Europe decides to punish Broadcom before its investigation is complete

The European Commission is in the process of investigating Broadcom for anticompetitive behaviour, but has imposed sanctions in advance of any conclusion.

Broadcom is considered to be dominant in the market for set-top box chips and some fixed line modems. The EC reckons it’s abusing that dominant position by persuading customers to go all-in on its products, thus unfairly restricting competition. The investigation was opened last June but the EC is so concerned about the effects of these practices that it has ordered Broadcom to stop them immediately.

“We have strong indications that Broadcom, the world’s leading supplier of chipsets used for TV set-top boxes and modems, is engaging in anticompetitive practices,” said EU Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager. “Broadcom’s behaviour is likely, in the absence of intervention, to create serious and irreversible harm to competition. We cannot let this happen, or else European customers and consumers would face higher prices and less choice and innovation. We therefore ordered Broadcom to immediately stop its conduct.”

The key word in that quote is ‘likely’. Vestager seems to be saying that mere suspicion is now reason enough for the EC to act against companies pre-emptively, in anticipation of the outcome of its investigation. What if the investigation concludes in favour of Broadcom? This seems to be a dangerous erosion of due process and an ominous precedent for any company that does business in Europe.

Broadcom now has 30 days to do the following or else:

  • Unilaterally cease to apply the anticompetitive provisions identified by the Commission and to inform its customers that it will no longer apply such provisions; and
  • Refrain from agreeing the same provisions or provisions having an equivalent object or effect in other agreements with these customers, and refrain from implementing punishing or retaliatory practices having an equivalent object or effect.

Those restrictions apply until the EC get around to concluding its investigation or three years, whichever is sooner. It’s common practice for big companies to chuck lawyers at these kinds of investigations in order to drag them out, so you can see where the EC is coming from with this kind of pre-emptive action. But due process exists for a reason and the EC seems to be saying it’s better that a few innocent companies may be hurt than any guilty ones go unpunished.

Apple U-turns again to pull HK map app under pressure from Beijing

Apple has removed the crowd-sourced app HKmap.live, favoured by the protesters in Hong Kong, from its local App Store, after being blasted by China’s state media.

The submission of the mapping app, developed on top of the web version which could enable users to instantly track the police movements, among other things on the roads, was first rejected by Apple, on the ground that “the app allowed users to evade law enforcement.” This caused strong protest from both local users in Hong Kong and politicians in the US so Apple reversed its decision and made the app available. The US Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) told his followers on Twitter that Apple admitted it “mistakenly” failed to go through full review process the first time:

Shortly after the change of mind by Apple, the People’s Daily, one of the Chinese Communist Party’s major propaganda outlets, accused Apple of “helping HK rioters engage in more violence”. Apple quickly undertook a second reversal in days to take down the app. The company said in a statement on the decision that the app “has been used in ways that endanger law enforcement and residents in Hong Kong.” The web version is still available.

This is only one of the latest actions Apple has taken after finding itself caught in a perfect political storm. One day earlier it also removed Quartz, the online news publication, from the China App Store, following complaints from the Chinese government. Apple told Quartz that the app “includes content that is illegal in China”, reported The Verge.

Quartz believed this might refer to its discussion on VPN technologies, the use of which is illegal in China, and its coverage of and links to coverage of the ongoing protest in Hong Kong. Quartz’s website is also blocked by China’s Great Firewall. A week earlier when Apple updated its operating system, iPhone users who set their locale to  Hong Kong and Macau found the Taiwan flag had disappeared from emojis.

This is just one of the highest profile cases of global companies contorting themselves to appease local political interests, with China the centre of attention not the least because of its reputation as one of the most censorious countries, Apple vs. China only epitomises the delicate balance almost all global companies are forced to strike, and not always successfully. Whenever they enter markets that operate very differently to their domestic one, these companies, especially those from North America and Western Europe, have to make a choice between the values of their origin and market pressure.

Increasingly we have seen companies surrender to market pressure, which has led to more either remedial or even pre-emptive self-censorship. Such conflict has a long history in the digital age. Back in 2010, Google pulled out of China when it decided to no longer comply with the latter’s demand for censoring search results. In the same year, India, Indonesia, UAE, Saudi Arabia, among others, demanded access to the encrypted communication carried out by the then king of instant messaging, BlackBerry Messenger, for national security and data localisation purposes. RIM, the then owner of BlackBerry, bowed to the Saudi pressure, and Nokia, who also operated messaging services, decided to set up a local data centre in India.

