Categories
5G American networks artificial intelligence Biden administration Billions Of Dollars Covid relief bill federal communications commission Gear Government Headline News huawei Intelwars paid taxation is theft Technology telecom executives Telecommunications Trump administration zte

Congress Gives $1.9B to Rip-and-Replace Huawei and ZTE Equipment from American Networks as Part of COVID Package

This article was originally published by B.N. Frank at Activist Post. 

Wireless connections have always been more vulnerable to hackers than hard-wired connections.  Wireless network vulnerability is also NOT a new thing.

Last month it was reported that one longstanding network flaw has continued to NOT be fixed.  Also reported – due to security concerns, Congress allocated $1.9B to remove Huawei and ZTE gear from American networks.

From Telecoms:

Congress earmarks $1.9 billion to remove Huawei and ZTE gear from American networks

The US lawmakers have included in the coronavirus relief package up to $1.9 billion as reimbursement for American CSPs to remove Huawei and ZTE equipment from their networks.

European readers woke up this morning to the breaking news alerts on their smartphone screens that the US Congress has agreed to a $900 billion package of COVID-19 pandemic aid. More details of what are included in the package, especially details related to the telecoms industry, have just been disclosed.

Reuters learned from its sources that $1.9 billion has been set aside to finance American broadband operators to remove and replace equipment from Huawei and ZTE that is operating on the systems. Back in June the FCC formally designated Huawei and ZTE as national security threats. Such designations excluded the vendors from the shopping list of any operators wishing to access the Universal Service Fund (USF), worth $8.3 billion. Earlier this month the FCC shared more details on its mandate to operators which have equipment from these vendors to “rip and replace” with equipment from vendors deemed safe. The $1.9 billion is to compensate the cost to implement the rip-and-replace policy. The priority of the reimbursement is with small operators, especially those with two million subscribers or less, Reuters reported.

Read full article

High-speed internet is achievable, safer, and more secure with a wired internet connection (see 12) – not 5G or WiFi.  According to lawsuits and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman, Americans have already paid to have high-speed internet via fiber optics where they live (see 12345).  Regardless, the FCC recently gave billions more to telecom companies and said it was for high-speed internet in underserved areas.  NOPE.

Of course, the FCC has been corrupt and “captured” agency for decades (see 12).  The agency refuses to update 24-year-old RF radiation exposure guidelines.  During the Trump administration, lawsuits have been filed against the agency for NOT protecting the public from unsafe levels of radiation as well as controversial and dangerous 5G on Earth (see 1234) and in space.  Doctors and scientists have asked the agency MANY TIMES and again recently that health and environmental risks from radiation from 5G, cell towers, and other wireless sources be evaluated by experts with no conflicts of interest (see also 123).  NOPE again.

In 2019, telecom executives gave congressional testimony that they had NO independent scientific evidence that 5G is safe.  There is research that has already determined it’s not.  Since 2018 there have been reports of people and animals experiencing symptoms and illnesses after 5G was installed (see 1234).

Recently, the U.S. Government Accountability Office also issued warnings about cybersecurity risks associated with the 5G deployment.  The White House has also issued a directive about the potential for satellites being targeted by hackers as well.

petition boycotting 5G phones has been endorsed by doctors, scientists, and telecom whistleblowers.  Americans opposed to 5G are encouraged to sign a petition asking President-elect Biden and Vice President-elect Harris to stop the deployment.  If you’re concerned about 5G cell towers being installed near your home and throughout your community, EMF Experts is offering a free online tutorial on how to locate them.

Activist Post reports regularly about unsafe technology.  For more information, visit their archives.

 

The post Congress Gives $1.9B to Rip-and-Replace Huawei and ZTE Equipment from American Networks as Part of COVID Package first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
5G Barrie Trower depopulation Economy Electrosmog EMF Genocide Global News Health Intelwars Politics Science Society Technology Wi-Fi

Physicist & Former Royal Navy Microwave Weapons Expert Barrie Trower: The Truth About 5G And Wi-Fi – The Genocidal Nature of Non-Ionising Radiation (Feb 3, 2020 – Exeter UK – Video)

MUST-WATCH!!!… * * * Please support I. U. PayPal: Donate in USD PayPal: Donate in EUR PayPal: Donate in GBP

Share
Categories
5G 5g cancer 5g health risk 5g speed 5g towers Intelwars Is 5g worth it Should i get 5g

Should you switch to 5G? Here are the pros and cons

5G network service is becoming more widely available in the United States every month. The next generation of wireless technology promises revolutionary increases in speed, capacity, and access that could transform numerous industries, including, but not limited to, the cell phone industry.

Consumers in many U.S. cities now have the option to upgrade to 5G through major providers such as Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint/T-Mobile. Should you make the switch? Is it worth the potential additional cost of a 5G-capable phone and a more expensive plan? What about the potential health risks of this relatively new technology? Here are some pros and cons to consider.

5G is MUCH faster than 3G or 4G

The most obvious benefit to individual consumers who switch to 5G is that they will have access to mobile internet speeds up to 10 times faster than 4G — at least in areas that have the infrastructure. Depending on where you live, you may have access to low, medium, or high band 5G. But even the low band frequency should provide faster download speeds than 4G.

In some areas, you can also get 5G home internet service, which could serve as a replacement for current broadband internet options such as cable internet, and can allow you to better use “smart home” devices due to a greater capacity.

This is all dependent on the level of 5G access in your area. 5G access is rapidly expanding, but still not available everywhere. And the very best 5G coverage, which requires higher transmission frequencies that have relatively limited reach, may only be available in certain neighborhoods and areas of cities.

You’ll probably need a new phone, and possibly a new data plan

All that speed isn’t free. To use 5G, you’ll need to get a 5G-capable phone — and right now, most of those are pretty expensive. Also, if you’re an iPhone loyalist, you’re still waiting for Apple to release its first 5G phone. And the release of that phone could be delayed due to COVID-19 disrupting development and production.

Depending on your service provider, you might have to upgrade your cell phone plan to get 5G. Sprint and T-Mobile, which have merged, and AT&T offer 5G service in all data plans. Verizon only offers 5G with its higher-tier data plans.

Will 5G give you cancer? Coronavirus?

5G will not give you coronavirus, despite a surprisingly popular conspiracy theory online that tries to convince people that a virus is being transmitted through a cell phone signal.

