Apple Released Confidential License Terms with Nokia While Sanctioning Samsung for Role in Leaks

MacRumors · Mar 5, 2014

Last October, Apple filed a motion seeking sanctions against Samsung and its outside lawyers, accusing both of unlawfully sharing sensitive data about Apple's 2011 patent license agreement with Nokia. Specifically, the motion stated that a Samsung executive informed Nokia that the terms of the patent settlement were "known to him", and used that information to negotiate other patent agreements in Samsung's favor. The license terms between Apple and Nokia were marked "Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only", but were shared with other Samsung employees.

In January, Judge Paul S. Grewal ruled against imposing sanctions on Samsung, instead choosing to solely penalize the company's law firm, Quinn Emanuel. Now however, FOSS Patents is reporting that Apple released its confidential license terms with Nokia and the NEC while seeking sanctions against Samsung for its role in the leaks.

The license terms were viewable in a publicly accessible court proceedings document on the Internet for four months before they were removed, as Samsung has filed a new motion asking the court to reduce the penalties against its law firm:

Apple's and Nokia's scorched-earth approach to Samsung's inadvertent disclosure, and the amount of the concomitant fees Apple and Nokia incurred in pursuing those efforts, must be juxtaposed against the fact that Apple had simultaneously posted (and Nokia neglected to notice) this information on the Internet for all the world to see. The fee award should be reduced accordingly.

Samsung also added in its filing that Apple should now be required to provide information as to what happened based on "transparency and evenhandedness." A hearing on Samsung's new motion against Apple is scheduled to take place on April 8, as the company also states it may seek further sanctions against Apple after reviewing other information about the situation.

The new motion comes before a second patent infringement lawsuit between Apple and Samsung is set to begin on March 31, 2014. Samsung will only have four patents claims to bring to the upcoming trial, as Judge Koh invalidated two of its patent claims in January.

Article Link: Apple Released Confidential License Terms with Nokia While Sanctioning Samsung for Role in Leaks

RobertMartens · Mar 5, 2014

They took it own before anyone noticed it so it was still a secret.

HiRez · Mar 5, 2014

My god, when is someone going to start MacLegalRumors so I don't have to read all this legal crap here? Please just make it stop.

Iconoclysm · Mar 5, 2014

RobertMartens said:
They took it own before anyone noticed it so it was still a secret.

If someone with government clearance were to willingly read top secret information posted on the internet without the proper clearance, their clearance would be revoked. While this isn't exactly the same, I'm sure some similar restrictions would apply.

Rogifan · Mar 5, 2014

HiRez said:
My god, when is someone going to start MacLegalRumors so I don't have to read all this legal crap here? Please just make it stop.

Yes please. Enough with the Apple/Samsung patent stories. Or at least throw them off to the sidebar.

AngerDanger · Mar 5, 2014

HiRez said:
My god, when is someone going to start MacLegalRumors so I don't have to read all this legal crap here? Please just make it stop.

Rogifan said:
Yes please. Enough with the Apple/Samsung patent stories. Or at least throw them off to the sidebar.

Why not just read the title and decide to skip the article?

As a great scholar once parodied:

Fresh Pie said:
I get so annoyed with articles that don't interest me personally! After paying no dollars per month, I expect specifically tailored, top notch content! I've tried to find ways to avoid clicking on them—hell, I've gone so far as to read the bloody titles to preemptively avoid things that don't interest me. But even with that sneaky trick, Arn still comes to my house and forces me to click, read, and comment on every story I don't care about!

Edsel · Mar 5, 2014

These incessant back and forth legal challenges is beginning to sound a lot like the definition of insanity.

RobertMartens · Mar 5, 2014

Iconoclysm said:
If someone with government clearance were to willingly read top secret information posted on the internet without the proper clearance, their clearance would be revoked. While this isn't exactly the same, I'm sure some similar restrictions would apply.

So I've read this comment three times now and I still don't understand it.

Oletros · Mar 5, 2014

Apple legal team trying to compete with Samsung legal team for the more inept move?

maelstromr · Mar 5, 2014

This was a very different lapse than what Quinn/Samsung did. Inadvertent publishing, with little (or no?) actual exposure, of Apple's OWN information as opposed to (maybe) inadvertent exposure and then USE IN NEGOTIATIONS WITH A THIRD PARTY of someone's else's information.

Unfortunately only Quinn got sanctioned where the really bad behavior was on the Samsung exec's part.

