Millet is banned: Isn't everyone stealing?
Millet suffered a temporary injunction in the court in India, and was ordered to stop selling Xiaomi mobile phones because of patent litigation issues. Ericsson accused Xiaomi of using the company's patent rights but refused to pay royalties. For millets that have grown too fast, such as Shantouqing has rashly started to internationalize. This is inevitably happening.
After being rampant in manufacturing, China will face industrial upgrading, and high-tech products will gradually move toward the world. However, Chinese companies that do not possess much patented technology will encounter a lot of problems when they go out of the country. Xiaomi sees the embarrassing scenes in India and is considered to be different. The company has a living lesson.
There are so many mobile phone manufacturers in China, especially after the rise of the concept of Internet mobile phones. There are many large and small manufacturers. In the Shenzhen cottage industry, a mobile phone that sells 100,000 units will be able to break even. Chinese mobile phones are indeed cheap. In addition to the low cost of labor and materials, there is basically no payment in terms of intellectual property rights. The principle of adopting doctrines is an indisputable fact. If you consider the issue of patents before making a cell phone, then this cell phone can't do it, there will not be so many mobile phone manufacturers, and China's smart device manufacturing industry will not develop so fast.
Not only are small vendors doing this, but also Huawei and Lenovo are the same. This is a common phenomenon. Xiaomi is just following the industry practice. In this state of affairs, it is hard to say that Xiaomi is stealing. If you steal anything, everyone steals it. There are no innocent manufacturers. But if this is something that everyone is doing, is it still stealing? It may also be possible to give individual names, for example, to break the monopoly of western technology. This is like India's production of counterfeit medicines for treating cancer and AIDS. Pfizer's large pharmaceutical companies have spent huge sums of money on the development of new drugs. They have been taken by India for imitation and sold for one-tenth of the price to cure the disease. From the results, they have positive results. The composition is not banned by the state, and there is no way for western pharmaceutical companies to do so.
There are about 200,000 patents in a cell phone, most of which belong to Western companies, and these patents have a separate use right in each country. Each of these companies needs to sign cross-licensing agreements, purchase patents or pay one by one. Patent fees. One of the main goals of Lenovo’s acquisition of Motorola’s mobile is to obtain a large number of patents from Moto, as well as patent licenses from Google. Yang Yuanqing once said that if Lenovo's mobile phone wants to go abroad, it will have to prepare a 25-point cost to pay for the patent fee if it does not have the patent authorization that moto brings. Some patent holders come to the door, and some third-party companies look for it.
Lenovo solved the patent issue through the acquisition of moto, but some companies did not have the opportunity to enter the international market only to pay, such as ZTE. For the past four years, ZTE has paid US$17.4 billion for technology and products to U.S. companies. This has made ZTE Mobile a breeze in entering the U.S. market. ZTE is currently the fourth largest supplier of smart phones in the United States, ranking behind Apple, Samsung and LG. The market share is 6.3%. It is strange that Huawei and Lenovo failed to achieve such a result, perhaps because the patented road money was not spent.
When the use of other people’s patents in a market becomes a common phenomenon, this is the status quo. This phenomenon should be viewed in another light. Developing countries have weaker protection of intellectual property rights, and China’s positioning in the international system is still a developing country. There are always some member states of the WTO that want to treat China as a developed country, and China’s death and death will not be reconciled. Like a poor county, it is reluctant to take off a hat. No way, the scale of China’s industries is too large. If they are developed into developed countries, they will cause high costs and they will not be able to do so.
Chinese mobile phone maker Jin Li’s mobile phone has swept across countries in Africa and the Middle East. Shenzhen Huaqiang North’s cottages are also exported to overseas, but they are all very backward and underdeveloped regions. These are all fine. Millet's mobile phones will not be a problem if they are exported to Africa and South America, but Miller's mistakes are not clear. Although India is a developing country, the supervision of Chinese companies is based on the standards of the developed countries. The reason is that the world knows that Huawei has seen more of these companies. Xiaomi ran to such a place to go around, really admire its courage. India hasn’t done anything to collect user data. This is a bigger hurdle than patent rights. Millet should not predict it.