In terms of other health risks, the conclusion is not as clear. Experts have no direct evidence giving reason to believe that cell signals, even higher-frequency 5G, cause harmful exposure to radiation.

5G cell signal falls on the high end of the radio frequency spectrum, but on the overall electromagnetic spectrum, it is on the low end of the microwave spectrum, well below things like infrared and ultraviolet, X-rays, and radioactive sources. It is considered non-ionizing radiation, a category that also includes FM radio, TV signals, and 4G.

Non-ionizing radiation is not considered harmful because it doesn’t produce enough energy to damage cells in a way that causes cancer like ionizing radiation does.

Still, there are unknowns and concerns with 5G that researchers are attempting to study, although research is being outpaced by the expansion of the technology. Another reason for concern about 5G in general is that the smaller reach of 5G millimeter waves means cell antennas will have to be installed in greater numbers and closer together, which means people are going to be exposed to them whether they are using a 5G device or not.

Is it worth it?

From a pure performance standpoint, 5G is a big-time upgrade, especially if you’re the type of person who does a lot of streaming, downloading, or gaming on your mobile device. People with high-tech smart home setups with everything from smart lights to smart thermostats to smart refrigerators would benefit from 5G home internet service if its available where they live.

It may not be worth the cost to buy a new phone and upgrade your data plan at this point if you’re not using your phone for much beyond calls, texts, emails, and normal web browsing and app usage. And if you live somewhere without full 5G coverage, you could end up purchasing the capability for 5G without having convenient access to it.

As far as the health risks, there is not conclusive evidence that 5G is harmful to humans. But there hasn’t been enough research to say definitively that there are no risks, as it is a very new and developing technology. Of course, the same can be said about 4G, which is now available almost everywhere in the U.S.

Share
Categories
5G bipartisan both parties buying votes cost COVID-19 Donald Trump election Federal Reserve Gold Headline News inflation infrastructure Intelwars layoffs LIES selection stimulus plan system WHITE HOUSE

STEALING THE ELECTION: Get Ready – FRAUD WILL BE EPIC!

This article was contributed by Lior Gantz of The Wealth Research Group. 

How much is it worth TO BE in the White House? The answer is IN THE TRILLIONS. You’re about to find out just how many trillions we’re really TALKING ABOUT.

For one, funding for municipalities will be SAFE AND SOUND since the component of minorities in the labor force of local government IS HUGE. The current administration will do anything to secure those votes and they will do so by making sure THERE ARE NO CUTBACKS, which lead to layoffs. As we know, states can’t print currency, like Washington does, so they’re HELD HOSTAGE.

The government is about to approve an infrastructure program as well. It is BIPARTISAN, which means its chief aim is to win Trump more votes from the swing voters. That’s valued at $1,000,000,000 and it will go towards roads, bridges, and crumbling pavement but will also be siphoned into 5G and Internet infrastructure.

It will not stop there. Before the elections, I expect to hear about more tax cuts for individuals, which are an additional way of spending money the government doesn’t have. At the end of the day, these are ways in which both parties intend to SECURE YOUR VOTE.

Between now and November, thanks to all of these, we anticipate another 4% rise in the spot price of gold, which will PUSH IT ABOVE the $1,800/ounce hurdle.

Courtesy: Zerohedge.com

As you can see above, there’s an UNPRECEDENTED STIMULUS PLAN in motion since everyone understands that COVID-19 is an event that changed America and it can MOLD NEW thought habits in people; there’s  a war going on for your mind.

We really haven’t felt the BIG PAIN yet, financially speaking, and it probably won’t originate in the U.S, but in other regions that are MORE PRONE to economic weakness and will trickle to America later.

The ability to print money and increase its supply without significantly and permanently ERODING PURCHASING POWER is an entirely American phenomenon. Any other country that would have EXPENDED its currency in circulation the way Washington and the Federal Reserve have would be suffering from RAMPANT INFLATION; it is currency abuse.

Courtesy: Zerohedge.com

As you can see, Wall Street is also COMING AROUND after seeing that COVID-19 is not a global pandemic from a health perspective, but rather a PSYCHOLOGICAL ONE.

We would have to go back and study the whole chain of events leading up to the PRESENT to truly realize how WRONG THE EXPERTS WERE, for the most part about all of it, and THEY WERE.

Remember that COVID-19 death cases are SIMPLY NOT ACCURATE.

We aren’t counting people dying FROM it, but WITH IT.

On the same token, during the time of someone’s death, he/she also has a variety of other viruses in their system, all of which are not listed as the CAUSE OF DEATH.

The medical industry IS INCENTIVIZED to list COVID-19 as the cause of death, especially with ventilators since the funding for each case reaches as high as $39k for the hospital itself.

The second wave is FAIRYTALE STUFF.

Courtesy: Zerohedge.com

As you can see, Wall Street, which is supplied with the most accurate data, since its tentacles reach all WINGS OF GOVERNMENTS, is lowering cash levels and reentering markets.

In the chart above, it looks like they’re commencing on a buying spree similarly to how they did in 2009, but IN REALITY, this couldn’t be further from the truth.

The markets aren’t cheap as a whole, as they were in 09′, but WITHIN the indices, specifically in the S&P 500 index components, many stocks have been badly hurt.

With research, we can find those that WON’T cut dividends, WON’T struggle for much longer, AREN’T overvalued, and that have UNJUSTIFIED pessimism towards them, making their share price reasonably cheap.

That’s where the 100% REBOUND GAINERS lie.

We are on the hunt!

EXCLUSIVE REPORTS, Featured In This Article and in Others, Which Are Considered ESSENTIAL READING:
1. Gold Investing – DOWNLOAD HERE!
2. Trump’s War with Mainstream Media – DOWNLOAD HERE!
3. Covid-19 Round2 Sell-Off Playbook – DOWNLOAD HERE!
4. Why The Dollar Is Dead – DOWNLOAD HERE!
Share
Categories
5G bipartisan both parties buying votes cost COVID-19 Donald Trump election Federal Reserve Gold Headline News inflation infrastructure Intelwars layoffs LIES selection stimulus plan system WHITE HOUSE

STEALING THE ELECTION: Get Ready – FRAUD WILL BE EPIC!

This article was contributed by Lior Gantz of The Wealth Research Group. 

How much is it worth TO BE in the White House? The answer is IN THE TRILLIONS. You’re about to find out just how many trillions we’re really TALKING ABOUT.

