Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

China Files Case Against Intel's Wireless Network 274

Posted by Hemos
from the going-thru-the-money dept.
Krishna Dagli writes "China has launched a case against American chipmaker Intel's near-monopoly on encryption standards for wireless local area network (WLAN) equipment, state press reported Monday."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

China Files Case Against Intel's Wireless Network

Comments Filter:
  • Can we? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) * <whineymacfanboy@gmail.com> on Monday May 29, 2006 @01:18PM (#15425087) Homepage Journal
    Can we all just ignore this story until xinhua / china decide to release some information on what (specifically), the IEEE is supposed to have done?

    -1 Lack of detail.
    • Re:Can we? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by PRC Banker (970188) on Monday May 29, 2006 @01:27PM (#15425125)
      FTFA: It is about abuse of a monopoly. Could have a lot of beef, or could not, but to answer your question:

      China has accused the makers of the technology developed by the chipmaking giant Intel of unethical behaviour and has asked the International Standards Organization (ISO) to review the case, Xinhua news reported.

      It says that the American Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), actual makers of the technology, broke ISO rules when its national bodies voted on new technology to mend security loopholes in the WLAN standard.

      China now wants the ISO to investigate the fast-track process to determine "whether the ethical and procedural rules and principles have indeed been violated and whether the ballots have been unfairly influenced by those ethical and procedural violations".

      That is what has been done, it chose new technology and in doing so apparently broke rules on voting for procedures.
    • The important part is what they want reconsidered:
      China in 2003 tried to force multinationals wanting to sell wireless computer equipment to support its proprietary and secret encryption
      What they say Intel did is irrelevant to them and us.
      • What they say Intel did is irrelevant to them and us.

        Yes, yes, China's motives are quite obvious.

        But what they say intel did has some merit don't you think? After all, if Intel did something against ISOs rules, then we may be looking at WAPI as the new standard.
        • But what they say intel did has some merit don't you think? After all, if Intel did something against ISOs rules, then we may be looking at WAPI as the new standard.

          Even if WAPI (the Chinese government backed organization) is correct in its accusations, it doesn't mean that WAPI should be adopted as a standard. Presumably, the voting process would be repeated, assuming of course that the Chinese go through with that.

        • Merit I don't know. Afaict we don't know what they say Intel did, but it's going to amount to backroom negotiations waawaawaa. Cases like that are political, not technical. Any public discussion of the merits will be lies staged by at least one side, worthless to anyone who wants to know what's actually going on, and the Chinese were going to find something. That's why I said "irrelevant".
          • God. I just read the People's Daily article [people.com.cn] someone else here linked. Intel's crimes

            included organizing a conspiracy against the China-developed WAPI, insulting China and other national bodies, and intimidation and threats.

            "Insulting". You have to read the article to really get a sense of it. I don't know how much of it's a show and how much of it is really that they ... feel they've lost face. Ok. It's real. Face matters in Chinese culture, a lot, and this is a combination of homegrown startup t

            • included organizing a conspiracy against the China-developed WAPI, insulting China and other national bodies, and intimidation and threats.

              Well, why it isn't insane ravings about how they got screwed, in diplomatic speek, it is quite hard. It maybe that who ever filed the suite or released details did so as if they were opening diplomatic dialogs. Could it be that Intel is so big they are treated as diplomats in china?

              I agree with all that you are saying. I just wanted to add that maybe the problems were

            • Face matters in Chinese culture, a lot,

              Nah you're thinking about Japan. Face doesn't matter a damn to the Chinese, they left that behind along with the bowing after the "popular revolution", too like the older imperialistic ways (I know whereof I speak, I learned most of my Mandarin in China). Whats happening here is that China has been believing its own propaganda too much, and honestly believed the rest of the world would bend over because of the innate superiority of their offering and the fact that

              • by 808140 (808140) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @12:21AM (#15426830)
                You know whereof you speak? I call bullshit. I've lived in China for almost half a decade now, I speak Mandarin at a nearly native level, and I can tell you that face means a great deal to the Chinese. You are guilty of the very mistake you accuse the OP of making: conflating Japanese and Chinese culture. The Japanese and the Chinese both have very strong notions of face, but as with so many other things that seem at first glance to be shared by these two wildly different cultures, they are not the same.