Recently we have seen Google’s repeated attempts to re-enter China, by offering willingly to censor content to please the Chinese authorities, despite backlashes in its own office. Meanwhile games developer Blizzard had faced a backlash for acting against a Hong Kong protester, as has the US NBA for similar activity.

All Modes Lead to Home: The New Broadband Access Boom

Mobile broadband in the form of 4G and now 5G may have been grabbing the headlines for the past few years, but in the background the fixed line broadband market has been growing steadily, driven by both regulatory imperatives and operator expansion ambitions on the supply side, and the increasing use of bandwidth-hungry applications on the demand side.

Here we are sharing the opening section of this Telecoms.com Intelligence special briefing to look at the status of the broadband market and explores how stakeholders can best capture the opportunities and overcome the challeges.

The full version of the report is available for free to download here

Introduction: The Many Flavours of Broadband

Although demand for ever higher-capacity broadband connections are often associated with entertainment services, for example high-definition video streaming or connected gaming, much of the demand for fixed line broadband connectivity is linked to the pervasiveness of digital lifestyles, as growing numbers of people require reliable Internet connectivity to support an ever broader range of applications — remote working, financial services, medical care services, e-commerce and more – and an increasing number of devices.

Ovum, the research firm, reported that by Q1 2018, 1 billion consumers worldwide had been connected to broadband access networks. The firm forecast that the total number of broadband subscribers would top 1.1 billion by the end of this year. More than 20 million broadband subscribers per quarter have been added during the past two years.

Broadband access is an encompassing concept. Competing technologies have flourished during the past two decades. Some ride on the legacy copper PSTN networks – the various iterations of DSL technology and, most recently, Gfast – while others deliver fast Internet connections via cable networks, especially in North America. Satellite connections have also played a (limited) role.

In recent years, fibre connections running all the way to homes or buildings – collectively, fibre-to-thepremises
(FTTP) — has evolved from a niche, high-end solution to becoming a mass market proposition, though this varies wildly from country to country. This medium promises the fastest broadband access speeds to support the most demanding of applications and, as will be evident at the Broadband World Forum in Amsterdam (October 15-17), it is
still witnessing ongoing technological innovation as various flavours of passive optical networking (PON) technologies, such as XGS-PON and NG-PON2, come to market.

Meanwhile, thanks to the ascendency of 4G cellular technologies — primarily LTE, but also WiMax – and the arrival of 5G, fixed-wireless access (FWA) is also gaining increasing, albeit still limited, traction. This option is usually associated with rural and/or underserved areas but is now becoming a viable option in urban areas where the deployment of fibre is challenging or deemed uneconomic.

In addition to the differences between technologies, what qualifies as ‘broadband’ has also been evolving. In 2010, when Finland became the first country to set out the national policy to define access to broadband Internet as a basic right, the threshold was set at 1 Mbps downlink.

The FCC has been using 25 Mbps/3 Mbps (downlink/uplink) as the benchmark to evaluate how well fixed broadband has been deployed. By way of contrast, the US regulator has adopted 5 Mbps/1 Mbps as the benchmark for mobile (LTE) data service coverage.

At the beginning of September 2019, the Norwegian government started the consultation process to make broadband access a statuary obligation by the operators, becoming the latest country to elevate or aim to elevate broadband access to the status of a legal right. Here the government proposed two sets of metrics on which to gather comments: 20 Mbps/2Mbps and 10 Mbps/2 Mbps.

In its policy paper, titled ‘Connectivity for a Competitive Digital Single Market – Towards a European Gigabit Society’, published in 2016, the European Union’s vision included Internet access downlink speeds for all European households of at least 100 Mbps.

Sweden is the most aggressive country when setting its broadband targets. The country’s ‘Broadband Strategy’, published in 2016, defined a ‘completely connected Sweden by 2025’ in three tiers: 98% of all households and businesses should have access to a downlink speed of at least 1 Gbps; 1.9% should have access to 100 Mbps; and the remaining 0.1% should have access to at least 30 Mbps.

