When we describe Apple as a Chinese company, it’s not just because 80% of iPhones are manufactured in China. It’s because Apple has comfortably entrenched itself in China’s murky legal landscape and policy strongholds, sustaining outsized profits like “Apple Tax” and its app store monopoly. More strikingly, Apple often wields greater influence than China’s domestic monopolies, allegedly manipulating legal processes and even bending laws to stifle local innovation and suppress Chinese tech firms.
In the relentless global tech race, where nations vie for dominance through innovation, intellectual property has become a critical battleground. China aspires to be a global leader in this arena, building a robust legal framework to protect creativity and innovation…. Yet, shocking revelations and swirling accusations surrounding high-profile patent disputes suggest a bitter truth: for certain foreign tech giants, navigating the Chinese judicial system might be alarmingly… frictionless. So frictionless, in fact, that one might cynically wonder if companies like Apple aren’t just foreign investors, but rather, function as if they were operating under conditions akin to a deep rooted state-owned entity, perhaps even enjoying privileges that Chinese innovators can only dream of….
The bitter tears shed by domestic innovators attempting to defend their hard-won patents against powerful foreign entities tell a story that starkly contrasts with the narrative of fostering a fair and supportive environment for Chinese innovation…. At the heart of this disquieting narrative lies the protracted and deeply controversial saga involving IWNCOMM, a Chinese technology company, and global behemoths including Apple and Samsung….
For years, IWNCOMM battled in Chinese courts, seeking to enforce its standard-essential WAPI patents. This should have been a straightforward defense of intellectual property rights, a validation of technological advancement…. Instead, the case became a microcosm of the challenges faced by smaller innovators when confronting well-resourced international corporations…. These giants, armed with immense financial power, appear capable of deploying sophisticated strategies, including protracted legal battles, repeated invalidation attempts, and other procedural tactics, to exhaust smaller opponents…. This has been described as “reverse patent hijacking,” where the powerful turn the system against the innovator….
But the allegations go far beyond mere disparities in resources or legal strategy. Whispers, and now increasingly loud accusations, point to a more profound issue: the potential for systemic influence and corruption within the very halls of justice….
The Shadow of the “Peking University System”
Central to these grave concerns is the alleged role of an academic clique, often referred to as the “Peking University system” (北大系), specifically within the field of intellectual property law…. This network, reportedly comprising influential professors, judges, and lawyers, all linked by their alma mater and specialization, has become the subject of intense scrutiny…. The fear is that such close-knit relationships among key players in academia, the judiciary, and legal practice could coalesce into an “internal circulation-based interest community” , potentially distorting the course of justice….
At the center of some of the most alarming accusations is Professor Yi Jiming (易继明), a prominent Peking University law professor and doctoral supervisor…. Professor Yi has been publicly accused of acting as a “judicial broker” …. Allegations detail instances where Professor Yi allegedly solicited “expert fees” from IWNCOMM in the past…. More recently, during the critical second instance proceedings of the Apple case, Professor Yi is accused of attempting to engage with IWNCOMM’s chairman to “discuss” the ongoing case….
When this alleged attempt to “discuss” the case was rebuffed by IWNCOMM, the situation reportedly escalated dramatically…. Professor Yi is accused of subsequently publishing articles in prominent official newspapers and internal reference publications, including Legal Daily (法制日报) and Reform Internal Reference (改革内参), publications that judges might consult…. These articles reportedly characterized IWNCOMM’s requested patent licensing fees as “greedy” (欲壑难填), seemingly aligning with the position of foreign defendants…. The speed and placement of these articles following the alleged refusal to “cooperate” have raised serious questions about their purpose and potential influence on the judicial process…. The accusations suggest that Professor Yi even showed his WeChat conversations with the chief judge of the second instance case, Judge Zhu Li (朱理), also a Peking University IP law PhD, as evidence of his purported influence….
This alleged nexus of academia, judiciary, and legal practice, particularly involving individuals linked by their educational background and specialization, paints a deeply troubling picture…. Lawyer Yang Anjin (杨安进), who reportedly previously represented Xiadian Jietong and solicited expert fees for Professor Yi, is said to have adopted a position later that conflicted with his former client’s stance…. Lawyer Yang Pu (杨璞), another graduate of the same program, is noted for representing Apple. This tight circle, as described by critics, raises profound concerns about potential conflicts of interest and the integrity of the judicial process when powerful foreign companies are involved….
“Shadow Judgments” and “Poison Pills”: Alleged Manipulation of Justice
Further substantiating the fears of systemic bias are detailed analyses of the second instance judgment in the Apple vs. IWNCOMM case, particularly from a source using the chilling metaphor of “Old Cheats” (老千) manipulating the judicial system…. This analysis alleges that beyond the stated outcome of the case, the judgment contained hidden elements designed to benefit Apple at the expense of IWNCOMM.
One such alleged tactic is the “shadow judgment” …. The second instance ruling, while seemingly upholding the first instance’s damages award, reportedly included a section stating that IWNCOMM’s approach to seeking compensation for certain products in the first instance was “hard to deem proper” (难谓正当). Based on this phrase, which critics argue has no legal basis and was outside the scope of the second instance review, the judgment allegedly implicitly barred IWNCOMM from seeking compensation for a vast number of other infringing Apple products…. The source claims this single phrase, hidden within the reasoning and not part of the formal judgment items, effectively stripped IWNCOMM of approximately 400 million RMB in potential claims against Apple. This, the source argues, was a “hidden delivery of benefits” , using a “surface maintenance” of the original judgment to conceal the “additional penalty” imposed on the winning party….
Another alleged manipulative tactic is the “poison pill” …. This refers to language inserted into an earlier judgment, seemingly minor or even a “typographical error,” but strategically placed to damage the opposing party’s position in future related cases…. In the first instance ruling concerning a retailer of Apple products, the court reportedly stated that the retailer did not engage in infringement because it did not participate in manufacturing the infringing products and had no subjective fault. Critics argue this assertion directly contradicts the Patent Law, which states that selling infringing products is an infringing act, and lack of subjective fault only exempts from damages, not the finding of infringement itself…. This “poison pill,” critics contend, aimed to establish a precedent or factual finding that could be used in later cases, potentially shielding manufacturers or sellers by twisting established legal principles….
Furthermore, allegations of manipulating jurisdiction rules to concentrate cases involving Apple and Samsung in specific courts, potentially under the control of a single judge or team, add to the picture of a system allegedly being bent to favor powerful parties…. This, critics argue, serves to intimidate opponents and ensure predictable outcomes.
These alleged tactics, the “shadow judgments” and “poison pills,” are seen not merely as flawed legal reasoning but as a systematic dismantling of fundamental civil law principles. Critics argue that these methods pervert the core concept of objective infringement liability, redefine the scope of sales infringement, invalidate established principles of damages and remedies, overturn standard rules of jurisdiction, and weaponize judgments to serve interests beyond the pursuit of justice.
The Cost to Chinese Innovation and National Security
The consequence of such alleged systemic issues is dire for China’s stated goals of becoming a technological superpower…. If domestic innovators are subjected to a system where powerful foreign companies can allegedly manipulate judicial outcomes, delay proceedings until patents expire, and escape significant liability through questionable rulings, the incentive to innovate and protect one’s creations within China diminishes significantly…. Many domestic companies are reportedly losing the will to litigate in China, preferring jurisdictions abroad if possible30.
This situation is seen by some as directly undermining China’s national technology security. When foreign entities can allegedly use the Chinese legal system to suppress or undervalue domestic innovations, it hinders China’s ability to break foreign “strangleholds” (卡脖子) on key technologies…. Protecting intellectual property is seen as protecting innovation itself, and alleged failures in this regard threaten national innovation and related areas like economic and tech security….
The call for thorough reform of the intellectual property trial system is growing louder6…. There is an urgent need to ensure fair and efficient justice, address the issues of malicious litigation and the abuse of procedural rights…. The focus must shift back to protecting genuine innovators and upholding the rule of law without bias….
The irony remains stark: a foreign company, through sophisticated legal maneuvering and alleged influence within the domestic legal system, appears to benefit from conditions so favorable that they raise questions about the very fairness and independence of that system. While Beijing strives to build a robust IP regime to protect its national interests and fuel innovation, the bitter experiences of innovators like IWNCOMM and the serious allegations surrounding figures within the “Peking University system,” including Professor Yi Jiming, serve as a harsh reminder that achieving this goal requires not just strong laws, but unwavering commitment to justice, transparency, and accountability for all, regardless of power or origin…. Until that is fully realized, the question “Why Apple is a Chinese Company” serves as a pointed critique of a system many fear is being exploited to the detriment of China’s own innovative future.