                To say that you learned "most of your Mandarin in China" to me seems like a clever way of making the Slashdot masses consider you an authority. Clever because it deliberately omits how much Mandarin you know -- and without knowing anything at all about you I would bet a great deal that it's nearly zilch. Why? Because in order to learn to speak a language well, you must do more than take classes and read books -- you must interact on a personal level with speakers of that language. For someone who presumably does not have native prowess in a language closely related to Mandarin, the language is relatively difficult to learn, which would imply that, if you spoke the language well, you must have spent a lot of time interacting with Chinese people. As someone who has been doing this for quite some time now, I think I can state with reasonable certitude that no one open-minded enough to undertake this would come away from the experience with as narrow-minded and unnuanced an understanding as you appear to have.

                Mandarin has so many face-related terms and sayings it is absolutely staggering. I can't speak with any authority on the Japanese interpretation, but I did study the Japanese language for five years while in school and I wasn't exposed to anywhere near the same lexical diversity. But I'll freely admit that I never spoke Japanese well, whereas I speak Mandarin very well.

                Another poster said that the Chinese "treat each other like shit", or somesuch, but to me this is a classic example of a westerner using western metrics of politeness and propriety to judge the actions of people with a fundamentally different cultural background. Something similar occurs with the Japanese. There is a fascination with all things Japanese in the geek community -- I'll admit I don't understand it well myself -- but I'm frequently told by all sorts of people that the Japanese are exceptionally polite and well mannered. This is a tremendously two dimensional way of looking at an entire population of people.

                Let's make one thing clear here: the percentage of assholes in any particular group is relatively constant. What makes a person an asshole is their intent -- their knowing willingness to insult, degrade, or upset others. A westerner not familiar with Chinese social norms observes inter-Chinese interaction and is surprised by their apparent penchant to treat each other like dirt. What he does not understand is that many things not acceptable in western culture (and even here I am generalizing, as neither Chinese nor Western culture as such are homogenous at all) are acceptable in Chinese culture, and vice-versa. In China, a Chinese person says something to someone else and thinks nothing of it -- he does not consider it rude and did not have any malicious intent whatsoever, and in turn the person who hears it thinks little of it. The same situation, but in the West: exactly the same words are exchanged, but the listener becomes tremendously upset, because in the context of western culture, saying such a thing is a violation of accepted social norms and as such only someone with malicious intent would say them. Conversely, the Chinese often say that westerners don't need much face, by which they mean that they are not hao mianzi, that we put up with all sorts of insulting situations that no Chinese person would ever put up with. I've been involved in street fights on several occasions because of face.

                To get back to the Japanese, Westerners
                • by Darkman, Walkin Dude (707389) on Tuesday May 30, 2006 @05:43AM (#15427254) Homepage

                  I call bullshit. I've lived in China for almost half a decade now, I speak Mandarin at a nearly native level, and I can tell you that face means a great deal to the Chinese. You are guilty of the very mistake you accuse the OP of making: conflating Japanese and Chinese culture.

                  Well I honestly don't know where you've been hiding for the last five years, so I can't call anything, but thats because I prefer to stick to the facts I know. Face means as muich to the Chinese as it does to a westerner, in that no one likes to be made to look a fool. The OP was referring to the convoluted and elaborate rules of "face" present in Japanese culture, of which you appear to be totally unaware. If you had been aware, you wouldn't have made that comparison.

                  and without knowing anything at all about you I would bet a great deal that it's nearly zilch.

                  I'm not going to get in a pissing match about levels of Mandarin, you seem to be more full of urine than me; you appear to be attacking me for a full paragraph there without any basis whatsoever, except that your opinions conflict with my observations. Thats called an ad-hominem. And for the record, I speak over eight languages with a varying degree of fluency, including some I can almost guarantee you have never heard of.

                  Mandarin has so many face-related terms and sayings it is absolutely staggering.

                  So has English. Egg on his face, brass balls, guts, gung ho, I could give you a few hundred. Your point?

                  the Chinese "treat each other like shit", or somesuch, but to me this is a classic example of a westerner using western metrics of politeness and propriety to judge the actions of people with a fundamentally different cultural background.

                  Treated like shit is treated like shit. Just because you were raised up in a community of slave owners doesn't make it right.

                  There is a fascination with all things Japanese in the geek community -- I'll admit I don't understand it well myself ... but I'm frequently told by all sorts of people that the Japanese are exceptionally polite and well mannered.