For one, funding for municipalities will be SAFE AND SOUND since the component of minorities in the labor force of local government IS HUGE. The current administration will do anything to secure those votes and they will do so by making sure THERE ARE NO CUTBACKS, which lead to layoffs. As we know, states can’t print currency, like Washington does, so they’re HELD HOSTAGE.

The government is about to approve an infrastructure program as well. It is BIPARTISAN, which means its chief aim is to win Trump more votes from the swing voters. That’s valued at $1,000,000,000 and it will go towards roads, bridges, and crumbling pavement but will also be siphoned into 5G and Internet infrastructure.

It will not stop there. Before the elections, I expect to hear about more tax cuts for individuals, which are an additional way of spending money the government doesn’t have. At the end of the day, these are ways in which both parties intend to SECURE YOUR VOTE.

Between now and November, thanks to all of these, we anticipate another 4% rise in the spot price of gold, which will PUSH IT ABOVE the $1,800/ounce hurdle.

Courtesy: Zerohedge.com

As you can see above, there’s an UNPRECEDENTED STIMULUS PLAN in motion since everyone understands that COVID-19 is an event that changed America and it can MOLD NEW thought habits in people; there’s  a war going on for your mind.

We really haven’t felt the BIG PAIN yet, financially speaking, and it probably won’t originate in the U.S, but in other regions that are MORE PRONE to economic weakness and will trickle to America later.

The ability to print money and increase its supply without significantly and permanently ERODING PURCHASING POWER is an entirely American phenomenon. Any other country that would have EXPENDED its currency in circulation the way Washington and the Federal Reserve have would be suffering from RAMPANT INFLATION; it is currency abuse.

Courtesy: Zerohedge.com

As you can see, Wall Street is also COMING AROUND after seeing that COVID-19 is not a global pandemic from a health perspective, but rather a PSYCHOLOGICAL ONE.

We would have to go back and study the whole chain of events leading up to the PRESENT to truly realize how WRONG THE EXPERTS WERE, for the most part about all of it, and THEY WERE.

Remember that COVID-19 death cases are SIMPLY NOT ACCURATE.

We aren’t counting people dying FROM it, but WITH IT.

On the same token, during the time of someone’s death, he/she also has a variety of other viruses in their system, all of which are not listed as the CAUSE OF DEATH.

The medical industry IS INCENTIVIZED to list COVID-19 as the cause of death, especially with ventilators since the funding for each case reaches as high as $39k for the hospital itself.

The second wave is FAIRYTALE STUFF.

Courtesy: Zerohedge.com

As you can see, Wall Street, which is supplied with the most accurate data, since its tentacles reach all WINGS OF GOVERNMENTS, is lowering cash levels and reentering markets.

In the chart above, it looks like they’re commencing on a buying spree similarly to how they did in 2009, but IN REALITY, this couldn’t be further from the truth.

The markets aren’t cheap as a whole, as they were in 09′, but WITHIN the indices, specifically in the S&P 500 index components, many stocks have been badly hurt.

With research, we can find those that WON’T cut dividends, WON’T struggle for much longer, AREN’T overvalued, and that have UNJUSTIFIED pessimism towards them, making their share price reasonably cheap.

That’s where the 100% REBOUND GAINERS lie.

We are on the hunt!

EXCLUSIVE REPORTS, Featured In This Article and in Others, Which Are Considered ESSENTIAL READING:
1. Gold Investing – DOWNLOAD HERE!
2. Trump’s War with Mainstream Media – DOWNLOAD HERE!
3. Covid-19 Round2 Sell-Off Playbook – DOWNLOAD HERE!
4. Why The Dollar Is Dead – DOWNLOAD HERE!
Share
Categories
5G biological health cell phone service Debate Effects Environment Farragut Headline News installaton Intelwars Laws Lawsuit Ordinance Resolutions Safety Sick Tennessee Transmission Verizon

Farragut, TN Passes Resolution to Stop 5G Installation Until FCC Limits Ensure Safety

This article was originally published by B.N. Frank at Activist Post. 

People worldwide – including elected officials – are opposed to 5G being installed in their communities because of risks to biological health, cybersecurity (see 123), environmental health (see 1234), privacy (see 12), safety, and more.  Many cities and countries have taken action including banning it, filing lawsuits, issuing moratoriums, passing ordinances and resolutions, etc. (see 123456).  This now includes Farragut, TN.

From Environmental Health Trust:

The Farragut Tennessee Resolution on 5G

Farragut Tennessee has approved a resolution calling on state and federal governments to halt 5G until health risks are evaluated by “sound science.”  The resolution details how FCC limits are outdated and considered inadequate to protect human health by many scientists. (EHT maintains research on 5G, 4G and wireless radiation HERE.)

“The measure asks governments to halt 5G infrastructure until the FCC conducts an independent study into any possible health risks posed by the technology.”- WBIR Farragut leaders call on state, federal governments for a halt to 5G towers

Excerpts from the 5G Resolution

WHEREAS, as the result of the concerns of numerous local governmental entities from around the country and their citizens that the FCC has failed to study and reevaluate the health effects of its current standards in light of the inherent changes characterized by the 5G technology, litigation is pending against the FCC that seeks to stop the rapid deployment of the 5G infrastructure until the FCC has completed its study of the health effects of the deployment of 5G technology and, if necessary, has updated its regulations accordingly.

NOW, THEREFORE, by the adoption of this Resolution the Board of Mayor and Alderman of the Town of Farragut, Tennessee petitions and encourages the governments of the United States of America and the State of Tennessee to take actions within their power to halt the deployment of the 5G wireless facilities within the rights-of-way of our local communities belonging to the public until such time as the only agency with the authority to do so, the FCC, reevaluates by an independent study the adequacy of its radio frequency emissions standards and concludes on the basis of sound science that those standards, or standards adopted as a result of said further study, are adequate to ensure that the health of the public at large will not be adversely affected by long-term exposure to radiofrequency emissions from the placement and operation of 5G wireless facilities throughout our communities

See a PDF of  the Farragut Tennessee 5G Resolution

Farragut Tennessee is one of several US cities taking action on the issue of 5G

Hallandale Beach Florida and Greendale Wisconsin have also passed 5G resolutions.

In April 2020 Sandy Springs Orders Stop Work Order for 5G Poles. “Upon hearing that subcontractors were approaching homeowners during this time of a national pandemic crisis, the city has issued a Stop Work Order on all installation in [residential] neighborhoods until the end of [the] pandemic crisis,” city spokesperson Sharon Kraun said. The installation of poles had already been controversial, with the city and residents critiquing them, but the city has failed to be able to block the installation locally due to state law.”

