×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple and Nokia Outraged That Samsung Lawyers Leaked Patent License Terms

timothy posted about 7 months ago | from the at-least-make-him-stop-bragging dept.

The Courts 201

An anonymous reader writes "U.S. courts have strict rules in place governing the treatment of confidential business information. The most sensitive information is labeled 'highly confidential — attorneys' eyes only', meaning that only a company's outside lawyers are allowed to see it. The Apple-Nokia patent settlement contract and deals Apple struck with others (Ericsson, Sharp, Philips) were such highly confidential business information. But a Samsung executive allegedly boasted in a patent licensing negotiation with Nokia a few months ago about knowing all the terms of the Apple-Nokia deal because the Korean company's lawyers had provided it to their client, against the rules. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California now wants to find out more before deciding on sanctions against Samsung and its law firm, Quinn Emanuel."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

201 comments

Where's the Samsung fanboys now? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45027673)

I don't really care who wins the smart phone war, but it's pretty clear that Samsung is just as evil and corrupt as every other large corporation. Let the smack down begin.

Re:Where's the Samsung fanboys now? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45027837)

Just as evil by being told to bend over to the evil practices of Apple and knowing their terms?

The privileged nature of those documents is precisely to allow parties like Apple to prey on others.

Samsung may not be great, but their conduct has not been evil. Quinn Emanuel has been incompetent though (here and in the $1 billion dollar court verdict - they failed to disclose the existence and sale of the Sansung F700 until too late and could not rely on it as prior art.)

Re: Where's the Samsung fanboys now? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45028053)

Samsung are one of the least ethical companies around. Do your research. Bribery, corruption.. They should not be painted as saints, nor should their breach of law be overlooked.
Fanboys of any denomination should be ignored.

Re: Where's the Samsung fanboys now? (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about 7 months ago | (#45028585)

Samsung are one of the least ethical companies around.

Anonymous Coward has denounced you. (you are not at war)

Re: Where's the Samsung fanboys now? (2, Insightful)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 7 months ago | (#45028995)

Samsung is a great example of unregulated capitalism.

And it's not a good example.

Re: Where's the Samsung fanboys now? (3, Informative)

Solandri (704621) | about 7 months ago | (#45029605)

Samsung are one of the least ethical companies around. Do your research. Bribery, corruption..

Unfortunately, those are required to survive in business in Asia. Many other places too (e.g. Mexico, Chicago), but it's particularly bad in Asia. If you take a "I will never give nor accept bribes" stance and try to run a business in Asia, you will be bankrupt within a week.

Re:Where's the Samsung fanboys now? (2)

zieroh (307208) | about 7 months ago | (#45028151)

The privileged nature of those documents is precisely to allow parties like Apple to prey on others.

That doesn't even make sense.

Re:Where's the Samsung fanboys now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45029645)

Of course it does because... Apple!

Re:Where's the Samsung fanboys now? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45028235)

Not evil?????

What in hell is then evil?

https://stopsamsung.wordpress.com

Read and weep.

Re:Where's the Samsung fanboys now? (4, Informative)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 7 months ago | (#45028351)

Via http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/10/03/apple-samsung-sanctions-grewal/ [cnn.com]

