Forget blog interpretations of the filing - what I bolded is the damning part indeed.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Seeks Sanctions Against Samsung for Unlawful Use of Apple-Nokia Patent License Terms
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Forget blog interpretations of the filing - what I bolded is the damning part indeed.
Hardly. In fact I'd bet what Quinn Emanuel will say is that on receipt of the 'eyes only' confidential document, the intention was redact it appropriately and pass on the redacted version to those executive in Samsung who had right to see it in relation to the (then) ongoing Apple v Samsung case. And that unfortunately, due to a mistake by a staffer, the document was not redacted prior to circulation - the error being the staffer's sole responsibility, due to carelessness or failure to understand strict instructions provided.
I get the desire to find conspiracies, malpractice and bribery wherever possible, and Samsung's executives do a fair job of stoking the fire, but plain, simple errors are way, way, more common.
Yes I did, thanks. However it was not relevant to the point I was responding to.
----------
Imagine: Apple invest billions in product development and make the next new things over and over. Then along come other companies who steal their ideas, and because they invest next to nothing on research and product development, or on top quality engineers and designers, their overheads are minimal so they then make the exact same things as Apple and can sell them for way less than Apple.
How long would Apple remain in business?
The problem is that to innovate, Apple has no option but to protect its intellectual property, otherwise all of its product development, design and engineering talent would do little more than line the pockets of other corporations.
Last edited:
It is obivious that you are okay with Samsung bragging that it used court ordered confidental information to gain unfair advantage in a license neogation with Nokia. Certainly this is the same thing as Steve Jobs expressing an idea about coming up with new ideas using a quote made by Pablo Picasso.
----------
I am curious what type of sanctions the court could apply in this case.
If you read the order linked in the post, you'll see that the initial hearing already took place and that United States Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewel is well aware that it is possible the Nokia executive's report of the meeting may not be correct, but is greatly concerned at what Samsung is proposing as a way to resolve the matter. The order requires them to perform specific actions and make specific individuals available for deposition, and to do so within a specified period of time rather that Samsung's open-ended timescale for an internal investigation which Grewel characterizes in terms of: "Rarely is the fox is permitted to investigate without supervision the disappearance of chickens at the henhouse."
The order is also critical of Samsung's response to the court and attitude to the matter, and is at pains to point out their failings in these respects.
I think judge Grewel is basically saying that it might be nice to get as far as it turning into a 'he-said/she-said' case, but that Samsung seem very reluctant to even get that far.
Some of the students who are in desperate need of some small amount of money.
----------
You obviously didn't read the news AT ALL! Why are there so many people think they are scarce of time thus cannot read the piece of news carefully, but at the same time have plenty of time writing comments about the same piece of news, and, further more, reading the comments and participating the endless debates!
We're not talking about "copying" here. We're talking about something that is black-and-white-- sharing confidential information. There was a specific, well-defined, unambigouous action involved. "Copying" is a gray area-- it's a matter of judgement whether someone is just "influenced by" someone else's work, or is literally copying.
----------
I think this easily could be monetized. Samsung was always going to license the technology; it was just a matter of how much. The court could estimate the difference they paid based on the better negotiating position, and then apply penalties on top of that.
Okay, I'll grant you that. It might have been a simple mistake by a staffer, and whatever chain of command was suposed to ensure the accuracy of the staffer's work. If so, I wonder when it was that counsel discovered the error, and what steps they took with Samsung to correct it?
I have no desire to find conspiracies, malpractice and bribery wherever possible. Just not surprised when it is found. Yes mistakes happen, and at the same time business is a bit like water polo -- some players take advantage of what the ref doesn't see.
Others can raise the conspiracy banner if a single staffer becomes a scapegoat for the whole thing!
I don't think this particular infraction is worthy of the death penalty. You figure out how much Nokia was hurt (and Apple, due to losing a competitive advantage), and slap on triple damages. Samsung will notice.