In March 2020, Keene New Hampshire halted 5G. “The council unanimously approved a separate motion, instructing staff to proceed with drafting an ordinance that would create location and design standards for small wireless facilities installed in public rights-of-way. Also known as small cells, these facilities can be used to roll out 5G, the next generation of mobile networks that boasts faster download and upload speeds, as well as previous generations.”

March 2020: Santa Barbara California Paused 5G. “Facing a gathering storm of opposition from anti-radiation activists worried about the health effects of the new 5G cellular technology, the Santa Barbara City Council voted to delay authorizing a licensing agreement with Verizon that would have allowed the cell phone service giant to install up to 60 new 5G cell phone antennas on light fixtures downtown.”

Actions by US Cities to Restrict “Small Cells” and/or 5G with ordinances include: 

  • Los Altos California:  installation of small cells on public utility easements in residential neighborhoods is prohibited.
  • Petaluma, California, no Small Cell shall be within 500 feet of any residence.
  • Fairfax and Mill Valley California, small cells prohibited in residential zones
  • San Diego County, no small cells located within 1,000 feet of schools, child care centers, hospitals, or churches.
  • Mason, Ohio, No small cells in residential areas or within 100 feet of residential property
  • Burlington, Massachusetts, annual recertification fees for small cells.
  • Baton Rouge, Small cell deployment halted.

See a full compilation of the US Cities issuing ordinances to slow the densification of 4/5G Antennas at this link – USA Cities on 5G Small Cells Action.

Since 2018, there have been reports of people and animals becoming sick after 5G was turned on (see 1234).  Thanks to these organizations for providing updated resources for Americans fighting 5G deployment:

The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) is supposed to protect Americans by regulating the telecom history.  Despite opposition and warnings, they are using the pandemic as an excuse to speed up 5G installation (see 123456).  This includes launching tens of thousands of satellites with millions of antennas to blast 5G and WiFi at us from space (see 123).  Lawsuits have been filed against them for NOT protecting Americans from unsafe levels of radiation (see 12) and 5G (see 123).

Activist Post reports regularly about 5G and other unsafe technology.  For more information, visit our archives.

Share
Categories
5G cashless society Conspiracy Theory Coronavirus Derrick Broze facts forced vaccinations Globalist agenda Headline News hypothesis Intelwars James Corbett medical martial law outbreak overlay propaganda Research response to the outbreak symptoms Truth WHO

[WATCH] Is 5G Causing The Coronavirus Outbreak & Symptoms?

Derrick Broze of The Conscious Resistance joined James Corbett of The Corbett Report to discuss the hypothesis that 5G is responsible for the symptoms associated with the coronavirus outbreak. They go over the facts and conspiracy surrounding these speculations.

In a YouTube video, Corbett and Broze discuss the identifiable facts and the notable shortcomings with this hypothesis, and we contrast that with Derrick’s documentary, which lays out the no-nonsense, no-speculation truth about the dangers of 5G.

Corbett begins the video stating that even if 5G has absolutely nothing to do with the coronavirus, it’s still a bad thing.

Broze talks about the existence of 5G and onslaught of the coronavirus outbreak, but it doesn’t appear that he believes there’s a connection. Often, he says, people want to make these false assumptions and string together facts to make sense of situations such as the coronavirus outbreak.  While it is a black swan event, it isn’t likely that 5G is causing symptoms, otherwise, Houston (the mecca of 5G) would have a much more intense outbreak.

The video, and Broze’s take specifically, is fascinating, to say the least.  He isn’t at all saying 5G is a good thing or that the coronavirus numbers being given to the public are real.  But he wants people to look more closely at things and fact check some. Rather than focus on 5G itself, Broze says it’s more important to look at the response, which is causing real-world dilemmas all in favor of an agenda.  He says to watch for things like the aggressively forced quarantines that propaganda outlets said are “working” in China to control the spread of the virus. (Medical martial law.)

China Is Literally Dragging People Out Of Their Homes And Sending Them To “Mass Quarantine Camps”

Don’t forget that the WHO used the coronavirus as a ploy to push for people to move away from cash too.

Ready for a Cashless Society? WHO Says Contaminated Cash and Spread the Coronavirus

The Rush To A Cashless Society Only Serves Globalist Interests

Share
Categories
5G Coronavirus Intelwars Videos

Fact Checking the 5G/Coronavirus Hypothesis


Derrick Broze of The Conscious Resistance joins us to discuss the hypothesis that 5G is responsible for the symptoms associated with the coronavirus outbreak. We discuss the identifiable facts and the notable shortcomings with this hypothesis, and we contrast that with Derrick’s documentary, which lays out the no-nonsense, no-speculation truth about the dangers of 5G.

Share
Categories
5G Coronavirus Intelwars Interviews

Interview 1521 – Derrick Broze Fact-checks the 5G/Coronavirus Hypothesis


Derrick Broze of TheConsciousResistance.com joins us to discuss the hypothesis that 5G is responsible for the symptoms associated with the coronavirus outbreak. We discuss the identifiable facts and the notable shortcomings with this hypothesis, and we contrast that with Derrick’s documentary, which lays out the no-nonsense, no-speculation truth about the dangers of 5G.
Share
Categories
5G CFIUS Featured Features frontpage Intelwars International Trade Mobile Networking Online

5G, Standard-Setting, and National Security

Eli Greenbaum*

Introduction

Anxieties about 5G—the soon-to-be-deployed[1] fifth generation mobile networking standard—are playing a starring role in national security debates. This next-generation technology promises faster speeds and more stability than existing telecommunication networks and is expected to facilitate revolutionary technologies such as autonomous vehicles and smart electricity grids.[2] Indeed, because of these opportunities, the Trump Administration’s 2017 National Security Strategy established a clear goal of deploying “secure 5G Internet capability nationwide.” On the other hand, inadequately secured 5G could leave critical infrastructure vulnerable to hostile exploitation. In early 2018, a leaked proposal revealed that the Administration had been considering the extreme step of nationalizing the country’s 5G telecommunications network in order to counter security concerns about Chinese technology.[3]

Similar national security concerns also featured prominently in the March 12, 2018 presidential order prohibiting Broadcom’s proposed $117 billion takeover of Qualcomm. That prohibition was recommended by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United State (CFIUS), an interagency committee established to monitor the national security implications of foreign investment.[4] CFIUS explained its reasoning in a letter to the parties which shed some light on the committee’s normally secretive deliberations.[5] The letter cited several concerns, including worries that the proposed takeover could result in decreased R&D spending, unease with Broadcom’s ties with foreign parties, and alarm regarding the potential disruption of supply relationships with the United States government. In addition, CFIUS asserted that the proposed takeover could adversely affect national security by leading to Chinese “dominance” of the international 5G standard-setting process.[6] The letter described in an ominous tone how Chinese companies have “increased their engagement” in the standardization process and upped their investment in 5G research and development. Omens of this struggle for 5G were seen in the considerable number of Chinese-owned patents covering 5G technology.