Oletros · Mar 5, 2014

RobertMartens said:
They took it own before anyone noticed it so it was still a secret.

If no one noticed how is that Samsung knows about?

JHankwitz · Mar 5, 2014

And the world's second oldest profession continues to thrive. They've managed to feather their bed to live and prosper in it forever. It's no wonder that there are more attorneys in the USA than any other profession, including the oldest profession.

Rogifan · Mar 5, 2014

Fresh Pie said:
Why not just read the title and decide to skip the article?

First thing you see when you come to the site. Kind of hard to miss. And no, I didn't read the article because I couldn't care less. Just sick of seeing Samsung's logo on this site all the time.

maelstromr · Mar 5, 2014

JHankwitz said:
And the world's second oldest profession continues to thrive. They've managed to feather their bed to live and prosper in it forever. It's no wonder that there are more attorneys in the USA than any other profession, including the oldest profession.

You either get an incredibly complex world of mega corporations worth billions of dollars with nuances and intricacies that require highly trained and intelligent people to sort them out, while being paid with private money by private parties by the way, or you go back to beating your competitor over the head with a stick.

But of course, no one NEEDS a lawyer.

Lapidus · Mar 5, 2014

Rogifan said:
Yes please. Enough with the Apple/Samsung patent stories. Or at least throw them off to the sidebar.

Macrumors has a sidebar :-o

Henriok · Mar 5, 2014

Am I understanding this correctly? Samsung was knowingly and willfully spreading information about competitors it obtained under a court order, and they feel like they should be compensated since Apple and Nokia disclosed their own information, in a not especially obvious manner and probably by accident?

Right

Oletros · Mar 5, 2014

Henriok said:
Am I understanding this correctly? Samsung was knowingly and willfully spreading information about competitors it obtained under a court order, and they feel like they should be compensated since Apple and Nokia disclosed their own information, in a not especially obvious manner and probably by accident?

Right

No, you're not understanding it correctly

2457282 · Mar 5, 2014

Apple's and Nokia's scorched-earth approach to Samsung's inadvertent disclosure, and the amount of the concomitant fees Apple and Nokia incurred in pursuing those efforts, must be juxtaposed against the fact that Apple had simultaneously posted (and Nokia neglected to notice) this information on the Internet for all the world to see. The fee award should be reduced accordingly.

So Samesong is stating that two wrongs make a right. Samesong used illegally gotten information to negotiate, but because Apple posted it by mistake, on the internet, it makes Samesong's illegality a non-issue. Well, it's an argument, but if the judge agrees with it, I will certainly lose that sliver of hope I had for our judicial system.

kdarling · Mar 5, 2014

maelstromr said:
This was a very different lapse than what Quinn/Samsung did. Inadvertent publishing, with little (or no?) actual exposure, of Apple's OWN information as opposed to (maybe) inadvertent exposure ...

Both law firms had assistants that accidentally goofed up, by not redacting enough information. However, as Judge Grewal put it, "every lawyer in this case has acknowledged that these types of mistakes happen," which is why he refused Apple's requests for more draconian sanctions.

No doubt Apple's lawyers are now rethinking what sanctions should be given for such junior employee mistakes, since they goofed up too.

As for exposure, we have no idea how many people downloaded those public documents and are now alerted to the information within. Certainly more than just one company, as was the case with the Quinn lapse.

and then USE IN NEGOTIATIONS WITH A THIRD PARTY of someone's else's information.

The initial Apple-Nokia claims of it being a factor in negotiations was also knocked down by Judge Grewal, who said:

"... there has been insufficient evidence that this failure to notify or misuse ultimately implicated any issue in this or any other litigation or negotiation."

and

"In short, what began as a chorus of loud and certain accusations had died down to aggressive suppositions and inferences, and without anything more, Quinn Emanuel and Samsung cannot reasonably be subject to more punitive sanctions."

As the judge's ruling noted throughout, the whole affair was blown out of proportion by Apple and Nokia. This from a usually anti-Samsung judge, too.

Unfortunately only Quinn got sanctioned where the really bad behavior was on the Samsung exec's part.

At least the Samsung exec told them that he knew the info. Really bad behavior would be knowing it and not saying anything.

Most importantly, and not reported anywhere, is a very interesting subnote in Grewal's ruling, that the Quinn junior associate had actually redacted the Apple-Nokia names in the document that was FTP'd to Samsung. So that info wasn't available to the exec.

Instead, the exec had guessed the players from the Euro currency markings in the document.