For any deployment of broadband connectivity to succeed, a number of factors need to be in place: There must be market demand that can be met by broadband connectivity; the technologies being used should be tried, tested and future-proof; the broadband service providers must be able to achieve a positive return on investment; and there should be a favourable regulatory environment.

Given the current market conditions impacting the suitability of the different technologies (see the next section), projected potential service uptake, and the drivers on the supply and demand sides, this report will focus on developments related to two key technologies: FTTP and 5G-based FWA.

The rest of this briefing includes sections on:

  • The Winners and the Others
  • It’s the Economics: When Fibre Makes More Sense than 5G, and Vice Versa
  • How the Public and Private Sectors Can Help
  • An interview with Nick Green, 5G Business Lead and Marketing Director, Three UK

To access the full briefing please click here

Europe wants Facebook to implement its censorship requests globally

A new ruling by the EU Court of Justice seems to compel social media companies to enact EU censorship demands even outside of its jurisdiction.

The judgment was made on the case of Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek v Facebook Ireland, in which the Austrian Green Party politician seeks to force Facebook to remove content that she feels is harmful to her reputation and anything that sounds a bit like it. The court was asked to interpret the Directive on electronic commerce and concluded it doesn’t prevent member states from imposing the following on ‘host providers’, which seems to mean all social media platforms and maybe beyond.

  • To remove information which it stores, the content of which is identical to the content of information which was previously declared to be unlawful, or to block access to that information, irrespective of who requested the storage of that information;
  • To remove information which it stores, the content of which is equivalent to the content of information which was previously declared to be unlawful, or to block access to that information, provided that the monitoring of and search for the information concerned by such an injunction are limited to information conveying a message the content of which remains essentially unchanged compared with the content which gave rise to the finding of illegality and containing the elements specified in the injunction, and provided that the differences in the wording of that equivalent content, compared with the wording characterising the information which was previously declared to be illegal, are not such as to require the host provider to carry out an independent assessment of that content (thus, the host provider may have recourse to automated search tools and technologies);
  • To remove information covered by the injunction or to block access to that information worldwide within the framework of the relevant international law, and it is up to Member States to take that law into account.

In other words, if an EU member state decides a bit of online content should be censored, there’s nothing stopping it legally compelling internet platforms to remove it and anything its algorithms consider to be similar to it on a global basis. This seems to put enormous power of censorship in the hands of EU claimants who can afford to litigate.

“This judgment has major implications for online freedom of expression around the world,” said Thomas Hughes, Executive Director of free speech campaign group Article 19. “Compelling social media platforms like Facebook to automatically remove posts regardless of their context will infringe our right to free speech and restrict the information we see online. The judgment does not take into account the limitations of technology when it comes to automated filters.

“The ruling also mean that a court in one EU member state will be able to order the removal of social media posts in other countries, even if they are not considered unlawful there. This would set a dangerous precedent where the courts of one country can control what Internet users in another country can see. This could be open to abuse, particularly by regimes with weak human rights records.”

As calls for censorship mount, the global policing of speech on the internet is becoming impossibly convoluted. Will the EU now seek to punish Facebook, or whoever, if a bit of content it doesn’t like is accessible somewhere outside of its jurisdiction, and if so how? What if courts in the other country take a different view? As ever the only solution is to not censor in the first place.

Zuckerberg comes out swinging in face of break-up tension

Via a leaked audio-recording of a Facebook townhall meeting with employees, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has taken a combative position in the face of increasing pressure.

Taking questions from Facebook employees, Zuckerberg has taken a much more forthright and confident stance than he generally does when in the shiny lights of the public domain. The leaked audio files, courtesy of the Verge, paint a picture of a man who is prepared to go to war to protect the gargantuan company he has built over the last decade.

“So, there might be a political movement where people are angry at the tech companies or are worried about concentration or worried about different issues and worried that they’re not being handled well,” Zuckerberg said.

“That doesn’t mean that, even if there’s anger and that you have someone like Elizabeth Warren who thinks that the right answer is to break up the companies … I mean, if she gets elected president, then I would bet that we will have a legal challenge, and I would bet that we will win the legal challenge.”

Presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren, the Democrat Senator representing Massachusetts, is looking like the biggest political opponent of Silicon Valley. And it is becoming increasingly clear Facebook is enemy number one.