While the other national security concerns raised by CFIUS may be legitimate, this Article argues that those associated with dominance of the international standard-setting process are not. First, I point out that concerns regarding international standard-setting buck steady United States policy across administrations. Second, I argue that characterizing Chinese participation in the international standardization process as a threat to national security is counterproductive to American interests. Finally, I question whether Chinese ownership of patents essential to 5G technology should be characterized as an issue of national security at all.

The United States has consistently supported transparent international standard-setting processes, based on well-articulated economic and trade objectives. The United States has always been aware of the risks associated with standard-setting, but has taken an active role in supporting processes designed to mitigate those concerns. The CFIUS letter retreats from such policies and makes no effort to explain why. The letter expresses quick concern for the national security consequences of Chinese “influence” or “dominance” over standard-setting, but fails to explain either how existing standards processes could succumb to Chinese sway or how such power could be exercised to undermine national security. As this Article shows, there are compelling motivations for the country’s existing policies on international standard-setting, and the CFIUS letter does not offer any justification for changing this direction.

I. Standards and International Trade

Mobile networking standards are developed mainly by voluntary international organizations. A good part of such 5G standards, for example, will be hammered out by members of the Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), an umbrella standards group that also shaped the prior generations of cellular technology. 3GPP provides an international forum to discuss developing standards and (ideally) converge on the best technical solutions for designing the technology. Participants in the 3GPP process include private firms and other stakeholders, such as government bodies and research organizations.[7] Each entity participates in the process through a regional standards organization—many Chinese firms, for example, participate through the China Communications Standards Association (CCSA). Discussions and negotiations among this varied membership aim at establishing common technical specifications for communication networks.[8] These shared standards allow for global interoperability across different networks and devices.

In recent years, China has made a concerted effort to increase its engagement with the international standards process.[9] Indeed, the United States has historically urged China to participate in such international efforts, including as part of China’s obligations under international law. Such legal obligations include the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (the TBT Agreement),[10] with which China agreed to comply when it acceded to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001.[11] The multilateral TBT Agreement aims at ensuring that national standardization efforts and associated activities do not “create unnecessary obstacles to international trade.”[12] For example, the TBT Agreement provides that countries should generally use “relevant international standards”[13] rather than devising unique local requirements. Consistent with the TBT Agreement, the position of the United States across a number of administrations has generally been that unique, local standards risk the creation of discriminatory barriers to trade.[14] As such, the United States has advocated for international standardization efforts in order to shrink such barriers.[15]

In spite of these international commitments, China has sometimes emphasized the development of alternative national standards. The United States has often criticized these national standards as protectionist measures intended to shield domestic Chinese industries from foreign competition.[16] For example, in 2003, the Chinese government mandated that all wireless devices support WAPI, a China-specific encryption standard[17] incompatible with wireless encryption standards used outside of China.

This move was widely criticized by the United States and international community. Industry groups expressed concern regarding the security of the standard and the availability of intellectual property rights necessary to employ it.[18] International standards associations asserted that requiring the Chinese WAPI requirement would “fracture the world market.”[19] In March 2004, the United States Trade Representative, Secretary of Commerce, and Secretary of State sent a joint letter to the Chinese government protesting the adoption of WAPI.[20] The letter suggested that the requirements “discriminate against foreign companies” in order to develop “the Chinese high tech sector.”[21] The letter encouraged the Chinese government to participate in “existing standard-setting bodies”[22] in order to develop appropriate wireless network standards, instead of mandating unique Chinese requirements.

As the WAPI incident shows, standards can be used as trade barrier to favor domestic industry or interests. Consistent United States trade policy has aimed at encouraging China (and other countries) to reduce such barriers by using agreed international standards. The CFIUS letter, therefore, conflicts with this policy—if the United States sees increased Chinese “influence” in the international standards process as a national security threat and, as a result, bans transactions with firms that may have Chinese affiliations, then China may in some situations choose to reduce its engagement in that international process. Instead, China may insist on alternative standards that could act as trade barriers against foreign firms.[23] In other words, by challenging Chinese participation in the structures of international standard-setting, the CFIUS letter works to frustrate consistent United States policies that view such participation as furthering national trade and economic objectives. More troubling, the CFIUS letter neither acknowledges its differences from established policy, nor justifies its departure from those practices.

II. Standards and Transparency

Belying CFIUS’s concerns, leading international standards organizations do not easily lend themselves to “dominance.” Indeed, it is difficult to see such bodies and their members quietly surrendering to the manipulation feared by CFIUS. The processes of 3GPP, for example, incorporate important elements of openness and transparency. 3GPP makes publicly available meeting reports which list participants, their contributions, and voting results.[24] Studies show that 3GPP even provides “effective means of active participation” for small entities and start-ups, and that the organization does not discriminate against contributions proposed by such smaller entities.[25] Internal 3GPP processes ensure that “power is shared across regional and organizational lines.” [26] Appeals within the organization are available to members that oppose any ruling.[27] As a last resort, claims of manipulation and collusion can be—and sometimes are—brought before national courts.[28] Recent votes in other standards organizations also show that such transparency can assist security and privacy advocates in beating back powerful interests.[29]

The United States has consistently advocated for open and transparent standard-setting processes with minimal government intervention. Under domestic law, for example, the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act generally mandates that the federal government use “voluntary consensus standards.”[30] The statute has been construed as expressing a “strong preference” for market-developed standards satisfying certain criteria of “openness” and “transparency.”[31] These principles require that “procedures . . . be open to all interested parties”, and that parties be “provided meaningful opportunities to participate in standards development on a non-discriminatory basis.”[32]

