news


US gives Huawei back some gear it nicked two years ago

Huawei MWC 2019

In September 2017 US authorities confiscated a bunch of Huawei kit on its way from California to China and has only just returned it.

The only account we have of this is from Huawei, but that’s at least in part because the US has been very reticent about explaining many of its actions regarding Huawei. The servers and networking gear had been in a California lab to undergo commercial testing and certification. When it was in the process of being returned the US Commerce Department seized it, citing unidentified export violation concerns.

By June of this year Huawei decided to take legal action to get its property back and, as if by magic, the US decided to return it, once more without explanation, according to Huawei. “Huawei views the decision to return the technology as a tacit admission that the seizure was unlawful and arbitrary,” said Huawei in its announcement, which also revealed that the lawsuit has been dropped as a consequence.

“Arbitrary and unlawful government actions like this – detaining property without cause or explanation – should serve as a cautionary tale for all companies doing normal business in the United States, and should be subject to legal constraints,” said Dr. Song Liuping, Huawei’s Chief Legal Officer.

Presumably the US wanted to inspect the gear to see if it could find any evidence of IP theft, Chinese spy gear, or whatever. If so then it should have followed that same due process it would have applied to US companies, such as just cause, legal representation, etc. Every time the US abandons due process while at the same time accusing Huawei of illegality it undermines its own position.

Tags: , , ,

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Polls

Should privacy be treated as a right to protect stringently, or a commodity for users to trade for benefits?

Loading ... Loading ...