This seems disingenuous and arbitrary considering the decision to put Iran on a ban list was basically taken unilaterally by the US, all the while Cisco and Bluecoat were selling tech to build the great firewall of China, and a long list of other (US, Israeli, etc.) companies are selling tech to basically every authoritarian, oppressive regime out there without any legal or moral consequences.

As for Huawei, the fact that the bans and sanctions tend to be fluid and negotiable despite being called a national security issue kind of puts the "national" part into question. Someone certainly benefits.

And consider that the media does a great job in painting half of the picture. The other half is filled with the complete absence of articles related to US companies trying to steal secrets. The plausible explanation is that the media is heavily biased (in al honesty it's not like they could publish articles on active operations). In this context does it seem fair to judge having only half the information?

Whats arbitrary about pointing out a string of high profile reports regarding Huawei attempting to steal trade secrets? I don't see the same reports coming out of US companies in regards to Chinese companies.

> Whats arbitrary

The decision to put Iran on a ban list, as I wrote very clearly.

> reports regarding Huawei attempting to steal trade secrets

This is called a "national security" issue but doesn't appear to be treated as such. Which means the threat is not taken seriously or there is no threat.

> I don't see the same reports coming out of US companies in regards to Chinese companies

I'm not sure I understand. The reports about Huawei came from US companies. But in case you were wondering why there are no reports about US companies attempting to steal trade secrets there are 2 possible answers: 1) US companies never spy or 2) US media never talks about it. Which sounds more plausible to you? And if it's 2) I'll ask again: is it fair to form an opinion having only half of the picture?

"Tappy" again, plus a story from Bloomberg, which has shattered its reputation when it comes to technology/security reporting (SuperMicro, among other false articles whipping up anti-Chinese hysteria).

Ok, how about NPR:

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/08/730898429/huawei-accused-of-t...

Or ZDNET:

https://www.zdnet.com/article/huawei-regularly-tried-to-stea...

or CNBC:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/22/huawei-executive-accusetd-of...

The NPR segment is just repeating what Bloomberg said.

The ZDNET story is about a Huawei engineer ... wait for it ... asking someone at Foxconn about what components Apple uses in its smart watches.

The CNBC story is about Huawei and a tech company founded by one of their former employees suing one another, each alleging the other stole trade secrets. These sorts of disputes happen all the time.

You'll notice that nowadays, there's tons of reporting on every minor IP dispute or claim involving Huawei. At the same time, and I'm sure this is completely coincidental, the United States government is trying to paint Huawei as a "bad actor," so that it can be used as a hostage in the trade war.

Curious where I implied Huawei didn't before (merely stated the enforcement for patents, or "rules" as you put it, no longer apply because the negatives are already in place against them).