          July 7, 2004: Jury advised of adverse interference when Samsung allowed emails to be automatically deleted even after it was told to retain relevant emails. After Samsung's appeal, Judge William Martini found "Samsung's actions go far beyond mere negligence, demonstrating knowing and intentional conduct."
        October 17, 2005: The U.S. Department of Justice fined Samsung nearly $300M for memory price fixing within the U.S.
        Feb. 7, 2007: U.S. government fined Samsung for $90M for memory chip price fixing for violations in 2006.
        Jan.15, 2008: Samsung's offices in Korea were raided after evidence showed that a slush fund was used to bribe government officials and other business leaders.
        July 16 2008, Samsung chairman, Lee Kun-He was found guilty in Seoul of financial wrongdoing and tax evasion. Despite prosecutor request of seven years in prison, sentence was reduced to three years followed by a pardon by the South Korean Government in 2009 to allow him to help with its successful bid to host the 2018 Winter Olympics. He is now a member of the International Olympic Committee and this 'pardoned criminal' returned as Samsung's Chairman in March 2010.
        May 19, 2010: The EU Commission fined Samsung for being part of a cartel that shared confidential information and fixed memory chip prices (along with eight other firms).
        Nov. 1, 2011: The Korean Fair Trade Commission fined Samsung for being part of a cartel that fixed prices and reduced output for TFT-LCD screens between 2001 and 2006.
        March 15, 2012: The Korean Fair Trade Commission fined Samsung for a mobile phone price fixing scheme and consumer fraud whereby consumers would be paying more than what the discounted prices advertised.
          July 25, 2012: Magistrate Grewal informs the jury that they could take into account that "spoliation" of evidence occurred when Samsung destroyed evidence that could have been used in the Apple lawsuit; Samsung had a policy of automatically deleting emails that were two weeks old and should have suspended that policy between August 2010 (when Apple informed Samsung of patent infringement) and April 2011 (when Apple initiated the lawsuit).
        August 24, 2012 a jury returned a verdict finding Samsung had willfully infringed on Apple's design and utility patents and had also diluted Apple's trade dresses related to the iPhone. But Samsung continues to fight the ruling, and continues in their copying behavior.
        Dec 2012: EU issued a Statement of Objections (SO) against Samsung for abusing its Standard-Essential Patents in not providing FRAND rates. Samsung withdrew all SEP-based injunction requests against Apple in Europe days before the SO was issued, but to no avail.
        April. 2013, Samsung is accused of and admits hiring people in several countries to falsify reports of HTC phones "constantly crashing" and posting fake benchmark reviews.
        October 2013 Samsung in confirmed reports from independent and objective testing, found to be intentionally falsifying performance benchmarks of its flagship products: the Galaxy S4 and Note 3.

Re:Where's the Samsung fanboys now? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45028037)

Slashdot--the only place where everyone celebrates Manning and Snowden because "all information should be free", but condem teh evil corporations for leaking information about teh other evil corporations.

Re:Where's the Samsung fanboys now? (2)

drakaan (688386) | about 7 months ago | (#45028169)

Snowden, yes. Manning, no. (For me personally, of course)

Re:Where's the Samsung fanboys now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45028323)

Why not Chelsea Manning?

Re:Where's the Samsung fanboys now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45029813)

Because he's a fucking idiot.

Re:Where's the Samsung fanboys now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45028523)

I don't really care who wins the smart phone war, but it's pretty clear that Samsung is just as evil and corrupt as every other large corporation. Let the smack down begin.

The patent system, especially one where the terms of licensing deals are kept a secret, is completely antithetical to American ingenuity. I say fuck patents, and good for Samsung for waving it in Apple and Nokia's fat faces. If you need to keep the terms of your patent licenses a secret, you are doing it wrong.

Re:Where's the Samsung fanboys now? (4, Insightful)

morgauxo (974071) | about 7 months ago | (#45029015)

I don't intend to defend Samsung as being good or evil (all I really know about them in terms of cellphones is that my Samsung Stratosphere really sucks!)

But.. how does THIS event make them corrupt or evil? Because they broke a law? Because they broke the terms of someone else's contract? How is it morally wrong to know what someone else paid for the same 'product'? Isn't that how we all shop for anything which doesn't already have a price tag on it? Do you buy a house without looking at comps? If you go to an open market and you hear someone else haggling for one of something you want is it wrong to then offer the vendor the same deal? Or are you supposed to pretend you heard nothing and start the haggling from scratch?

Why should our legal system be helping to enforce these secrecy clauses on contracts? How is it in the people's intrest to enforce them? All I can see it being used for is to jack up the price of goods as well as to keep new and smaller players out of markets.

Re:Where's the Samsung fanboys now? (1)

KiloByte (825081) | about 7 months ago | (#45029635)

How is it morally wrong to know what someone else paid for the same 'product'?