Traverse · Mar 5, 2014

Boy I get tired I all these legal actions. Everything has been patented....

maelstromr · Mar 5, 2014

Oletros said:
No, you're not understanding it correctly

Then please enlighten us.

Oletros · Mar 5, 2014

maelstromr said:
Then please enlighten us.

Read the original report then or read what kdarling has written

LordVic · Mar 5, 2014

Rogifan said:
Yes please. Enough with the Apple/Samsung patent stories. Or at least throw them off to the sidebar.

for once, I think you and I can see completely Eye to Eye in all this.

seriously. The patent disputes of this decade are going to be remembered as a dark time in our technological advancement.

I'm not going to argue for or against it, or whether the system is broken or not.

But just think about it. Last year, Reports indicated that internationally, Tech companies spent more on lawyers, Patent lawyers and legal matters than combined on R&D.

I want you to think about it. All these companies have spent more money Fighting eachother to block eachothers progress, than to work together.

How much the cost of an Smartphone for example do you think is actual tangible costs? How much of it is production materials, R&D, Labour, Production costs.

And how much of the price of these devices is licencing fees for patents to multiple different places.

I'm willing to bet. Even with Apple making a huge profit, these devices could easily cost 1/2 of what they should cost. With the rest of it going to Patenting, Licencing, and Legal costs of enforcing.

I just think somewhere in the last 5 years, the Tech industry has steered off course.

And the only people who are winning are the lawyers.

maelstromr · Mar 5, 2014

kdarling said:
Both law firms had assistants that accidentally goofed up, by not redacting enough information. However, as Judge Grewal put it, "every lawyer in this case has acknowledged that these types of mistakes happen," which is why he refused Apple's requests for more draconian sanctions.

No doubt Apple's lawyers are now rethinking what sanctions should be given for such junior employee mistakes, since they goofed up too.

As for exposure, we have no idea how many people downloaded those public documents and are now alerted to the information within. Certainly more than just one company, as was the case with the Quinn lapse.

The initial Apple-Nokia claims of it being a factor in negotiations was also knocked down by Judge Grewal, who said:

"... there has been insufficient evidence that this failure to notify or misuse ultimately implicated any issue in this or any other litigation or negotiation."

and

"In short, what began as a chorus of loud and certain accusations had died down to aggressive suppositions and inferences, and without anything more, Quinn Emanuel and Samsung cannot reasonably be subject to more punitive sanctions."

As the judge's ruling noted throughout, the whole affair was blown out of proportion by Apple and Nokia. This from a usually anti-Samsung judge, too.

At least the Samsung exec told them that he knew the info. Really bad behavior would be knowing it and not saying anything.

Most importantly, and not reported anywhere, is a very interesting subnote in Grewal's ruling, that the Quinn junior associate had actually redacted the Apple-Nokia names in the document that was FTP'd to Samsung. So that info wasn't available to the exec.

Instead, the exec had guessed the players from the Euro currency markings in the document.

Clearly Quinn exposed info badly, but *maybe* only equally negligently as Apple posting the same information. Where I disagree with you is just how bad Samsung's actions were. The judge said he couldn't legally make the call based on the evidence available, not that it didn't happen. The Samsung exec "admitted" he had the info by crowing about it to a third party in negotiations for Samsung's benefit. This was not an innocent mistake.

----------

Oletros said:
Read the original report then or read what kdarling has written

If you can't have an original thought then why do you keep hitting the reply button over and over?

vpndev · Mar 5, 2014

explanation

Iconoclysm said:
If someone with government clearance were to willingly read top secret information posted on the internet without the proper clearance, their clearance would be revoked. While this isn't exactly the same, I'm sure some similar restrictions would apply.

RobertMartens said:
So I've read this comment three times now and I still don't understand it.

It means this: if you have a clearance and you read classified information you're not supposed to read -- then your clearance will possibly be revoked. It doesn't matter that it may have been published on the Internet (think: Snowden docs), if it's classified and you don't have authorized access - don't read it.

Apple Released Confidential License Terms with Nokia While Sanctioning Samsung for Role in Leaks

macrumors bot

macrumors 65816

macrumors 603

macrumors 68040

macrumors Penryn

Graphics

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 65816

macrumors 603

macrumors 6502

macrumors 603

macrumors 68000

macrumors Penryn

macrumors 6502

macrumors regular

macrumors regular

macrumors 603

Suspended

macrumors P6

macrumors 604

macrumors 6502

macrumors 603

Cancelled

macrumors 6502

macrumors 6502

Our Staff