                  Hot chicks and cosplay. Yes its a simplistic way of looking at a culture. It is not the entirety of their views however and you would do well to educate yourself as to what those views are before you go making accusations. Thats what I would call a tremendously two dimensional way of looking at "the geek community".

                  the percentage of assholes in any particular group is relatively constant. What makes a person an asshole is their intent -- their knowing willingness to insult, degrade, or upset others.

                  Not only is that not true, it occurs to me that people tend to be assholes based on how they view you. So your metrics here are off from the start. But carry on.

                  The same situation, but in the West: exactly the same words are exchanged, but the listener becomes tremendously upset, because in the context of western culture, saying such a thing is a violation of accepted social norms and as such only someone with malicious intent would say them.

                  Bollocks. Here in Ireland, you want to hear some of the locals, they would make a sailor blush. Thats also part of western culture, because you see the west consists of more than just America... Are we back to those two dimensional views?

                  demonstrating, I hope, that it is not that the Japanese are polite per se but rather that Westerners observing them lack the necessary knowledge to accurately describe them as such.

                  Why are we running down the Japanese now? Why are they even in this discussion? And the chinese have just as much of the same problem, during saint patricks day they have a great laugh at all the Irish running around wearing green hats. If you have lived in China, you'll know what that means. Not that anyone gives a rats ass over here.

                  Believe me when I say that the concept of face is important to the Chine

  • china? whaa? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by rootofevil (188401)
    since when does china care about patent law?

    also, how is it intels fault theyve put a ton of money into researching it? (that may be slightly ignorant of the actual facts, but if they wrote the standards, it stands to reason they created it)
    • Re:china? whaa? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) * <whineymacfanboy@gmail.com> on Monday May 29, 2006 @01:25PM (#15425113) Homepage Journal
      since when does china care about patent law?

      Nothing to do with patent law.

      Short version. IEEE submitted 80211i, China submitted WAPI to ISO to be international wireless encryption standards. IEEE won, WAPI lost. China is complaining that IEEE did something bad during the lead up to the voting process. No news sources are reporting what that something was as far as I can see.

      So we have nebulous claims of interference in the ISO process. No more, no less.

      (I'm not sure whether I dislike/distrust Intel or China more)
      • Re:china? whaa? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by JulesLt (909417) on Monday May 29, 2006 @02:33PM (#15425367)
        Intel hasn't (to my knowledge) killed anyone protesting against it, in full view of the world's cameras, just because it can.
        • Intel hasn't (to my knowledge) killed anyone protesting against it, in full view of the world's cameras, just because it can.

          Good point.

          You're quite right that China has behaved far more atrociously than intel.
          • Despite the demonization of corporations (particularly multinationals), few of them (maybe Union Carbide as an example) can approach the atrocity level of even the "nicest" nation...
      • Is an ISO certified tech actualy pattenable? I mean if itis the standard, Can they collect royalties? It would seem that it some things were industry standards, the concept outside and indevidual implementation should be open.

        I've often wondered about this. IEEE and I think ISO are two different groups. Even if it isn't, The types of software pattents we are seeing could includ the entire standard. I'm not sure if that is right (moraly or legaly).
        • ISO and IEEE require RAND (reasonable and non discriminatory) licensing for patented tech in their standards. MPEG, JPEG, and other common media formats are full of patented tech but they are also ISO standards that simply require standardized licensing fees to implement commercially.
    • Just like every other country, they only worry about it when they think their IP has been violated....
    • Just like any other average /. poster, the moment you see something on China and IP, China is always the pirater. Despite the facts (that you don't know about) that Chinese laws DOES protect patent filed in China, this story has nothing to do with patent violation.

      China simply doesn't want foreign companies to hold the dominant IP on one of the network infrastructure protocols, as doing so would mean that billions of Chinese customers would have to pay a foreign orgazination (IEEE and Intel) a royalty fee o
    • Maybe they DON'T for the most part (until it starts to HURT them....), but maybe this is tit-for-tat as regards the recent lame-assed US assault on Lenovo.

      The US arms of government and maybe even a few tech companies worried about losing business to Lenovo. When it was IBM they competed with, it would have probably been unpatriotic to bash IBM. It CERtainly would have been economical suicide, for IBM could have brough all resources to bear against such companies.

      But, with it being Lenovo, and with all the
    • Re:china? whaa? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Gadzinka (256729)
      Others have already pointed out that this case has nothing to do with patents, but I'll answer this question anyway:

      since when does china care about patent law?

      Since about the same time as US.

