Precisely why it was important to make it illegal to do business which such an entity, Huawei. US business relies of trademark, patent, contract and license enforcement, which is where the government steps in.

The Chinese gov't doesn't abide by any of these rules, nor do they enforce them, and subsequently Chinese companies are run the same way. That's not even getting in the espionage and the links between Huawei and the CPC.

Historically the US didn’t abide by any of these rules either, importing and copying European IP. With China developing further you’ll see them more and more enforcing these rules especially against developing countries. For espionage you don’t even have to go back in time.

Historically US trade black people like livestocks. Does that justify the ongoing human trafficking/sex slave/forced labour in South east asian and eastern europe?

You've already posted several ideological and nationalistic flamebait comments to HN. That's not what this site is for, and we ban accounts that do it. Would you mind reading the site guidelines to get an idea of the spirit of this site? We'd appreciate it.

You might also find these links helpful:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/hackernews.html

http://www.paulgraham.com/trolls.html

http://www.paulgraham.com/hackernews.html

Seriously? I view this as just government sponsored corporate extortion.

I can't believe there's a different view to it. Because the government could have stepped in for so many other issues but they cherry pick the one that will blow a competitor to US brands out of the water.

> Seriously? I view this as just government sponsored corporate extortion.

Which government are you talking about? I'm assuming the Chinese (?), but you left it unclear.

Name me one major US company that does not have close links to the US government.

Name one.

As for the IP angle, what evidence do you have that Huawei in particular built their 5G, or phones off IP theft? I postulate that as soon as China passes the US in development of new IP, the US will find no shortage of excuses to politically interfere in the market... Just like it is doing now, actually.

> Name me one major US company that does not have close links to the US government.

Apple?

Has had a revolving door arrangement with the White House. Was fingered in PRISM. Was involved in the US Digital Services and 18F. Closely worked with the government to lower its repatriation tax burdens.

And if these specifics don't satisfy you, we all know that the Department of Defense was heavily involved with Silicon Valley since day 1. I'll wiggle my eyebrows vaguely, but suggestively at this fact, and let the audience draw its own conclusions, about the close relationship that the US Government has with SV tech firms.

I was unable to find references for any of your claims. What kind of "revolving door arrangement"? I looked at all of Apple's top management, and none of them are ex government with the arguable exception of their general counsel who was formerly a judge. As far as I'm aware there's no hard evidence of willing participation in PRISM. Apple denies it - the only link of any kind is a yellow bubble on that famous powerpoint slide, which could just mean they were hacked. And "worked with the government" on one or two things isn't the same as "close links".

I also find your eyebrow-wiggling an egregious rhetorical sin, employed only by those who have nothing more concrete to offer. Do you have anything at all to justify your vague insinuation that all of Silicon Valley is a giant government conspiracy?

Obama revolving door: Apple's top lobbyist to State department. Catherine Ann Novelli spent 8 years as VP of world-wide government affairs at Apple, and then three as Under-Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment.[1]

Apple-NSA collaboration with PRISM. [2]

USDS & 18F involvement: [3][4]

Secret collaboration on tax burden reduction. (It's a longer word for 'lobbying'. If you think it's not secret, please share with me the minutes from those meetings. If you think it's not collaborative, why do these meetings always result in tax burden reductions for the lobbyists?) [5][6]

2 million dollars in direct campaign contributions, in 2018. It seems that to do business, you need to grease a few palms, eh? [7]

You cannot operate a multi-billion dollar company in the US, and not have close ties with the US government.

Not to mention the large number of congressmen, senators, and government advisers who, among their tens and hundreds of millions of dollars, have large financial stakes in Apple.

[1] https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-revolving-door-appl...

[2] https://techcrunch.com/2013/06/17/apple-nsa/

[3] https://www.fedscoop.com/civic-leave-white-house-technology-...

[4] https://18f.gsa.gov/2015/03/20/one-year-in-and-looking-forwa...

[5] https://www.macobserver.com/news/in-2018-apple-spent-6-6-mil...

[6] https://www.fastcompany.com/40502636/big-techs-lobbying-splu...

[7] https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000021754

What do you mean by "close links"?

The same thing that people talking about the Chinese boogieman mean.

A nebulous, ill-defined hand-waved general accusation, with no clear goalposts, that infers that there's an intersection between the company's past or present employees, and past or present employees, executives, or advisers in government, that the company at some point received government seed funding, investments, or government contracts, that secret meetings take place between the company, and the government, that the company is a special contractor for the government, building custom solutions for it, or that the company may be compromised by government meddling.

The beauty of accusing a company of having close ties with its government is that it can mean almost anything you want it to mean.

Is this to say that there is literally no noteworthy difference in the relationships Chinese and American companies have with their respective governments?

I'm open to the idea, what evidence would you propose supports this?

Maybe top government <--> Corporate executive revolving door.

I'm loving the new and improved HN where even asking a simple straightforward question gets downvoted.

If it's a better model for a company to follow, why shouldn't I as a consumer be able to buy from them?

the trademarks, patents, contracts, and license enforcements are broken, and China/Huawei shows how much better technology can be made without them. The free market chose Huawei, a company without patent and trade distortions

Not to mention they subsidize the winners they pick with billions of dollars of government money.

Patents and copyright are the prime example of the government picking winners and losers in the market.