Xiaomi entered India in July this year and has so far accounted for 1.5% of the Indian market. The business is doing quite well. However, behind the momentum of the rainbow is also thinking about something else, can not always feel that he can pack the world. In the present state of mindlessness in China, no one dares to oppose Internet thinking. In other countries, such as India, they can't be sure because people have never heard of the term. Even if the business model of cattle, people have the right to give you a closer look at the magnifying glass, picking faults to make you uncomfortable minutes.
Although Hugo Barra said that Xiaomi’s patent application has been applied for a lot and he has obtained a lot of authorizations, Xiaomi’s four-year company is hard to believe that there will be a strong patent reserve. Bloomberg also said that Xiaomi’s success stems from selling products that rival Samsung’s and Apple's high-end mobile phones at about one-third of its price. One-third of the prices, I am afraid that does not include a lot of patent costs. We must know that even if we take out tens of thousands of patents and apply to one country or one country, there will be a huge amount of money. Not to mention spending money to buy someone else's authorization is basically astronomical.
If Xiaomi miscalculated the situation in the Indian market, it was only a matter of tactical misalignment. Xiaomi would be wrong if Xiaomi thought that the right pair had been treated unfairly. Although countries such as India are too harsh on Chinese companies, we must also be clear that it is wrong to use other people's things. It cannot be because this is a common phenomenon in China. We mistakenly believe that we are doing absolutely right and we must understand where the fundamental limits of things are. This is like the fruit on the roadside fruit trees. Passersby will pick up a few to eat and understand the thirst. The owner sees it and does not care. It does not mean that this behavior is completely correct. Once the owner pursues you, you are definitely completely wrong.
The current situation is like the behavior of the owner of the fruit tree who began to trace your food steal. Xiaomi either has to pay or exit the Indian market. Is there a third possibility? From a realistic point of view, this is very difficult.
After being rampant in manufacturing, China will face industrial upgrading, and high-tech products will gradually move toward the world. However, Chinese companies that do not possess much patented technology will encounter a lot of problems when they go out of the country. Xiaomi sees the embarrassing scenes in India and is considered to be different. The company has a living lesson.
There are so many mobile phone manufacturers in China, especially after the rise of the concept of Internet mobile phones. There are many large and small manufacturers. In the Shenzhen cottage industry, a mobile phone that sells 100,000 units will be able to break even. Chinese mobile phones are indeed cheap. In addition to the low cost of labor and materials, there is basically no payment in terms of intellectual property rights. The principle of adopting doctrines is an indisputable fact. If you consider the issue of patents before making a cell phone, then this cell phone can't do it, there will not be so many mobile phone manufacturers, and China's smart device manufacturing industry will not develop so fast.
Not only are small vendors doing this, but also Huawei and Lenovo are the same. This is a common phenomenon. Xiaomi is just following the industry practice. In this state of affairs, it is hard to say that Xiaomi is stealing. If you steal anything, everyone steals it. There are no innocent manufacturers. But if this is something that everyone is doing, is it still stealing? It may also be possible to give individual names, for example, to break the monopoly of western technology. This is like India's production of counterfeit medicines for treating cancer and AIDS. Pfizer's large pharmaceutical companies have spent huge sums of money on the development of new drugs. They have been taken by India for imitation and sold for one-tenth of the price to cure the disease. From the results, they have positive results. The composition is not banned by the state, and there is no way for western pharmaceutical companies to do so.