To the contrary: it is morally wrong to hide that data. This is known as "price discrimination".

why do people care about this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45027715)

corporations have been business partners and competitors for many decades. they have collaborated on products while suing each other in dozens of lawsuits for the last hundred years.

US states and cities are always suing each other and the federal government. the government and lots of companies are always involved in thousands of lawsuits. its how democracy works. we have laws and when there is disagreement about the law or you believe you have been wronged you sue.

Dear Leftwing People (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45027719)

I am Rightwing, you hate me, but let's put that aside.

If you want to rein in the power of big business, don't do it through tons of stupid regulation and taxes, do it with one simple regulation: businesses should not get to lie or keep secrets.

It's a fundamental assumption of "perfect market economics" (no information asymmetry) and what everybody thinks are the wonderful benefits of free markets are actually the wonderful benefits of perfect markets. If you don't have perfect markets, you don't get the benefits.

This is how to make the free market work, and it's a regulation any pinko could love.

Re:Dear Leftwing People (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 7 months ago | (#45027791)

How exactly do you enforce that?

Re:Dear Leftwing People (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45027939)

With regulations, of course.

Libertarians live in rainbow-and-pony-filled imaginary worlds of wishful and magical thinking

Re:Dear Leftwing People (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45028051)

With regulations, of course.

Libertarians live in rainbow-and-pony-filled imaginary worlds of wishful and magical thinking

As opposed to being filled with hope and change?

Re:Dear Leftwing People (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45028075)

Anarchists live in rainbow-and-pony-filled imaginary worlds of wishful and magical thinking

FTFY.

Libertarians believe in government action against force or fraud.

Re:Dear Leftwing People (1)

Arker (91948) | about 7 months ago | (#45028689)

Negative, we live in the real world, where 'regulation' has been perverted and redefined to mean 'hiring an army of bureaucrats and letting them run amok.'

There's no need for regulation in the modern sense, just application of good old fashioned criminal and civil law.

But more than that, there needs to be a bit of a cultural shift. Right now it's way too acceptable to write off all sorts of corruption as 'just the way the world is' and tolerate it rather than digging it out and exposing it to the light.

Death squads (2)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 7 months ago | (#45029017)

Summary executions of anyone *suspected* of keeping a corporate secret. We can sell licenses like we do for deer or elk during hunting season. Give 'em a name and a tag and make sure they register the body with the local game warden when they finish.

Guns, meaningless killing, and anti-corporatism - It's the perfect left-right-libertarian utopia

Re:Dear Leftwing People (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 7 months ago | (#45029157)

The general corrolation between economic freedom, a central subset of general libertarian (small L) concepts, and advancing plentitude is well-established.

The best an honest leftist can claim is riding on this untamed and unparalleled wealth and advancement engine to take off the rough edges.

However, the traditional leftist tenet, that government should be in charge of everything throuch central planning has, by the exact same human history, been found massively lagging comparatively, at best (old China, USSR), and murderously retrograde at worst (North Korea).

No national politician in the US even goes near that anymore, for fear of, correctly, being thought a fool. They sing the praises of freedom, including economic freedom, which new China is proving yet again.

Re:Dear Leftwing People (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45028039)

How exactly do you enforce that?

By putting a law on the books that says you can't sign away your right to free expression (much like a contract can't make murdering you legal). This would make NDA's unenforceable.

Re:Dear Leftwing People (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 7 months ago | (#45028341)

That does not mean they can't keep secrets it just means they can't use the court to enforce it. So I just offer all my employees $X bonus if no leaks occur.

Re: Dear Leftwing People (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45028501)

There are legitimate reasons to have NDA in place. I worked on a project for a large jeweller, and had access to shipping data.
Let's just say some items rely on security through obscurity , and if I revealed the data, it would expose them to crime,and force them to use more secure (and expensive) shipping, making their products less competitive, and more expensive for Joe Average who wants to buy an engagement ring for his sweetheart.

Re:Dear Leftwing People (0)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 7 months ago | (#45028233)

Can't be a right winger. Right wingers know a free market doesn't have to be perfect to function. There are no perfect anythings.