Moreover, the United States has supported these principles in international law. A multilateral committee established under the TBT Agreement, for example, adopted a set of six principles for international standards, including openness, transparency and impartiality.[33] The United States has promoted these principles across the world,[34] incorporated them into free trade agreements,[35] and criticized China for failing to abide by them.[36]

The historical American commitment to open and transparent processes serves the interests of the United States. Indeed, transparency itself allays the very perils of foreign “dominance” and “control” that concerned CFIUS. During the previously discussed WAPI incident, the United States and international commercial actors criticized the non-transparent processes that led to the adoption of that encryption standard, including the fact that the algorithm was not made publicly available.[37] According to WAPI critics, this closed process made it impossible to evaluate the technical fitness of the China-specific standard. Moreover, third parties could not know if intentionally-inserted backdoors were hidden in WAPI.[38]

The CFIUS letter undermines the consistent support of the United States for open and transparent market standards. Rather than promoting openness, the letter suggests that the United States will keep its thumb on the standards scale in order to defend murky notions of its own national security. Moreover, if meddling in the standards process rouses foreign governments to also intervene, or to create foreign standards to counter the United States’ intervention, then the CFIUS letter itself increases the risk of the nontransparent foreign “influence” and “control” that it feared.[39]

III. Standards and Intellectual Property

The CFIUS letter sees Chinese ownership of 5G patent rights as an ominous warning of hi-tech dominance. However, given the rules and policies of prominent standards organizations—which generally aim to make technology available to all implementers of a standard[40]—it is difficult to see how patents could be leveraged into the technological control feared by CFIUS. Governments and standards organizations alike readily acknowledge that agreed technological specifications can incorporate patented, proprietary technology.[41] Indeed, firms often jockey for the economic advantages of having their own proprietary, patented technology incorporated into the agreed standard.[42] Such patent rights are often described as “Standard Essential Patents” (or “SEPs”), since infringement of the patent is essential for proper implementation of the standard.  SEPs can provide a steady stream of royalty payments, since designing around an “essential” patent is by definition impossible and firms that wish to manufacture or sell standard-compliant products must pay such royalties or risk infringement liability.

Neither standards organizations nor regulatory authorities have ignored the problems of potential dominance associated with requiring the use of patented technology in technical standards. First, the patent policies of standards organizations typically impose disclosure obligations.[43] Speaking broadly, these rules often require participants to disclose whether they hold patents that could be infringed by a proposed specification. With this knowledge, the members or the standards organization can search for non-proprietary alternatives to the patented technology. Second, such patent policies often require members to make available any proprietary technology to firms implementing the standard, often on “fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory” (FRAND) terms, and less frequently on a royalty-free basis.[44] Courts have enforced these obligations in civil suits.[45] Moreover, both the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice have sometimes stepped in to impose their interpretation of these rules.[46]

The enforcement of these policies sets real limits on patentees’ rights. For example, one of a patentee’s strongest remedies is to obtain a court injunction against infringing activities.[47] A growing consensus, however, sees such injunctive relief as inconsistent with a FRAND licensing commitment. For example, the Federal Circuit in Apple Inc. v. Motorola  Inc. held that a patentee’s claim for injunctive relief may be barred by an earlier FRAND licensing commitment.[48] In addition, developing jurisprudence concerning FRAND commitments has devoted substantial attention towards minimizing the abusive monetization of SEPs. A number of courts have noted the importance of the FRAND licensing obligation for avoiding “hold-up,” or the collection of excessive patent royalties.[49] Some courts have limited the total aggregate royalty on a device to a specific quantity, and awarded patentees only a proportionate share of that limited amount.[50] In sum, U.S. courts have generally enforced licensing commitments with a view towards ensuring that intellectual property rights do not unfairly block implementation of the standard.[51] As such, it is unlikely that any entity or organization could parlay 5G patents into “control” of the standard.[52] Chinese companies may end up holding important patents, but they will face serious legal and practical barriers to technological dominance in a way that could threaten national security.

Scholars do debate the appropriate enforcement of the FRAND commitment, and whether current jurisprudence provides for an effective check on patentees.[53] But regardless of what the appropriate balance between the rights, privileges, and obligations of patentees turns out to be, the United States should not discourage foreign engagement in international standard-setting. A consequence of such limited involvement would be more foreign technology developed outside the aegis of standards organizations, free of licensing commitments. Non-committed patentees would only have greater flexibility to seek injunctions and higher royalty rates and thus, outside of the standards organizations, find it easier to pursue the alleged control of standards against the national security interests of the United States. Going back yet again to the example of the WAPI encryption standard—in that case, non-Chinese firms expressed strong concern that the Chinese companies privy to the WAPI technology were under no obligation to make the relevant intellectual property available to market entrants.[54] Not being subject to any licensing requirements, the WAPI technology holders could have demanded onerous royalties or even access to other proprietary technology in exchange for the rights necessary to access the Chinese market.[55] In an open international standard-setting process, which the United States has long pursued, this kind of control would be significantly more difficult to achieve.

Conclusion

National security concerns regarding 5G technology are unlikely to fade. At the same time, concerns regarding the nation’s telecommunications infrastructure should not be confused with misgivings about the international standard-setting process. Standard-setting unquestionably implicates significant societal values, most prominently issues of privacy and encryption policy.[56] Certainly, the standard-setting process can be open to manipulation by individual firms,[57] cartels[58] and perhaps even countries.

However, these risks can be managed within the structures of existing United States trade and economic policy.  Legal and regulatory bulwarks already cabin these concerns, to protect both the integrity of the standards process as well as the interests of the United States. The CFIUS letter makes no attempt to explain the inadequacy of the existing framework, even as it departs from consistently-held United States policy regarding the international standards process.

* Partner, Yigal Arnon & Co., Jerusalem, Israel. J.D., Yale Law School; M.S., Columbia University.

“Cell Phone Tower Sunset Cell phone antenna” by Mike Mozart is licensed under CC BY 2.0

[1] Industry groups recently completed the specifications for 5G systems. See Rel-15 success spans 3GPP groups, 3GPP (June 14, 2018), http://www.3gpp.org/news-events/3gpp-news/1965-rel-15_news.

[2] See, e.g., 5G Mobile and Wireless Communications Technology 8 (Afif Osseiran et. al. eds., 2016).

