The debate between Huawei and Xiaomi is arguably one of the most exciting topics at the end of each year. At Huawei's 2023 Pollen Festival, Yu Chengdong once again slammed domestic businessmen, accusing them of blatant plagiarism of Huawei's technology and tampering with his company's technology names into similar forms. In particular, he mentioned the "keel hinge", a name that is very similar to the "Xiaomi keel hinge" of the Xiaomi mixfold3 mobile phone, which invisibly triggered a-for-tat war of words.
However, Xiaomi was not to be outdone, angrily accusing Yu Chengdong of malicious slander, and claimed that their self-developed keel hinge had been patented. Xiaomi said that they applied for a patent on September 18, 2020 and was granted a patent on January 5, 2021, while Yu Chengdong's claim that the dual-spin water drop chain was patented on December 13, 2019 and only made public on June 18, 2021, such a timeline clearly proves Xiaomi's claim. Therefore, Xiaomi believes that Yu Chengdong's remarks are completely inconsistent with the facts.
Despite the similarities between Xiaomi's "keel hinge" and Huawei's "keel hinge" names, products with the same name are not uncommon in the domestic market. If you want to talk about plagiarism, then come up with more concrete evidence to speak, and the similarity of names alone is not enough to prove plagiarism. Domestic technology companies are constantly pursuing innovation and breakthroughs, and it is inevitable that similar design elements or naming methods will appear between products. This does not represent plagiarism, it is just a coincidence.
Of course, originality and innovation are key to the development of any technology enterprise, which is also at the heart of the patent system. If originality and innovation are mixed together, the entire tech environment will suffer. No one wants to invest a lot of time and effort into developing a product and then be accused of plagiarism. Therefore, we should not blame others for their ability to innovate just because they have similar names.
Huawei and Xiaomi are both highly competitive technology companies in China, and the argument between them is also a normal market competition. While competing in the market, they also have a cooperative relationship. For example, Xiaomi and Huawei have collaborated on several occasions to advance China's smartphone industry. Although arguments are inevitable, the cooperation and common progress between them should not be overlooked.
In the dispute between Huawei and Xiaomi, we should have an objective attitude. As consumers and viewers, we have the right to choose the right product for ourselves, rather than blindly following a certain brand. For technology companies, competition is the driving force that stimulates innovation and progress. What we want to see is that companies can compete in the sun and improve the quality of products and user experience through innovation.
At the same time, we need to be sensitive to intellectual property. In the market competition, strict compliance with intellectual property and patent laws is the basic bottom line of every enterprise. Only by enhancing their competitiveness through legitimate means and legal channels can they be invincible in the competition.
To sum up, the dispute between Huawei and Xiaomi is essentially part of the market competition. While competing, Huawei and Xiaomi have also jointly promoted the progress of China's technology industry. Despite the similarities in the name, this does not prove the fact of plagiarism. We should maintain an objective attitude towards technology companies, give them room for development and respect their innovative achievements. In the long run, it is only by constantly pursuing innovation and protecting intellectual property that Chinese tech companies can make their mark on the global stage.