But perhaps these comments indicate just why Washington and its political leadership is acting so aggressively towards the likes of Facebook, Google and Amazon. These are companies who no-longer fear the political establishment. They are arguably more influential, and as you can see from the comments above, they believe they have the upper-hand when it comes to legal arsenals.

As we have mentioned before, this is one of the reasons we suspect politicians are taking such a firm stance against Silicon Valley in 2019. Not only are the actions and business models of these firms’ easy pickings for PR points, Washington DC seemingly does not like it is not the most influential neighbourhood in North America anymore.

On the other side of the debate, Warren has not kept her opinions about Facebook to herself or even attempted to disguise that some of the tweets have been directed towards Zuckerberg.

“We have to fix a corrupt system that lets giant companies like Facebook engage in illegal anticompetitive practices, stomp on consumer privacy rights, and repeatedly fumble their responsibility to protect our democracy,” Warren said in one tweet.

“Zuckerberg himself said Facebook is ‘more like a government than a traditional company’. They’ve bulldozed competition, used our private information for profit, undermined our democracy, and tilted the playing field against everyone else,” she said in another.

“Facebook’s anti-competitive mergers mean they face no real pressure to tackle disinformation. They won’t even do the bare minimum to improve transparency. Tech giants shouldn’t be able to wield enough power to undermine our democracy,” a final one read.

Facebook seems to be the focal point of Warren’s anger, though this might be down to the leaked audio, as well as the concentration of power at Facebook. Zuckerberg himself has admitted that his voting power at the company has made him a target for the politically ambitious, though this is not the only company which is facing pressure.

All of the major players in the Big Tech fraternity are becoming targets and it the raising temperature might hit boiling point before too long. Some of these companies might be willing to accept fines simply because they don’t make that much of a dent in the spreadsheets, but it would not be a surprise to see some aggression coming back the other direction before too long.

Silicon Valley and Washington DC both have ambitions to be the most prominent voice in the ears of the US consumer, but only one can secure that mantle.

US lawmakers want to look at private emails from tech execs

Scrutiny of the US tech giants has been taken up another level after members of the US House Judiciary Committee have demanded they expose their internal workings.

The move has been widely reported in the US, including by the Washington Post. It seems there is already a congressional antitrust investigation underway into Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google, which is presumably related to the actions taken against Google and Facebook earlier this week. They want to know whether the companies have abused their dominant positions to corrupt markets for digital products and services in their favour.

One of the fun things about getting legislators and lawyers involved in scrutinizing the activities of companies is that they have the power to demand access to a bunch of information that would normally be kept locked in a dark cellar, to which only the CEO has a key. The stuff this committee would like financial data about includes their products and services, and private discussions about potential merger targets, we’re told.

Having said that the letters sent apparently don’t have any legal weight behind them right now, so the companies could theoretically refuse. This is a dangerous game to play, however, as they would have to refuse in a way that didn’t imply they had something to hide. Perhaps they could just chuck over some light-hearted Friday afternoon email banter while whistling nonchalantly.

What seems unavoidable is that the state machinery in the US and elsewhere has the tech giants in its sights and seems to have decided the lot of them have far too much power by half. Since they are undeniably dominant their execs and legal departments would be well advised to buckle in for the long haul. They could also do worse than speak to grizzled campaigners from companies like Microsoft and Intel to get some top tips.

US gives Huawei back some gear it nicked two years ago

In September 2017 US authorities confiscated a bunch of Huawei kit on its way from California to China and has only just returned it.

The only account we have of this is from Huawei, but that’s at least in part because the US has been very reticent about explaining many of its actions regarding Huawei. The servers and networking gear had been in a California lab to undergo commercial testing and certification. When it was in the process of being returned the US Commerce Department seized it, citing unidentified export violation concerns.

By June of this year Huawei decided to take legal action to get its property back and, as if by magic, the US decided to return it, once more without explanation, according to Huawei. “Huawei views the decision to return the technology as a tacit admission that the seizure was unlawful and arbitrary,” said Huawei in its announcement, which also revealed that the lawsuit has been dropped as a consequence.

“Arbitrary and unlawful government actions like this – detaining property without cause or explanation – should serve as a cautionary tale for all companies doing normal business in the United States, and should be subject to legal constraints,” said Dr. Song Liuping, Huawei’s Chief Legal Officer.

