Even so, the first executive who saw it should have taken steps to destroy physical copies and remove electronic copies. Also, they should not have acted upon the information.
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
Even so, the first executive who saw it should have taken steps to destroy physical copies and remove electronic copies. Also, they should not have acted upon the information.
IANAL, but I don't think it's so much the law but the rules of the federal court. If someone had anonymously mailed that contract to a blogger or journalist, the law wouldn't prohibit that person from publishing it (First Amendment).
However, the court specifically ordered Apple to turn over the document to Samsung's attorneys with the strict instructions that only the outside counsel working directly on the case could see the content. Apple and Nokia didn't want even that much but the court permitted it on the grounds that it would let the attorneys make their case without causing commercial harm to Apple or Nokia. That's now been breached by the knowledge that the information did find its way into the hands of people who shouldn't have seen it.
I understand what you are saying, but maybe I was brought up differently. I was told as a young lad to keep my friends close, but my enemies closer. Would it not be smarter to keep a very close watch on Samsung so you can always be that step ahead. Would that not eventually show the public who is the bigger company in the end.
It just comes across like two children arguing. I do realize it is adults though. And I am certainly not defending Samsung's actions.
Undoubtedly, but that was not relevant to the specific point to which I was responding.
Sounds lofty, but some things are just so patently wrong (nu pun intended), that one has to stand up for it.
Corruption happens everywhere you care to look, but the kind of flagrant disregard for the law, business practices and universal conventions exhibited by the highest echelons of Samsung, is setting a new bar.
I don't believe those executives believe in their hearts of heart, that they are doing something wrong; to them it's just business as usual. Apple is doing the right thing by challenging them. The Samsungs of the world have to be made aware that these violations of trust are not acceptable to the rest of the civilized world.
Failing that, we'll all descend into a 'lowest common denominator' downward spiral, towards that bottomless pit of greed and corruption.
I am asking this as a geniue question, how is this breach of confindental information, by Samsung, in which Apple and Nokia both asking for sanctions the same as two children arguing?
If you don't defend yourself, you become a victim. Apple is just following through on its fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to not let Samsung put them out of business. If you ever run a private business, you can do whatever you want, but you won't last long because there are companies like Samsung in the world who will not play fair. If you ever run a public business, you'll have no choice but to do exactly what Apple is doing. It's either use legal means to protect your corporation, or be faced with your shareholders using legal means to force you to use legal means to protect your corporation. Either way, Apple's lawyers get paid. Better they do it in the furtherance of Apple's bottom line than in defending their directors from angry shareholders citing precedent from Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. Apple would have a hard time arguing they're acting with due care by letting another corporation walk all over their patents, especially considering Apple made the mistake of not protecting their intellectual property in the past and it cost them dearly.
It's clear that the lawyers (or a law intern) made a bad mistake by not redacting parts, and the executive behaved childishly by bragging about his resulting knowledge. That aside...
What's interesting is the fact that Nokia says Samsung's knowing the Apple-Nokia terms, gave Samsung an unfair advantage in Samsung-Nokia negotiations.
This makes it sound like Apple got an extra good deal from Nokia.
It'd be also interesting to know if this was about FRAND licensing, or general patent cross-licensing.
What's interesting is the fact that Nokia says Samsung's knowing the Apple-Nokia terms, gave Samsung an unfair advantage in Samsung-Nokia negotiations.
This makes it sound like Apple got an extra good deal from Nokia.
It'd be also interesting to know if this was about FRAND licensing, or general patent cross-licensing.
I get what everyone is saying and I do understand what is happening between the two companies. How about charging Samsung criminally for what they have done, instead of the battle that is going on in civil court. I am no lawyer in any way at all, but is it not criminal what Samsung did? It just seems that every time you turn around these two companies are in civil court about something.
I really do understand that Apple has to protect itself. Maybe if this was made criminal it would not come across as childish to me. Also if this was criminal and some of Samsung's people sat in prison, maybe Samsung would get the point. But to continue this in civil court, and with what the media reports about it, just feels like kids fighting to me.