[3] Tim Wu, Should Trump Nationalize a 5G Network, N.Y. Times (Jan. 31, 2018) https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/opinion/nationalize-5g-network.html. For more background on the government’s security concerns regarding Chinese telecommunications technology, see Mike Rogers & C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 112th Cong. Investigative Report on the U.S. National Security Issues Posed by Chinese Telecommunications Companies Huawei and ZTE vi (2012) (concluding that the risks associated with the provision of Chinese-made “equipment to U.S. critical infrastructure could undermine core U.S. national-security interests”); see also Federal Communications Commission, Statement of Chairman Ajit Pai Re: Protecting Against National Security Threats to the Communications Supply Chain Through FCC Programs, FCC 18-42, (April 17, 2018) (justifying a proposal to prohibit certain purchases of telecommunications equipment from companies posing a national security threat by noting that the country “stand[s] on the precipice of the 5G future”).

[4] The CFIUS regime is codified at 50 U.S.C. App. § 2170 (2018). The purpose of CFIUS review is to “determine the effects” of a transaction “on the national security of the United States”. Id. §2170(b)(a)(A)(i); see also generally Jonathan Wakely & Andrew Indorf, Managing National Security Risk in an Open Economy: Reforming the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, 9 Harv. Nat. Sec. J. 1 (2018).

[5] See, e.g., Christopher M. Tipler, Defining ‘National Security’: Resolving Ambiguity in the CFIUS Regulations, 35 U. Pa. J. Int’l L. 1223, 1242 (2014) (describing how scholars and practitioners can typically only “speculate” on the specific risks that CFIUS considers national security threats).

[6] Letter from Aimen N. Mir, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Investment Security, Department of the Treasury, to Mark Plotkin, Covington & Burling LLP and Theodore Kassinger, O’Melveny & Myers LLP (Mar. 5, 2018) https://www.qcomvalue.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2018/03/Letter-from-Treasury-Department-to-Broadcom-and-Qualcomm-regarding-CFIUS.pdf. Other government bodies have expressed similar concerns. See e.g., Tara Beeny, Supply Chain Vulnerabilities From China In U.S. Federal Information And Communications Technology 34-37(2018) (discussing supply chain concerns resulting from China’s “role in setting international technology standards” and ownership of associated intellectual property).

[7] Justus Baron & Kirti Gupta, Unpacking 3GPP Standards, J. Econ. & Mgmt. Strategy (forthcoming 2018)

[8] See generally Third Generation Partnership Project Agreement § 2.1 (2007).

[9] See, e.g., Jorge L. Contreras, Divergent Patterns of Engagement in Internet Standardization: Japan, Korea and China, 38 Telecomm. Pol’y 916, 929 (2014) (describing how Chinese involvement in Internet standardization efforts has “expanded rapidly in recent years”).

[10] Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex IA, Legal Instruments – Results of the Uruguay Round vol. 27, 33 I.L.M. 1144 [hereinafter TBT Agreement].

[11] World Trade Organization, Ministerial Conference, Protocol of the Accession of the People’s Republic of China § 13, WT/L/432 (Nov. 23, 2001).

[12] TBT Agreement, Preamble.

[13] Id. ¶ 2.4.

[14] Office of the United States Trade Representative, 2014 Report On Technical Barriers To Trade 6 [hereinafter 2014 USTR TBT Report]  (asserting that “standards-related measures that are nontransparent, discriminatory, or otherwise unwarranted can act as significant barriers to U.S. trade”).

[15] Id. at 36.

[16] See, e.g., Office of the United States Trade Representative, 2018 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers 97 (2018) (“China has continued to pursue unique national standards in a number of high technology areas where international standards already exist. The United States continues to press China to address specific concerns, but to date this bilateral engagement has yielded minimal progress.”).

[17] The motivation for the WAPI requirement was not completely clear, but it may have been directed either towards China’s own security concerns or towards reducing the costs to Chinese firms for the use of foreign intellectual property. See Brian J. Delacey et. al., Government Intervention in Standardization: The Case of WAPI, 10-11 (2006), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=930930.

[18] Id. at 11-12

[19] Letter from Paul Nikolich, Chairman, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)  802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee to Li Zhonghai, Chairman, Standardization Administration of China (SAC), and Wang Xudong, Minister, Ministry of Information Industry (Nov. 23, 2003).

[20] Letter from Robert B. Zoellick, United States Trade Representative, Donald I. Evans, Secretary of Commerce and Colin L. Powell, Secretary of State to Zeng Peiyan, Vice Premier of the People’s Republic of China (Mar. 15, 2004).

[21] Id.

[22] Id.

[23] China has in the past promoted alternative standards when it believed that the international standards process was biased against Chinese interests. See, e.g., Michael Murphree & Dan Breznitz, Standards, Patents and National Competitiveness 7 (2016) (describing how China promoted an alternative video standard in order to increase its bargaining power in negotiating royalty rates).

[24] Justus Baron & Kirti Gupta, Unpacking 3GPP Standards, J. Econ. & Mgmt. Strategy (forthcoming 2018)

[25] Kirti Gupta, The role of SMEs and Startups in Standards Development (manuscript at 1) (2017), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3001513

[26] Baron & Gupta, supra note 7, §4.2.

[27] Third Generation Partnership Project, 3GPP Working Procedures, § 29 (2016).

[28] See, e.g., TruePosition Inc. v. LM Ericsson Telephone Co., 2012 WL 3584626, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 2012) (refusing to dismiss claims that defendants “collaboratively manipulated 3GPP’s processes and procedures to gain unfair advantages for their” own technology).

[29] See, Kieren McCarthy, ISO blocks NSA’s latest IoT encryption systems amid murky tales of backdoors and bullying, The Register (Apr. 25, 2018), https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/04/25/nsa_iot_encryption/; Brandon Vigliarolo, TLS 1.3 is approved: Here’s how it could make the entire internet safer, TechRepublic (Mar. 26 2018), https://www.techrepublic.com/article/tls-1-3-is-approved-heres-how-it-could-make-the-entire-internet-safer/.

[30] National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, 15 U.S.C. § 272 (b) – (e) (2018).

[31] Office of Mgmt. and Budget, Exec. Office of the President, OMB Circular A- 119, Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities 4, 9, 31 (2016), https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/revised_circular_a-119_as_of_01-22-2016.pdf.

[32] Id. at 16.

[33] Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade, Second Triennial Review of the Operation and Implementation of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, G/TBT/9 (Nov. 13, 2000).

[34] See Am. Nat’l Standards Inst., U.S. Standards Strategy 13 (2015) (asserting that the United States should work with other WTO members in support of the TBT Agreement and associated committee decisions).