Presumably the US wanted to inspect the gear to see if it could find any evidence of IP theft, Chinese spy gear, or whatever. If so then it should have followed that same due process it would have applied to US companies, such as just cause, legal representation, etc. Every time the US abandons due process while at the same time accusing Huawei of illegality it undermines its own position.

Juniper pays $11.7m to make SEC bribery investigation go away

Networking vendor Juniper has never admitted or denied it participated in any activities related to bribery, though apparently its bank accounts were simply too full to continue.

The details of this investigation are complicated and nuanced, though the over-arching accusation is simple. The Securities and Exchange Commission accused Juniper of improperly reporting accounts and allowing a subsidiary to continue a practice which smells incredibly similar to bribery.

To conclude the investigation, Juniper has paid the SEC $11.7 million. This is not an admission of guilt from the firm apparently, it has apparently decided to reallocate $11.7 million because it is innocent and would not consider any form of bribery.

The fact that the government agency will stop a bribery investigation after receiving the funds is perhaps a pleasant after-effect.

While this would appear to be the end of the saga, there are some relatively suspect elements to consider. This extract from the ‘Cease and Desist’ document is an interesting one to ponder.

“From 2009 to 2013, local employees of Juniper China paid for the domestic travel and entertainment of customers, including foreign officials, that was excessive and inconsistent with Juniper policy. Certain local Juniper China marketing employees falsified agendas for trips provided to end-user customer employees. These falsified trip agendas understated the true amount of entertainment involved on the trips.”

Another interesting claim is the approval process. Juniper requires approval from its legal department to justify and validate such entertainment expenses, though marketing and sales employees sought approval after the events took place, painting the legal team into a corner.

The period in question took place between 2009 and 2013. It had been going on for an undisclosed period of time prior to 2009, though this was the time in which senior managers at Juniper were alerted to the practice.

At JNN Development Corp., a Russian subsidiary of the Juniper Group, secret discounts were discussed with third-party channel partners. These discounts were not passed onto customers, instead, funnelled into nefarious accounts. These funds were used to fuel corporate entertainment, much of which undermined the Juniper anti-bribery policies.

Managers were alerted to the presence of these funds, as well as the opaque practices and bread crumb trails which were left behind, in 2009. Some effort was made to discourage the practice, though the SEC deemed this was not sufficient, and the nefarious activities continued for another four years through to 2013.

“Juniper failed to accurately record the incremental discounts and travel and marketing expenses in its books and records and failed to devise and maintain a system of internal accounting controls sufficient to prevent and detect off-book accounts, unauthorized customer trips, falsified travel agendas and after-the-fact travel approvals,” the SEC has stated.

As with every slippery corporate firm around the world, Juniper will not admit fault, though apparently it had exactly $11.745018 million to ‘donate’ to the SEC to make the investigation go away.

Interdigital sues Motorola-owner Lenovo over 4G patents

Mobile and video tech developer Interdigital has filed patent infringement action against Lenovo in the UK because they can’t agree a price for use of its 4G patents.

Perhaps wary of being labelled a patent troll, Interdigital is keen to stress that this is the first patent infringement litigation it has initiated for six years. It claims its hand has been forced after the failure of almost a decade of negotiation with Lenovo, which makes Motorola phones as well as its own-branded devices.

Interdigital reckons it owns around 10% of the standards-essential patents in both 3G and 4G technology, which means it gets a piece of the action whenever someone sells a device that uses them. How much users of these patents have to pay is usually determined on a FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) basis, but apparently Lenovo won’t even accept third party FRAND arbitration.

Patent litigation canned comments are among the most formulaic, but let’s have a look anyway. “Having product companies take fair licenses to patented technologies flowing out of fundamental research is absolutely essential for the long-term success of worldwide standards like 4G and 5G,” said William Merritt, CEO of Interdigital.

“InterDigital has a long history of valuable technology innovation and patient, good faith negotiation and fair licensing practices, including our willingness to allow the economic terms of a FRAND license to be determined via binding neutral arbitration. We also have longstanding licensing relationships with many of the top companies in the mobile space, including successful license arrangements with Samsung, Apple, LG and Sony, among others.

“For our company, we turn to litigation only when we feel that negotiations are not being carried out in good faith. In bringing this claim in the UK High Court of Justice, which has a history of examining standards-essential patent issues, we are hopeful for a speedy resolution and a fair license.”

