for Chinese intelligence services. The centralized nature of the Chinese government, with its close ties to industry, and the many well-documented cases of Chinese hacking would all support the position that the USA law has a reasonable basis.

"[Section 889 of the NDAA] is an abuse of the US lawmaking process".

European governments are balking at USA pressure to ban Huawei.

Write to us in the Comments Section or on our Facebook page. "In enacting the NDAA, Congress acted unconstitutionally as judge, jury and executioner". Its attack on Huawei is purposeful and punitive.

Huawei's equipment is just being used at the radio masts, which Vodafone says is a very low risk area: hacking any individual mast would not allow access to the wider network. Nor has it been allowed an impartial adjudicator.

Huawei denies that it works with the Chinese government and that its products are created to facilitate spying.

And its policy had been framed by advice from the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC). "It will not come through political posturing". ZTE eventually paid more than $1 billion in fines.

Li Dafeng, Executive Member of the Supervisory Board, and Director of the ICT Infrastructure Managing Board Office. Huawei says the law would shrink its market share.

"In signing the 2019 NDAA, the President of the United States objected that provisions of the NDAA raise significant separation of powers concerns and reflect congressional overreach".

Related Articles