The results of the US Section 337 investigation into DJI are announced. What is going on? Who framed DJI?
As early as 2018, an American company called Autel Robotics accused Shenzhen DJI Technology Co., Ltd. of infringing its patents in accordance with Section 337 of the U.S. Patent Law and requested the issuance of a limited exclusion order and injunction. After nearly two years of investigation, the United States announced the results of its Section 337 investigation into DJI, with the final verdict being: a ban will not be issued. ?
So, who harmed DJI? Who is Autel Robotics? It turns out that this company is not a foreign company, but an institution set up by Shenzhen Daotong Intelligence in the United States. It was founded in 2014. Its main business is quadcopter and drone photography technology, and it is basically determined to be in direct competition with DJI. . It is not difficult to understand why there is a limited ban on DJI products.
Some netizens believe that at this time of the epidemic, we should stick together for warmth instead of killing each other. Only by helping each other can we overcome difficulties. In this way, we can have an advantage, even an absolute advantage, in external competition. However, such behavior will lead to disputes between the two companies and ultimately lead to mutual offsets in market share.
Some netizens believe that this is a typical market behavior, not a political behavior. The most important purpose of a company is to make profits, not to do things related to politics. Shenzhen Daotong Intelligent's approach is right. If it believes that its rights and interests have been infringed, it will file a lawsuit. Only in this way can we better protect our own rights and interests, and in this way can we promote our own development well.
Shenzhen Daotong Intelligent has a strong awareness of rights protection, which is worthy of recognition. After all, you can only safeguard your own rights and interests. This is a commercial enterprise. On the premise of not endangering the country and regulations, There is nothing wrong with advocating for one's own rights. As for those who speak from a moral high ground, ignore them. What do you think?