[35] See generally United States Trade Representative, 2014 Report On Technical Barriers To Trade 20 (2014) (describing free trade agreements that “expand upon transparency obligations provided for in the TBT Agreement”).

[36] See United States Trade Representative, 2017 USTR Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance 61-62 (“The United States urged China to take a market-based and technology neutral approach to the development of next generation wireless standards . . . .”) [hereinafter 2017 USTR China WTO Report].

[37] See United States Trade Representative, 2006 USTR Report to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance 47 (protesting China’s making available of the WAPI algorithm to only 11 Chinese companies); see also Delacey, supra note 17, at 11.

[38] Stewart A. Baker, Deposing Tim Cook, Lawfare (Feb. 27, 2016), https://www.lawfareblog.com/deposing-tim-cook.

[39] See Stacy Baird, Government at the Standards Bazaar, 18 Stan. L. & Pol’y Rev. 35, 61 (2007) (“An action by the U.S. government … to intervene in the market to mandate a standard would be perceived by foreign governments as, at a minimum, hypocritical to U.S. foreign policy, and more likely, support for similar behavior by the foreign government.”).

[40] See, e.g., Mark A. Lemley & Carl Shapiro, A Simple Approach to Setting Reasonable Royalties for Standard-Essential Patents, 28 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 1135, 1137 (2013) (stating that policies of standards organizations aim to assure “companies implementing the standard that they will not be blocked from bringing their products to market or held up so long as they are willing to pay reasonable royalties”).

[41] See, e.g., Elyse Dorsey & Matthew R. McGuire, How the Google Consent Order Alters the Process and Outcomes of FRAND Bargaining, 20 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 979, 979 (2013) (describing FRAND policies in standards organizations and corresponding policies of the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission).

[42] See Delacey, supra note 17, at 7 (describing how the wireless security standards process “became a battleground for commercial groups vying to place their IP” in the standard).

[43] See Joseph Farrel, et. al., Standard Setting, Patents, And Hold-Up, 74 Antitrust L.J. 603, 624-630 (2007). The Chinese standards association participating in the development of 5G standards imposes disclosure obligations broadly similar to the requirements of other standards organizations. See China Communications Standards Association, Intellectual Property Rights Policy, § 3 [hereinafter CCSA IPR Policy].

[44] Farrel, supra note 43, at 609; see also CCSA IPR Policy, supra note 43, at § 4.

[45] See generally Norman V. Siebrasse & Thomas F. Cotter, Judicially Determined FRAND Royalties, in The Cambridge Handbook Of Technical Standardization Law 365 (Jorge L. Contreras ed. 2017).

[46] See generally Dorsey & McGuire, supra note 42.

[47] See eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (“[A]n injunction, and the potentially serious sanctions arising from its violation, can be employed as a bargaining tool to charge exorbitant fees to … practice the patent”).

[48] Apple Inc. v. Motorola Inc., 757 F.3d 1286, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See also Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Case No. 3:16-cv-02787-WHO, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63052, at *31 (N.D. Cal. April 13, 2018) (stating that the “bulk of precedent” supports the position that enforcing the injunction of a Chinese court on SEPs “would frustrate specific domestic policies against [such] injunctive relief”).

[49] Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc., 773 F.3d 1201, 1209 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (stating that “SEPs pose two potential problems that could inhibit widespread adoption of the standard … Patent hold-up exists when the holder of a SEP demands excessive royalties after companies are locked into using a standard.”); In re Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC, MDL Docket No. 2303, Case No. 11 C 9308, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144061, at *61 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 27, 2013) (stating that “one of the primary purposes of the RAND commitment is to avoid patent hold-up”).

[50] See TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings, Ltd. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, CASE NO: SACV 14-341 JVS(DFMx), CASE NO: CV 15-2370 JVS(DFMx),2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214003, at *46 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017) (limiting Ericsson FRAND royalties to a share of a total aggregate rate); In re Innovatio, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144061, at *169 (taking a “top-down” approach to determining FRAND royalties).

[51] Siebrasse & Cotter, supra note 45, at 366 (stating that “overall” the principles emphasized by the courts have reduced “concerns over the potential for SEPs to induce holdup and royalty stacking”). Civil suits and regulatory investigations in foreign jurisdictions (including China) have imposed broadly similar, if not more restrictive, limitations on FRAND-committed patentees. See generally The Cambridge Handbook of Technical Standardization Law (Jorge L. Contreras, ed. 2017).

[52] No doubt, China’s increased holdings of standard essential patents will have economic effects, notwithstanding any accompanying FRAND obligations. See Andrew Polk, China is Quietly Setting Global Standards, Bloomberg, May 7, 2018. A full discussion of the distinction between economic competition and national security threats is beyond the scope of this essay. See, e.g., Raj Bhala, National Security and International Trade Law: What the GATT Says, and What the United States Does, 19 U. Pa. J. Int’l Econ. L. 263, 273 (1998).

[53] See, e.g., Jorge L. Contreras, Much Ado About Hold-Up, U. Illinois L. Rev., (forthcoming 2018) (asserting that the “debate surrounding patent hold-up in markets for standardized products is now well into its second decade with no end in sight”).

[54] Delacey, supra note 17, at 2.

[55] See also 2017 USTR China WTO Report, supra note 36, at 9 (alleging that Chinese officials “require or pressure the transfer of technologies and intellectual property to Chinese companies, depriving U.S. companies of the ability to set market-based terms in licensing negotiations”).

[56] See e.g.,  Laura DeNardis & William J. Drake, Protocol Politics: The  Globalization of Internet Governance 71 (2009) (“decisions about encryption protocols must strike a balance between providing individual privacy online and responding to law enforcement and national security needs”).

[57] See Am. Soc’y of Mech. Eng’rs v. Hydrolevel Corp., 456 U.S. 556 (1982) (standards association held liable under antitrust law when the employee of a member firm unlawfully manipulated its procedures); Rambus, Inc. v. Infineon Techs. AG, 330 F. Supp. 2d 679, 696–97 (stating that “by hijacking or capturing an SSO, a single industry player can magnify its power and effectuate anticompetitive effects on the market in question”).

[58] See Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. Indian Head, Inc., 486 U.S. 492 (1988)  (in a standards organization, steel producer violated the antitrust laws together with other manufacturers, sales agents and members of the steel industry).

Share