There are about 200,000 patents in a cell phone, most of which belong to Western companies, and these patents have a separate use right in each country. Each of these companies needs to sign cross-licensing agreements, purchase patents or pay one by one. Patent fees. One of the main goals of Lenovo’s acquisition of Motorola’s mobile is to obtain a large number of patents from Moto, as well as patent licenses from Google. Yang Yuanqing once said that if Lenovo's mobile phone wants to go abroad, it will have to prepare a 25-point cost to pay for the patent fee if it does not have the patent authorization that moto brings. Some patent holders come to the door, and some third-party companies look for it.
Lenovo solved the patent issue through the acquisition of moto, but some companies did not have the opportunity to enter the international market only to pay, such as ZTE. For the past four years, ZTE has paid US$17.4 billion for technology and products to U.S. companies. This has made ZTE Mobile a breeze in entering the U.S. market. ZTE is currently the fourth largest supplier of smart phones in the United States, ranking behind Apple, Samsung and LG. The market share is 6.3%. It is strange that Huawei and Lenovo failed to achieve such a result, perhaps because the patented road money was not spent.
When the use of other people’s patents in a market becomes a common phenomenon, this is the status quo. This phenomenon should be viewed in another light. Developing countries have weaker protection of intellectual property rights, and China’s positioning in the international system is still a developing country. There are always some member states of the WTO that want to treat China as a developed country, and China’s death and death will not be reconciled. Like a poor county, it is reluctant to take off a hat. No way, the scale of China’s industries is too large. If they are developed into developed countries, they will cause high costs and they will not be able to do so.
Chinese mobile phone maker Jin Li’s mobile phone has swept across countries in Africa and the Middle East. Shenzhen Huaqiang North’s cottages are also exported to overseas, but they are all very backward and underdeveloped regions. These are all fine. Millet's mobile phones will not be a problem if they are exported to Africa and South America, but Miller's mistakes are not clear. Although India is a developing country, the supervision of Chinese companies is based on the standards of the developed countries. The reason is that the world knows that Huawei has seen more of these companies. Xiaomi ran to such a place to go around, really admire its courage. India hasn’t done anything to collect user data. This is a bigger hurdle than patent rights. Millet should not predict it.
Xiaomi entered India in July this year and has so far accounted for 1.5% of the Indian market. The business is doing quite well. However, behind the momentum of the rainbow is also thinking about something else, can not always feel that he can pack the world. In the present state of mindlessness in China, no one dares to oppose Internet thinking. In other countries, such as India, they can't be sure because people have never heard of the term. Even if the business model of cattle, people have the right to give you a closer look at the magnifying glass, picking faults to make you uncomfortable minutes.
Although Hugo Barra said that Xiaomi’s patent application has been applied for a lot and he has obtained a lot of authorizations, Xiaomi’s four-year company is hard to believe that there will be a strong patent reserve. Bloomberg also said that Xiaomi’s success stems from selling products that rival Samsung’s and Apple's high-end mobile phones at about one-third of its price. One-third of the prices, I am afraid that does not include a lot of patent costs. We must know that even if we take out tens of thousands of patents and apply to one country or one country, there will be a huge amount of money. Not to mention spending money to buy someone else's authorization is basically astronomical.
If Xiaomi miscalculated the situation in the Indian market, it was only a matter of tactical misalignment. Xiaomi would be wrong if Xiaomi thought that the right pair had been treated unfairly. Although countries such as India are too harsh on Chinese companies, we must also be clear that it is wrong to use other people's things. It cannot be because this is a common phenomenon in China. We mistakenly believe that we are doing absolutely right and we must understand where the fundamental limits of things are. This is like the fruit on the roadside fruit trees. Passersby will pick up a few to eat and understand the thirst. The owner sees it and does not care. It does not mean that this behavior is completely correct. Once the owner pursues you, you are definitely completely wrong.
The current situation is like the behavior of the owner of the fruit tree who began to trace your food steal. Xiaomi either has to pay or exit the Indian market. Is there a third possibility? From a realistic point of view, this is very difficult.
Recommended installation sofa butler Download: http://app.shafa.com/
