20 1 1 On April 28th, 2008, Huawei initiated legal proceedings against ZTE in Germany, France and Hungary on the grounds of "infringing on the trademark rights of the company's data card and the fourth generation mobile communication system". ZTE quickly responded by issuing a counterclaim statement in China on the grounds that "Huawei has infringed many important patents of ZTE LTE". "Without Huawei, ZTE can't keep its vitality all the time. Without ZTE, Huawei won't have such a fast development speed." A business person who has worked in ZTE and Huawei commented on these two companies. Huawei and ZTE, which compete on the same road, will inevitably get angry in the end.
This time, Huawei, as the eldest brother, resolutely took his brother ZTE to court and openly stood with foreign competitor Ericsson. This kind of action of "putting righteousness above family members" and "adding insult to injury" may be the embodiment of the "wolf-like" corporate culture that Ren Zheng Fei, Huawei's boss, has been adhering to. Although the top executives of the two companies avoid talking about competition in public, in fact, the news about the bad relationship between Huawei and ZTE has long been an open secret in the industry.
Hou Weigui, chairman of ZTE, once admitted to the media that the competition between the two companies has lasted for more than 20 years from the beginning to now, and the two companies have made remarkable achievements in today's world, which has greatly promoted the competition.
The lawsuit broke this window paper, which also shows that the competition between the two companies has entered a white-hot stage. Wang Yuquan, a telecom expert and chief consultant of Frost Sullivan, pointed out that the two companies are so similar that it is impossible to develop in parallel in one field, and it is only a matter of time before they "fight". A few days ago, Huawei accused ZTE of vicious competition in the European market by using low-price strategy in front of the media. The industry believes that ZTE's low-price strategy has seriously affected the interests of some manufacturers in the European data card market. In this regard, European Options Company proposed on 20 10 to conduct a "three-anti" investigation (anti-dumping, countervailing measures and countervailing investigations) on China wireless network cards.
"If the survey results are true, a series of China communication equipment manufacturers, including Huawei, will face the threat of withdrawing from the European market. Huawei pointed its finger at ZTE's deep-seated reasons this time, probably to prevent it from being affected by the investigation against the three evils. Huawei's meaning in the European market is the same as that of other peers, and I am also a victim. "
A ZTE executive who did not want to be named told reporters: "Price is a strategy and cannot be regarded as vicious competition. The profit source of equipment manufacturers comes not only from selling equipment, but also from after-sales service and value-added service of equipment and many other aspects. ZTE is not the only company that uses the low-price strategy. All companies have used it. Everyone is a prominent enterprise. There is no need to do a loss-making business for competition. "
According to informed sources, Huawei has opened the door to the European data card market with a low-price strategy. In overseas markets, Huawei developed earlier than ZTE, and ZTE mostly followed the strategy. Tian Ying, chief analyst of Gartner telecom operators, told China Economic Weekly: "In some foreign markets, after Huawei opened the market, ZTE usually followed suit with similar competitive advantages. Therefore, compared with overseas markets, ZTE started late and its strength is relatively weak. "
ZTE's breakthrough in the European market quickly made it a thorn in Huawei's side. In order to prevent ZTE from breaking through in the European market, Huawei has formulated a series of strategies to prevent ZTE from developing. Another industry insider who once worked for ZTE Huawei revealed to reporters that in order to compete with ZTE, Huawei had implemented a "right" strategy similar to that in chess. ZTE's well-made products are suppressed by price competition, and ZTE's profits are cut off to achieve the purpose of competition.
This lawsuit obviously exposed the infighting between the two families for more than 20 years. The two companies chose the European battlefield this time, apparently to compete for the European market. In addition to the price war, there were also many "crashes" when the two companies raced in the European market: in 2006, Huawei became the equipment supplier of the core network of Royal Dutch Telecom (KPN); In 2007, Huawei built the Vodafone data network, entered the mainstream market in Europe and became the mainstream communication equipment supplier in Europe. Three years later, ZTE and Norwegian Telenor signed thousands of base station contracts for HSPA+/LTE in Hungary, and also signed several WCDMA contracts with German KPN. At this point, ZTE has also knocked on the door of the European market. Hungary and Germany were chosen by Huawei as the battlefields of this lawsuit, which also shows that this lawsuit has something to do with these crashes.
In 20 10, ZTE's operating profit was only 2.589 billion yuan, far lower than Huawei's 2.9275438+0 billion yuan. According to a data, in the global LTE layout in 20 10, Huawei accounted for 23% of the total market share, ZTE accounted for 2 1%, followed by Ericsson and Nokia Siemens with 18%. Today, when the top five communication equipment manufacturers in the world actively seize the LTE market, this set of data seems to explain from one side that this lawsuit and the previous patent wars between Huawei and Nokia Siemens, ZTE and Ericsson are nothing more than to seize the global LTE market. Prior to this lawsuit, both ZTE and Huawei went to court with foreign communication giants over patent issues. Making a fuss about patents seems to be the first choice for international communication companies to compete.
Huawei's just-concluded lawsuit against Motorola, Nokia and Siemens is to protect Huawei's intellectual property rights. Yu Chengdong, CMO of Huawei, once told the media: "Huawei is the only company that has signed a patent cross-licensing agreement with foreign competitors. Huawei pays $220 million in patent licensing fees every year, and we have bought it for ten years. "
Zhang, deputy general manager of ZTE's brand department, said: "It is inevitable for communication equipment companies to use each other's patents. At the beginning, the use of patents of other companies was also acquiesced in the industry. However, when enterprises developed to a certain scale, they began to charge for their own patents, which was very expensive, so it was necessary to sit down and talk about the details such as price. This is the practice in the industry. "
A communications analyst at Analysys International analyzed: "With the development of the communications industry, patent cross-use will inevitably occur among manufacturers. It is also the only way for China enterprises to go abroad and go international. International laws and regulations on patents vary from country to country, which also makes patent litigation a common trick for international communication giants to crowd out opponents and vicious competition in the market. "
According to a set of data from Analysys International, there were hundreds of patent lawsuits in the communication industry in 20 10, including 46 from Apple, 44 from Motorola, 32 from Samsung and 27 from Nokia. It can be seen that patent litigation to achieve the purpose of competition has become a conventional weapon in the field of communication.
The analyst also believes that there are two reasons why equipment manufacturers like to make a fuss about patents: First, the relevant laws and regulations on patent rights in different countries are different and confusing, which provides many convenient conditions for major equipment manufacturers to exploit legal loopholes; Secondly, many equipment manufacturers must use competitors' patents in order to develop. Usually the solution at this time is to sign relevant patent cross-licensing contracts between enterprises with overlapping patents, and then pay each other patent fees. However, in this process, in order to achieve the purpose of competition, once the price or conditions are not properly discussed, many equipment manufacturers will cause lawsuits.