Here are the patents in question:

  • European Patent (UK) 2 363 008 – Enables the efficient control of carrier aggregation in 4G (LTE). In advanced mobile phones, carrier aggregation is key to achieving high data rates.
  • European Patent (UK) 2 557 714 – Supports the use of multiple antennae transmissions in 4G (LTE). The patent enables the use of flexible levels of error protection for reporting by the handset, increasing the reliability of the signaling.
  • European Patent (UK) 2 485 558 – Allows mobile phone users quick and efficient access to 4G (LTE) networks. One of the main technological challenges of developing LTE networks was efficient bandwidth usage for various traffic types such as VoIP, FTP and HTTP. This patent relates to inventions for quickly and efficiently requesting shared uplink resources — for example, reducing lag when requesting a webpage on a smartphone on LTE networks.
  • European Patent (UK) 2 421 318 – Decreases latency during HSUPA transmission by eliminating certain scenarios in HSUPA where scheduling requests may be blocked. A blocked scheduling request may prevent a smartphone from sending data.

Interdigital presumably has others that Lenovo is using in its devices, so either there’s no dispute over the them or Interdigital is focusing on the four juiciest ones, who knows? Patent litigation is pretty arcane stuff at the best of times, but it seems like Lenovo must have really pushed its luck for its relationship with Interdigital to come to this. It’s hard to see how they can justify refusing to go to FRAND arbitration, but there could well be extenuating circumstances that will come to light in due course.

Huawei allegedly helps African governments spy on dissidents – WSJ

Huawei has worked with African governments to spy on their political opponents, including surveillance and distributing spyware, which has led to arrests and other crackdowns, the Wall Street Journal reports.

In its report (behind paywall) the newspaper highlighted Uganda and Zambia where the authorities have got direct help from Huawei employees to crack down opposition. These measures include surveillance cameras, phone tapping, and cracking encrypted communications with spyware. In the most extreme case, the report says, the pop singer turned politician Bobi Wine’s supposedly secret meeting was busted by the Ugandan police, and his driver was killed. (More details are included in the video clip included at the bottom of this page.)

In Zambia, Huawei employees were reported to have helped the government crack the password protected phones and private Facebook pages of opposition bloggers critical of the president.  The government was then able to track them down and make arrests. Algeria’s ruling party confirmed to the newspaper that they work with Huawei to monitor the opposition though refused to discuss details.

In response, Huawei rejects the allegations:

“We completely reject the Wall Street Journal’s unfounded and inaccurate allegations against Huawei’s business operations in Algeria, Uganda, and Zambia,” said a Huawei spokesperson in a statement sent to Telecoms.com. “Huawei’s code of business conduct prohibits any employees from undertaking any activities that would compromise the data or privacy of our customers or end users, or that would breach any laws.  Huawei prides itself on its compliance with local laws and regulations in all markets where it operates and we will defend our reputation robustly against such baseless allegations.”

Huawei has exported the surveillance system already common in China’s cities to many African countries. The images captured on camera are then processed by Huawei’s facial recognition and AI technologies to identify suspects, sometimes even before any crimes have been committed. Activists also accuse the governments of abusing the technology. The activist Dorothy Mukasa told WSJ that “we’ve seen the (Ugandan) government target opposition more than the criminals.”

Two Ugandan security officers also told WSJ on anonymous basis that Huawei employees directly help them break the encryption of the applications the opponents use for communication, including WhatsApp, by planting spyware on their phones. Huawei denied the allegation in their statement to WSJ that “our internal investigation shows clearly that Huawei and its employees have not been engaged in any of the activities alleged. We have neither the contracts, nor the capabilities, to do so.”

One thing worth noting is that the WSJ does not establish evidence that the alleged activities in Africa were carried out with approval, or even awareness, from Huawei headquarters.

This is not the first time Huawei has found itself in the centre of controversies in Africa. As was reported earlier, the IT and communication system at the African Union headquarters, supplied and installed by Huawei, was sending data every night from Addis Ababa to Shanghai for over four years before it was uncovered by accident. Huawei’s founder later claimed that the data leaking “had nothing to do with Huawei”, though it was not clear whether he was denying that Huawei was aware of it or claiming Huawei was not playing an active role in it.

Here is the video included in the WSJ report: