Listen, I've read a lot of government documents, studies, patents, and lawsuits in my time.
While these documents can be interesting (sometimes), they are quite frequently not exactly what most people would refer to as 'page-turners,' or deem worthy of a star rating on GoodReads.
Not so with this DJI lawsuit against the US Department of Defense, DoD Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, and Assistant Secretary of Defense Laura D. Taylor-Kale, which actually makes for surprisingly gripping reading. At least, I think it does, and believe that it's decidedly not a lack of blood flow to my head from waiting too long to eat something. Maybe.
In a neatly laid-out narrative that takes us through the story so far from DJI's point of view, the lawsuit first establishes that DJI "is the largest privately-owned seller of consumer and commercial drones, which are used by police departments, fire departments, other first responders, large and small companies, and hobbyists throughout the United States and the world."
It then states that the purpose of this lawsuit is to challenge the US DoD's designation of DJI as a "Chinese Military Company," and then proceeds to lay out its information in a clear, concise, point-by-point manner.
Which is what you'd frankly hope for in such a document, but I'm here to tell you isn't always the case. But it's compelling reading, not least because it starts with the kind of infuriating catch-22 situation that I'm sure many of us have found ourselves in, to one degree or another.
Have you ever been accused of something (legally or otherwise), but then the person or entity accusing you of that thing won't tell you what you did wrong? Instead, they insist on staying mad rather than telling you what you did that pissed them off, so you can try to fix it?
That's the level of pettiness that DJI alleges in this lawsuit. According to DJI's telling of this story, after the first time the DoD designated it as a CMC (because there's been more than one time), it asked for the reasoning behind this accusation. It wanted to know why. And, I mean, I know DJI is a massive multinational company and not a person, but wouldn't you also want to know what you were being accused of, in detail?
According to DJI, it had to fight for over 16 months to finally get this information from the DoD. Once it did, it says the document it received after filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request was rife with inaccuracies.
But anyone can just say that, right? Did DJI actually proceed to go through each of the things it claims are inaccurate, one by one, and demonstrate how and why they're inaccurate?
Friends, you bet it did. And that's where the legal pettiness is truly popcorn-worthy. I'll give you a little taste, but I seriously suggest you read it for yourself if official pettiness of this type is your cup of tea (like it clearly is mine).
Here's one choice tidbit, which I'll quote verbatim: "DJI has no control over whether a research university purchases and uses an off-the-shelf DJI product--let alone a product sold by its affiliate--in the development of a patent application (CN114061763A). Such use in no way demonstrates a relationship, much less an "established relationship," between DJI and the Military Science Academy."
And it goes on with this total kicker, "The patent application at issue also refers to the use of an "Nvid[i]a Jetson Nano edge computing board" and a "SONY IMX477 low-light camera module." If using an off-the-shelf product in a patent application can serve as the basis for designation, then Nvidia (an American company) and Sony (a Japanese company) would also qualify as CMCs."
Imagine not-so-subtly correcting a spelling error made in the DoD's document in your quotation, in the process of issuing such a potent written slap-down. But there's one more point made here that I'll direct your attention to, because the conclusion is a knockout.
This paragraph continues, "Moreover, DJI products have been frequently used by researchers, including those from the U.S. Air Force. DoD's logic would lead to the conclusion that DJI is also an "American military company." See what I mean? HILARIOUS!
Later on, there's also a really good bit about how the DoD apparently confused two very common Chinese names, in a move that would be tantamount to thinking everyone named "John Smith" here in the US is the same person. If you've ever suffered name-related trauma, this section was totally made for you.
Seriously, are there literary awards for legal documents? Because if not, this one's making me start to think there should be. The drama contained in these pages is nothing short of delicious. Get your favorite beverage and snack and dive in. And don't be alarmed about the length of the document; there are a ton of footnotes, so it's not as long as it looks. Happy reading!