      As long as the international balance on Copyrights, Patents etc disfavoured US, it had blissfully ignored them. But as soon as it looked that the trend is reversing usians started to cry foul and became the biggest proponent of the Intelectual Property in the world.

      We have this stupid saying in Poland: "Kali steal cow,
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29, 2006 @01:19PM (#15425092)
    *China* is accusing Intel of unethical behavior?!

    Hah!

    • I find it especially amusing because China is communist. That is, in theory they are supposed to have a total monopoly on EVERYTHING.
    • Oh get over yourself! No one is perfect! The USA has been condemned by NGOs for as long as they exist on their lack of respect for human rights too. Ask a Chinese man what country is doing horrible as far as human rights is concerned and he might point you to the USA. That being said we can all improve and if these lawsuits bring to light what needs to be fixed then it can only be good for us in the long run!
      • Ask a Chinese man what country is doing horrible as far as human rights is concerned and he might point you to the USA.

        A chinese man has no relevance in the rest of the world, for a Chinese man only hears what his governement tells him. For reference see:
        • Tianenman Square
        • Tibet
        • Taiwan

        Furthermore, in China, you simply do not speak out against the state for fear of retribution, as in most communist states.

        In America, you are free to voice your opinion - you don't (us

    • Chinese Hypocrisy (Score:5, Interesting)

      by reporter (666905) on Monday May 29, 2006 @02:18PM (#15425325) Homepage
      This legal action that Beijing has taken against Intel is not the first instance of Chinese hypocrisy.

      Consider the princelings of China [businessweek.com]. They and their parents are members of the Chinese communist party. These princelings live, for long stretches, in the West and enjoy its freedoms and prosperity. Yet, the parents of the princelings fully support and enforce the draconian Chinese "laws" that crush human rights in China.

      I have personally met some of these princelings.

      Do they realize their hypocrisy? Yes. Do they care? No.

      Here is another, more damning, example. In 2001 in Northern California, the Chinese consulate in San Francisco sponsored an anti-Falun-Gong meeting conducted in Santa Clara, California. Chinese students from San Jose State University, Stanford University, and other neighboring universities, attended the meeting. The Chinese student associations at the respective universities fully supported the anti-Falun-Gong meeting.

      These Chinese students enjoy the freedom and prosperity in the West but, actually, support the draconian Chinese "laws" that crush human rights in China.

      Do they realize their hypocrisy? Yes. Do they care? No.

      By now, you should realize that the authoritarian government in China exists for one reason: the majority of Chinese either support the authoritarian government or are indifferent to it.

      • The so-called 'hypocrisy' is no different than any other country - all play their own game. Tell me about NAFTA, that it's a free-trade agreement. Yet it's free for the US not for Canada or Mexico. Yap about 'free-market' economy vs 'communist planned' economy. For a moment do you think the US government do not speak on behalf of the big corporations? In most cases they really don't have to because the big corp got enough dough to fight it out themselves. If the problem becomes too big for a corp or i
        • Tell me about NAFTA, that it's a free-trade agreement. Yet it's free for the US not for Canada or Mexico.

          Come now, NAFTA is just as advantageous for large Mexican and Canadian firms as it is for large US firms.

          That is, after all, what it's attempting to be: A benefit for the largest of corporations in North America, at the expense of the US and Canadian working class.

          See, given the wage equalizing effect it has (bringing US, Canadian, and Mexican wages for various types of work toward an average between t
          • Re:NAFTA? (Score:3, Informative)

            by dryeo (100693)
            While everything you say is true, NAFTA has still been more advantageous for America. Just look at the softwood lumber dispute (http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/HET/Softwood/). Basiclly America stole $5billion through illegal tarifs on lumber and even with losing court case after court case refused to be honourable. They have finally decide to give back a couple of billion but it still leaves a bad taste about America and how they honour treaties.
            Also there are very few large Canadian firms anymore as they all have
    • Thats like if the US accused anyone of torture or killing civilians! Ohh the horror!
  • by garoush (111257) on Monday May 29, 2006 @01:24PM (#15425110) Homepage
    ... the world has lunched a case against China's near-monopoly on copyright abuse, human rights, cheap label, ...
  • by Lord Kano (13027) on Monday May 29, 2006 @01:24PM (#15425111) Homepage Journal
    Evil against Evil. Although I'd argue that since Intel doesn't sell the organs of executed political prisoners, [bbc.co.uk] they are the lesser evil.

    So, I guess that makes Intel the Jason in this conflict.

    LK
    • So, I guess that makes Intel the Jason in this conflict.

      What are trying to say that "Intel is a mindless zombie". Well, that does explain the pentium 4 processor and integrated video.

  • Open standards (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Nerdfest (867930)
    ... and in 2003 tried to force multinationals wanting to sell wireless computer equipment to support its proprietary and secret encryption standard called WAPI.

    Exactly how is it better to replace one proprietary standard with another. If they were serious about this, perhaps proposing an open standard would be a bit more constructive.
    • Re:Open standards (Score:5, Insightful)

      by stevew (4845) on Monday May 29, 2006 @01:37PM (#15425168) Journal
      The thing is - the WAPI standard was a "secret" while the IEEE standard simply isn't. Intel and other multinationals would have to yield their intellectual property to chineese companies to support the WAPI standard. THAT is what the
      companies gripped about.

      As for the IEEE - it ISN'T just an American body. The truth is that it has an American aspect (that is certainly large and powerful), but IEEE is an INTERNATIONAL organization. How do I know? - I was a member for 15 years. I've even been involved in IEEE standards creation slightly. This is usually done by company representatives. So if Chineese companies were to send representation to IEEE standards efforts, they would have some influence in same.

      You're as likely to Siemens or Alcatel, etc involved in these bodies as you are to see Intel, etc. It is more appropriately a mechanism mostly staffed by professional engineers representing their company's interests that create IEEE standards.

      • "The thing is - the WAPI standard was a "secret" while the IEEE standard simply isn't. Intel and other multinationals would have to yield their intellectual property to chineese companies to support the WAPI standard. THAT is what the companies gripped about."

        Sorry, you sound genuine and knowledgeable but this doesn't parse. China's 'closed' WAPI required disseminating intellectual property, IEEE's 'open' protocol didn't?

  • Here's a more helpful link [people.com.cn], that also a) isn't a verbatim AFP story with irritating advertising "links" and b) doesn't have a current forum thread on "The future and the ways of the "Jew"" (which is even more moronic than it sounds -- how dimwitted do you have to be to spell "rich" with a "t"?).
  • Our elected leaders in DC will not know what to do about this as it presents a major problem for them. That is who do they support?

      Big Business or China?

      Since most of them in DC (GOPer & DEMs) are in love with both whose side do they support?

  • by crazyjeremy (857410) * on Monday May 29, 2006 @01:29PM (#15425133) Homepage Journal
    There is to be a 90 minute DVD about this issue. It will be released in the U.S. in July for $14.99 or get it now, burned to a cd... from a Chinese convenience shop near you.
  • China could have many legit beefs and concerns with regards to western companies (eg. the near-monopoly of Windows on the desktop), so why are they complaining about an IEEE standard supported and implemented by many vendors?

    I'm guessing that some person who's company developed the Chinese alternative has an uncle on the Politburo.

    If this is the case, it's a shame - there is so much that our governments could do for us if they weren't so corrupt. If this is not the case, then I hope someone will explain wh
  • Grow up. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lally Singh (3427) on Monday May 29, 2006 @01:50PM (#15425224) Journal
    Note to slashdot repliers: Enough with the ad hominem attacks. If you don't like what China's doing, talk about what they're doing, not what you like/dislike about China.

    We've all got our personal opinions on politics and the politics of technology, but if our words are to mean anything, we've got to appeal to higher standards.
    • It's okay, most people in America don't even know why they hate China. Aside from being an authoritarian government, China hasn't done much worse than the United States has in terms of attacking non-threatening countries, violating human rights, unfair trade policies, etc... People are just eating up the media's need to find a villian in this world. These days, China can't do anything right.

      There seems to be some anti-communist, racist, and/or anti-foreign element to this, similar to the anti-French sent
    • Well done for saying that - it's good someone did.

      But it won't make any difference - we'll get the same sort of drivel next time a story on China, or India, or Europe, or Australia comes around :-/
    • by amightywind (691887) on Monday May 29, 2006 @05:12PM (#15425846) Journal

      Note to slashdot repliers: Enough with the ad hominem attacks. If you don't like what China's doing, talk about what they're doing, not what you like/dislike about China.

      Because you reply to no post in particular, and because there is variation of opinion on this topic one could argue that your predictable appeal is ad hominem as well. Strong well supported opinions should be welcome on this forum. "Can we call get along" pablum such as yours just takes up space.

