SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: ggersh who wrote (174329)7/6/2021 7:20:41 PM
From: sense  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 217749
 
CIA would love chaos on Russia's border...

I think from more of a "big picture" perspective... the only reason the U.S. ever went in there at all... had mostly to do with the Russian's failure to sustain any real ability to manage its own "sphere of influence"... in the wake of the collapse of the USSR. "Chaos on Russia's border"... after the Russians withdrew... likely seemed somewhat less of a good idea post 9/11 with Bin Laden associated jihadis having free run of the place...

The U.S. effort to get Bin Laden... undermined by the CIA and/or its friends there... might well have proven a limit to the U.S. interest sooner... had it been allowed to be successful earlier in the process. I think a lot of those guys were thinking about it no more deeply, post 9/11, as "someone has to do it"... when Russia couldn't... the regional interest not being only Afghanistan... but, "stability" more widely...

But, the U.S. did a credible enough job the last few years of "keeping a lid on it"... without it costing too much, and without it being all that much of a war... it settling down into about as least violent a place as Afghanistan ever tends to be... none of which is really an overly compelling argument re a strategic necessity or a practical reason for being there at all... without a viable purpose or plan tied to any compelling American self interest ... or the will to be there for some reason... to do more than sustain a holding action. How much of a "blunder" though... without having any real intent to engage in a land war for conquest ?




More of a waste of resources... that might have been better spent elsewhere... or better minimized for the same effect... with better plans and better leadership...

In the same time, most of the rest of the former Soviet periphery has become more or less independent, and more or less prosperous, and more or less stable in result of the pairing of the Russian retreat back to Russia... with the containment of Afghani interest inside Afghanistan... the project likely more useful in enabling that two fer than anything else.

The ending of the costs imposed on Americans by the American withdrawal... aren't likely to be an issue for Americans. The odds the Taliban will want to send Americans another engraved invitation for an extended visit... likely pretty low... while there's plenty enough of interest happening locally to keep a country full of crazed jihadis busy doing other things for a long time. Same thing, more or less, happened in Syria quite a while back already... and the net impact on Americans has been... one less thing to worry about... while really not all that much else has changed otherwise ?

If China/Pakistan choose to try to support the Taliban overtly... should still expect others, including India, will still opt to support the government... or other Taliban opponents... and that's likely to amplify regional tensions some... but, too soon, right now, to make many predictions about the future there... even as steering clear of the word "outcome"... as the locals seem unable to make choices that work to keep others out... and prove unable to keep them out by other means...

The U.S. / NATO presence removed Afghanistan as an issue others had to worry much about... and without that effort being sustained, others with local interests will have to worry about it a lot more...



To: ggersh who wrote (174329)7/6/2021 8:24:18 PM
From: TobagoJack  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 217749
 
woooohoooo

either patent reform is coming or patent reform is going, but reform shall be, as weaponised

might be a win-win setup

should Huawei win, more funding to carry on lawfare against other infringing parties and there are plenty. Should Huawei lose, more patents to put to waste, all rule by making up rules American style, and in Texas, and there are plenty.

bloomberg.com

Huawei Takes Patents Brawl With Verizon to a Texas Jury
Susan Decker
7 July 2021, 06:49 GMT+8
Huawei Technologies Co. says it was treated unfairly when the U.S. government labeled it a security threat, yet China’s largest technology company is seeking redress from the American jury system in a major patent fight with Verizon Communications Inc.

A trial is set to being Wednesday in Marshall, Texas, in Huawei’s case against Verizon over claims it is using Huawei’s patented networking technology without a license. It’s the first of two scheduled this year over lawsuits Huawei filed last year against Verizon, the biggest U.S. mobile carrier.

Accusations are being hurled by both of the deep-pocketed companies, illustrating the depth of animosity between them. Verizon says Huawei is using its patented inventions -- not the other way around -- and has accused Huawei of breaching pledges to offer fair and reasonable terms for licensing its technologies.

“These are two large rams with big horns and lots of testosterone and they’re going to butt heads in front of the jury for five days,” said Paul Berghoff, a patent lawyer with McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff, who isn’t involved in the case.

Huawei’s litigation with Verizon is the company’s first attempt to recoup investments after being barred from 5G network buildouts in the U.S. and other nations amid U.S. spying allegations, Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Tamlin Bason said in a note last month. “Similar actions against U.S. carriers and network-equipment makers are possible,” he said.

For more information about Huawei:
FCC Can Block Subsidized Purchases of Huawei’s 5G Technology Xi Taps Top Deputy to Lead China’s Chip Battle Against U.S. FCC Proposes Ban on Chinese Surveillance Cameras, Other Products Biden Blocks 59 Chinese Companies in Amended Trump Order Huawei Hit With Racketeering Charge in Expanding U.S. Case

Huawei has been seeking more than $1 billion from Verizon, though the trial will focus on a small portion of that patent portfolio. The companies haven’t disclosed in court filings how much they are seeking in damages in this trial, and neither would comment before the trial.

The challenge for District Judge Rodney Gilstrap is to keep the trial focused on the question of patents for optical transport network systems, a key technology that enables the rapid transmission of large amounts of data, and not on geopolitical issues.

Huawei has asked the judge to prevent Verizon from bringing up the U.S. government’s labeling of it as a national security threat, the Federal Communications Commission’s blocking subsidized purchases of Huawei gear, and Verizon’s allegations that the suit is retaliation for the government’s actions and Verizon’s decision to not sell Huawei phones.

How Huawei Landed at the Center of Global Tech Tussle: QuickTake

At the same time, Verizon doesn’t want Huawei to bring up the company’s lobbying efforts, including its push for Senator Marco Rubio, a Florida Republican, to introduce proposed legislation to keep Huawei from collecting patent damages in U.S. courts. That provision never passed into law.

Many of the accusations beyond the patent issues are unlikely to be raised before the jury. The trial is scheduled to last only a week and the judge heard several days of arguments over what the jury would be allowed to hear, though his rulings are under seal.

Regardless, the companies bring plenty of baggage into the courtroom.

“Are you really going to prevent the jury from knowing this is a Chinese company suing an American company, for example? That’s not possible,” said Kenneth Weatherwax, a patent lawyer at Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP, who isn’t involved in the case.

On the other side, jurors also can have preconceived ideas about the customer service record of a U.S. cable and phone company such as Verizon, he said. “So it remains to see which side the jury might have a more visceral reaction to.”

Patents and PoliticsThe key issues the jury has to decide are whether Verizon infringes three Huawei patents, whether Huawei infringes two Verizon patents, and whether Huawei’s initial royalty demand complies with the obligation of all owners of standard-essential patents to license their inventions on “fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory” terms.

Huawei says its three patents in the case are critical components of the International Telecommunication Union’s G.709 industry standard for the networks. It accused Verizon of refusing to even discuss a license even though the standard helps the New York-based company with more efficient networks.

Verizon said Huawei’s demands were too high. Verizon also claims Huawei is using two of its patented inventions for the optical networks. Those Verizon patents are not essential components of the standard, so there would be no limit on possible damages.

The two sides are “scratching and clawing for data” that can alter the dynamics in negotiations, Weatherwax said. “The idea is that if you can get a big verdict on just these few patents, it has to color the negotiations for the whole shebang.”

A second case, in which Huawei accuses Verizon of infringing patents for network infrastructure, including routers, and Verizon’s Smart Family and One Talk applications, is scheduled for trial in October in Waco, Texas.

Huawei previously sued T-Mobile USA Inc. after licensing talks failed. The companies settled their patent fight in 2017 and Huawei has since been indicted by the U.S. on charges that include allegations it stole a secret T-Mobile phone-testing robot.

Sanctions and Combative StanceShenzhen-based Huawei is one of the world’s most prolific patent holders, with more than 80,000 worldwide and 10,000 in the U.S. alone, the company has said. The company received 3,178 U.S. patents last year, making it the seventh-highest recipient of patents and ahead of American innovation juggernauts like Microsoft Corp. and Apple Inc., according to figures compiled by the Intellectual Property Owners Association.

While Huawei has said it won’t weaponize its large portfolio of patents, the cases are seen as fresh sign of Huawei’s increasingly combative stance toward U.S. companies in the wake of crippling sanctions from Washington.

The cases are Huawei Technologies Co. v Verizon Communications Inc., 20-30, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall), and Huawei v. Verizon, 20-90, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Waco).

— With assistance by Laurel Brubaker Calkins

Before it's here, it's on the Bloomberg Terminal.
LEARN MORE



To: ggersh who wrote (174329)7/7/2021 2:03:33 AM
From: TobagoJack  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 217749
 
what is happening w/ the folks on your shore? Rise of the Moors one day and arise the looters the next?

Seems to be some sort of bug going around

can easily make a case that either and or both spectrums of the politics are guilty, but both offer prospective solutions set

zerohedge.com

Watch: Looters Ransack San Francisco Neiman Marcus In Broad Daylight

A mob of looters were captured ransacking a Neiman Marcus store in San Francisco - smashing display cases, stealing handbags, and running out of the building before the police arrived at around 6 p.m., according to the Washington Examiner.

The merchandise-laden suspects were seen running out of the store before jumping into a getaway car that sped off. According to KTVU's Henry K. Lee, at least 9 people were involved.

More on San Francisco's rampant looting, via the Examiner:

A man was caught on video in June filling a garbage bag with what appeared to be hair products before leaving the drugstore on his bicycle. A security guard, who was recording the incident, tried to grab the individual, though he eluded custody.
Walgreens shuttered 17 of its stores in the San Francisco area in the past five years, and the company said thefts in the area are four times more likely than anywhere else in the country as executives budgeted 35 times more for security personnel to guard the chains.
Target executives in the city also decided to limit business hours in response to an uptick in larceny.
Shoppers can no longer buy products in the chains after 6 p.m. after once being permitted to shop until 10 p.m.


"For more than a month, we’ve been experiencing a significant and alarming rise in theft and security incidents at our San Francisco stores," said a Target spokesman.



SF Police Lt. Tracy McCray pinned the blame on DA Chesa Boudin (whose parents were part of the radical and violent Weather Underground, and left two police officers dead during a botched heist). According to McCray, Boudin's "criminals first agenda" is responsible for the uptick in crime.

"What happened in that Walgreens has been going on in the city for quite a while," McCray said in June. "I’m used to it. I mean, we could have a greatest hits compilation of people just walking in and cleaning out the store shelves and security guards, the people who work there, just standing by helplessly because they can’t do anything.":

"The 'criminals first' agenda from the district attorney [is to blame] because he's not prosecuting any of those crimes as felonies [or] as a commercial burglary. [Criminals realize,] 'This is gonna get slapped down to a misdemeanor," she continued.
Thefts under $950 are considered a misdemeanor in McCray's area of operation, she added, and suspected criminals are often issued citations instead of spending time in jail ahead of their court date. In some cases, she said, thieves will have their case thrown out if they skip their court appearances. -Washington Examiner

Crime in San Francisco has truly become a feature, not a bug.