Maybe it is the media I should be blaming for the way I feel about it?
Anyway, this is the sort of thing that lawyers get disbarred for, and I can't imagine any judge hearing about this would be in a very forgiving mood towards any other Samsung shenanigans that may be on the docket. Judges are supposed to be impartial, but you do not want to piss off a judge with this sort of contempt, as you may have other business before them in the future. Apple will also be able to point to this case in future lawsuits between the two companies, which puts Samsung in a weaker position on legal strategy going forward. Their future lawyers may be unable to get confidential information from Apple or other companies to aid them in litigation.
For those who may not understand why this is such a (shockingly) big deal, lawyers are officers of the court. They have an obligation to promote justice and effective operation of the judicial system. The judicial system breaks down if lawyers cannot be trusted to carry out their obligations to be honest in their statements and behavior with regards to that system. Breaching a court order in the manner they allegedly did is a threat to their whole profession. If they're found to have done so, the judge will come down on them hard. This is sort of like if a lawyer suborned perjury, or advised their client to flee the jurisdiction to escape justice, or hid evidence they have full knowledge of. Lawyers just can't do that.
For those who may not understand why this is such a (shockingly) big deal, lawyers are officers of the court. They have an obligation to promote justice and effective operation of the judicial system. The judicial system breaks down if lawyers cannot be trusted to carry out their obligations to be honest in their statements and behavior with regards to that system. Breaching a court order in the manner they allegedly did is a threat to their whole profession. If they're found to have done so, the judge will come down on them hard. This is sort of like if a lawyer suborned perjury, or advised their client to flee the jurisdiction to escape justice, or hid evidence they have full knowledge of. Lawyers just can't do that.
Laws are laws, whether they're civil laws or criminal laws. I'm not sure why which type really matters to how you feel about them. This is just the accepted division in the courts in most jurisdictions worldwide.
That said, what Samsung's counsel did is probably contempt of court, which is really neither civil law nor criminal law, but an aspect of judicial power under common law. What it is is the judicial system's teeth, really their only independent power as a branch of government. If you disobey a lawful order by the court, that court can summarily impose punishment. It's not like you've violated a particular law. That said, because this is a civil court, that does complicate things a bit, which makes this case particularly interesting to watch.
As yet, it is not established what happened, so Apple's complaint, and the order to which the original post in this thread refers, are entirely about trying to establish the facts.
Once those facts are known, it may be that one or more person has acted criminally and could be prosecuted, but until then there's insufficient basis to even try.
It is also worth noting that criminal law is really very narrow, and the burden of evidence in order to establish guilt is very high. Civil law is much more broad, leaving wider options for pursuing cases, and the burden of evidence is much less exacting. Criminal cases must be proven 'beyond reasonable doubt', which in corporate activities can be very hard to achieve. Civil cases can be thought of as decided on the balance of probabilities - which side has provided the most persuasive argument.
In practice it means that if Samsung are careful and prevent some facts being made known, they could effectively frustrate any hope of a criminal conviction. On the other hand, if few facts are known but Apple can argue persuasively, a civil action against Samsung could still succeed, based not on demonstrable facts so much as reasoned conjecture.
It is also worth noting that any Samsung executive having access to the data at issue here is a violation of the protective order issued by a court to prevent that data being made available outside the remit of the case to which it related. Consequently, the order referred to here is as much about finding out who violated that protective order and why as it is about Apple being upset.
The three:
apple releasing confidential info
lawyer who shares with Samsung
Samsung which got found out
lawyer and samsung dead = Apple keeps the secret
Relevant now?
This is exactly why Apple argued that this information did not need to be disclosed in court and was not relevant to the case, and also why Samsung argued that it did need to be disclosed, so that it could use that information to its advantage in future negotiations.