----------
No, it is not possible. I work in a big company and see a lot of confidential information. If anything suspect happens, the lawyers are all over it. Given that lawyers were involved at several stages, there's no way they could have missed this. There may have been a slip up by a staffer, but no way this information could have been widely posted and circulated-- and even cited in a negotiation-- without a lot of people being in the know. If it happened that way, then Samsung is so incompetent they should just stop trying to do business- and they infact seem to be extremely on top of their game in most aspects of their business.
Aren't there enough Samsung illegal wrongdoings already? I guess they feel there is room for some more.
Okay, I'll grant you that. It might have been a simple mistake by a staffer, and whatever chain of command was suposed to ensure the accuracy of the staffer's work. If so, I wonder when it was that counsel discovered the error, and what steps they took with Samsung to correct it?
I have no desire to find conspiracies, malpractice and bribery wherever possible. Just not surprised when it is found. Yes mistakes happen, and at the same time business is a bit like water polo -- some players take advantage of what the ref doesn't see.
Others can raise the conspiracy banner if a single staffer becomes a scapegoat for the whole thing!
In the world of technology, with developmental progress so rapid, I'd guess it is hardly unusual for corporations to take advantage of a windfall of information, even if the ethics of it are open to question. What I do think is unusual is to seek ways to obtain such information by illegal means - and having a law firm divulge such information against a protective order issued by a court is certainly illegal, just as it would be rather stupid if it were likely to become known after the event, as this very likely would given that to take advantage of it, Samsung would have to make it known they had the information in order to use it for leverage.
That's why, in this specific aspect of it, I think it most likely it was an error, subsequently (and wrongly) exploited by Samsung.
The order makes clear that the judge hearing this issue is keen to know the answer to the question of who knew, how long they knew and what they did with the information. The fact that there were 4 separate circulations of the document in various forms makes it hard for either Quinn Emanuel or Samsung to plead much in the way of ignorance.
Wait, if you don't care about this then why are you even posting in this thread defending Samsung because "they are all the same". For someone who does not care, if it does not effect you, you sure put a lot more effort then not caring.
I think you mean "I couldn't care less". Cheers.
Last edited:
This is not only something that upsets Apple, this is also an illegal action that DEFIES the Courts, and therefore the judge should also sanction or slap some fine on Samsung. What Samsung did is a slap in the face of the legal system, a contempt of Court, and the judge should have a zero tolerance policy for that.
Thirdly, Nokia is also should sue for damages against Dr. Ahn and Samsung. Nokia is already a very weakened company (after Microsoft acquired their mobile division), they NEED to fight for what little assets they have left.
Thirdly, Nokia is also should sue for damages against Dr. Ahn and Samsung. Nokia is already a very weakened company (after Microsoft acquired their mobile division), they NEED to fight for what little assets they have left.
If anyone thinks posters on MacRumors can be stupid, hop over to slashdot.org to read some truly moronic posts on this subject.
Yep, seen it. It's like 95% Android fanboys who are bashing Apple for "starting another patent lawsuit!" Such illiterates LOL
I think so. There are a few cases where quotes are attributed to Steve Jobs, when in reality Steve Jobs had quoted someone else (and actually given the name of the person he quoted).
Of course the average person isn't very well educated, so this particular quote is - intentionally or not - the most misunderstood Steve Jobs quote ever.
A good artist will look at what another artist does and copy it. Usually not in the sense that "copying" is used today but in the sense that you learn from others and from people that are better at it than you are, and improve yourself.
A great artist will look at something, steal the idea, and then turn it into something altogether new and surprising that the world hasn't seen before. That's what Picasso did, and that's what Apple does.
And I imagine the world would be set on fire if the headline was "Samsung Seeks Sanctions Against Apple for Unlawful Use of Samsung-Nokia Patent License Terms".
Considering the number of replies these news posts get, I would suggest that you do not speak for everyone.