      I personally find China's accusation of collusion to be laughable. China cannot easily establish technical standards because (deservedly) no one trusts them.

    • Honestly I'm really sick and tired of reading people slamming China in every possible opportunity in /. Are these posts really /. worthy or is it just yet another weekly-China-beating activity that has to happen on /. or are these just filler posts that has to happen on a slow news day? Editors/cowboys and such, please think again before allowing these kind of posts.
  • by ibm1130 (123012)
    Of course they're upset since it means they can't foist their backdoors on anyone without an immense amount of difficulty. Would you trust Beijing gummint encryption?
    • by HermanAB (661181)
      Well, yeah, I actually do trust Bejing more than a whole zoo of other countries. China does have a shaky history regarding personal freedoms, but life in most of China is orders of magnitude better than in most of Africa and many other parts of Asia. Also bear in mind that China has *never* attacked Western Europe or America. Militarily and economically, China is an allied force and a friend of America and Europe. That is the reality of the matter. Of course there are things they can improve, but they
    • After thinking about it for a second, it's in the Chinese governement's best interest to know who's using the Internet. If you connect to a secure wireless network, you need to have a key, so someone has to know who you are. You can't arrest dissidents if any idiot with a wireless card can connect to the Internet anonymously.

      I'm not saying I agree with how they could use it, but it is in their best interest to have secure wireless.

      I dislike the idea of backdoors in general, but in this situation, i

    • A less relevant question - if, say, Singapore is submitting an encryption standard, would you trust it?
  • by CodeBuster (516420) on Monday May 29, 2006 @02:24PM (#15425344)
    The US Government should tell the Chinese that we will start giving a damn about whether an Intel monopoly hurts their homegrown wireless industry when they start giving a damn about all the software piracy and intellectual property theft going on in their country.
    • The US Government should tell the Chinese that we will start giving a damn about whether an Intel monopoly hurts their homegrown wireless industry when they start giving a damn about all the software piracy and intellectual property theft going on in their country.

      And this is marked Flamebait why? Ah! Because it uses the word "piracy," which touched too close to home for many of the mods here. Not minding ripping off entertainment makes for strange bedfellows, doesn't it?
      • Or maybe because it uses the phrase "intellectual property theft", which has no legal meaning and serves no purpose other than to inflame people. If you want to talk about copyright infringement, but accurate phrases like "copyright infringement" or "illegal copying" don't get the emotional response you're looking for, so you switch to loaded and inaccurate phrases instead, you should expect to get modded down.
  • by penguin-collective (932038) on Monday May 29, 2006 @03:02PM (#15425464)
    It doesn't really matter what wireless encryption standards one uses, you can't trust them anyway. First of all, the companies involved have already demonstrated their incompetence with WEP. Second, I think at this point you have to assume that any encryption that's encoded in a chip has a backdoor in it and that a significant number of people will know about it.

    If you want secure wireless communications, you have to use software encryption implemented in open source software.
  • by icepick72 (834363) on Monday May 29, 2006 @03:25PM (#15425535)
    China now wants the ISO to investigate the fast-track process to determine "whether the ethical and procedural rules and principles have indeed been violated

    Legalize and the right to a democratic networking standard .... China is indeed becoming more westernized all the time ... hahahaha ... I love it.

  • by MosesJones (55544) on Monday May 29, 2006 @03:30PM (#15425542) Homepage
    As they appear to be suggesting that the IEEE "leant" on ISO to stop the Chinese Wifi standard becoming accepted. Because a large part of this was from Intel, and lets face it suing the IEEE is going to look REAL dumb, they've decided to go after the big bad wolf.

    I love the idea of clandestine meetings around ISO and IEEE meetings, more people would go if that was true!
  • It's International Organization for Standardization, despite what the article says.
  • They just want leverage against Intel in order to get a better licensing agreement. Or possibly they want some sort of backdoor for snooping encrypted traffic. Believe me, the Chinese gov't is not interested in the fairness or unfairness of monopoly.
  • The Xinhua report is particularly odd because it says China "launched a case," which implies legal action, possibly in an international venue. But if you read on, they filed two appeals alleging ethical violations. These violations, according to reports over the last few months, include people suggesting that unless China publishes their entire specification for WAPI, that there might be elements in the standard that enable backdoors, etc. China doesn't want to publish but they want to be a standard. That's

I wish you humans would leave me alone.

Working...