It would be a very serious breach for Samsung's legal counsel to disclose this information to anyone who did not need to know for the purposes of the court case, and equally egregious for anyone who did not need to know to have accepted such information. This is such a serious allegation, however, that I doubt that Apple would make it without having strong evidence to support its case (otherwise Apple could be accused of libel). This further tarnishes Samsung's reputation in my books, and makes me think that the company's corporate ethics are not consistent with my own beliefs and values, and in spite of being a big fan of Samsung TVs, I don't think I can continue to support the company with my business in the future (although I realize I have little control over whether they supply components for other companies' products that I may purchase).
My apologies to all the real lawyers out there for my layman's interpretation of the legal aspects of this issue.
It would be a very serious breach for Samsung's legal counsel to disclose this information to anyone who did not need to know for the purposes of the court case, and equally egregious for anyone who did not need to know to have accepted such information. This is such a serious allegation, however, that I doubt that Apple would make it without having strong evidence to support its case (otherwise Apple could be accused of libel). This further tarnishes Samsung's reputation in my books, and makes me think that the company's corporate ethics are not consistent with my own beliefs and values, and in spite of being a big fan of Samsung TVs, I don't think I can continue to support the company with my business in the future (although I realize I have little control over whether they supply components for other companies' products that I may purchase).
My apologies to all the real lawyers out there for my layman's interpretation of the legal aspects of this issue.
Put in a nutshell, well said.
I like their TV's I have one, their chips they assemble for Apple and others are quality as are their displays but their smartphone division are as dirty as they come they pee over every company to get ahead, they are starting to be really despised except by the Samsung loyalists, seriously how can you defend this type of behaviour.
I also know Apple aren't innocent nor are most businesses but Samsung have been caught out ALOT lately and they should be brought to book as they seem to be laughing at the law and everyone else, I for one cannot wait for them to get their pants pulled down.
Thanks a lot for making this a bit clearer for me. As I said, I am in no way a lawyer and did not fully understand. I really appreciate your input.
Lawyers vs Engineers
I'm getting really sick of Apple paying lawyers instead of engineers!
The US Patent System needs a complete overhaul.
I'm getting really sick of Apple paying lawyers instead of engineers!
The US Patent System needs a complete overhaul.
"Instead"? Aren't Apple's engineers being paid anymore? Do you have a source for this?
That could well be. Until then, do you think that it's legitimate that US companies obey that system? Do you think that it's only Apple who are sticking to that US patent system?
Wow.
Just wow.
This is amazing. As brazen as when m$ illegally destroyed Netscape in the early 90's.
I've never been more shocked IN OVER A DECADE of the level of a company's douchebaggery.
Frankly... shame on you for your apathy.
Don't speak for me though. I am clearly MUCH smarter than you. I can tell that this is NOTHING like a "round corners" or "bounce back" patent. This is a company BLATANTLY breaking the law for their own gain.
Any senior officer reading a non-redacted version of the document who did not immediately realize that it contained information that was not for their eyes would not be smart enough to be a senior officer in a company the size of Samsung. Believe me, people in those positions don't usually reach such heights as a result of their good looks.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!
And once at least one senior officer discovered the error, it was their responsibility that all such information was immediately destroyed. Clearly, this did not happen. So are Samsung's senior management involved in this complaint corrupt (at least in our Western sense of the word), or are they merely all completely incompetent (in which case how can you explain their success)?
Last edited:
Excuse me, but this whole thread is about lawyers paid for and working for Samsung apparently being in gross disregard of a court order and illegally passing confidential information from Apple on to Samsung's executives, who then equally illegally made use of that information, and totally stupid bragged about it, and then stonewalling the judge who inquired about it.
Not a single patent in sight in this whole affair.
----------
There's the difference between criminal conviction and civil court cases. In a civil case, where it is only about money and damages, Samsung doesn't have any right to hide anything (hiding stuff would be taken as evidence that they have something to hide). That's different in a criminal case.