This is a left winger setting up a strawman. Most likely H4rr4r.

Re:Dear Leftwing People (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45029297)

I have wings and as such I propose Samsung to use Chinese and Eastern European hackers to discover confidential business information of their competitors like normal companies do.

Re:Dear Leftwing People (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45029433)

I am Rightwing

oh boy, this should be interesting

Cheater (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45027721)

We call those cheaters Scheissung here.

Yawn! (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45027727)

Is that you again Florian?

PR Spin (1)

sgrover (1167171) | about 7 months ago | (#45027747)

Why does this read like a PR document written by Apple to sway public opinion? Both parties have come close or outright crossed the ethical lines in their various legal battles. Finger waving or sanctioning a lawyer here or there does not change the core issues. Rather is distracts from the core issues and gains sentiment (or attempts to).

Re:PR Spin (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45027785)

Because the author of the article is Florian Muller, known paid shill.

(spoiler alert: he's also the "anonymous submitter" that got this crap on the front page)

Re:PR Spin (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45028213)

I didn't even click through to TFA.

Then I did.

I fixed the bio:

Florian Mueller is a douchebag-turned-shill with 25 years of software industry brown-nosing spanning across different market segments (games, education, productivity and infrastructure software), diverse frauds and a variety of technical and commercial areas of ass-hattery, enabling any twisted perspective you're willing to pay for. Florian shills for clients on the patent wars surrounding mobile devices, and on their economic and technical implications and will spread FUD as far and wide as the client's funds will allow. His shilling services are available directly (contact form, LinkedIn profile) as well as through two primary marketing firms.

Florian has been known to call himself the Ralph Spoilsport of technology and take it seriously.

Re:PR Spin (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45028277)

Paid shill, but not paid shill by either Apple or Nokia. He gets paid by Oracle and MS.
Anyway. Facts are facts. Even if they come from a shill.

Re:PR Spin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45028609)

No, he gets paid by anybody.

Florian is like Robert Enderle, or John Dvorak, but without the integrity.

Re:PR Spin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45027885)

Because everything a company does has a PR spin to it?

Re:PR Spin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45028031)

Why don't you ask the same questions when the same kind of thing is posted by Fandroids over articles that beat on Apple about Samsung's legal dickerings? Answer that question honestly and you may find an answer to your own questions.

Re:PR Spin (4, Informative)

Space cowboy (13680) | about 7 months ago | (#45028101)

Show me where Apple have crossed the ethical lines ? You may disagree with their case, but I don't recall anyone claiming their lawyers were unethical in prosecuting that case ...

As for Samsung, they're just scumbags who don't respect the law of any land...

(Taken from Fortune [cnn.com] ...)

  • July 7, 2004: Jury advised of adverse interference when Samsung allowed emails to be automatically deleted even after it was told to retain relevant emails. After Samsung's appeal, Judge William Martini found "Samsung's actions go far beyond mere negligence, demonstrating knowing and intentional conduct."
  • October 17, 2005: The U.S. Department of Justice fined Samsung nearly $300M for memory price fixing within the U.S.
  • Feb. 7, 2007: U.S. government fined Samsung for $90M for memory chip price fixing for violations in 2006.
  • Jan.15, 2008: Samsung's offices in Korea were raided after evidence showed that a slush fund was used to bribe government officials and other business leaders.
  • July 16 2008, Samsung chairman, Lee Kun-He was found guilty in Seoul of financial wrongdoing and tax evasion. Despite prosecutor request of seven years in prison, sentence was reduced to three years followed by a pardon by the South Korean Government in 2009 to allow him to help with its successful bid to host the 2018 Winter Olympics. He is now a member of the International Olympic Committee and this 'pardoned criminal' returned as Samsung's Chairman in March 2010.
  • May 19, 2010: The EU Commission fined Samsung for being part of a cartel that shared confidential information and fixed memory chip prices (along with eight other firms).
  • Nov. 1, 2011: The Korean Fair Trade Commission fined Samsung for being part of a cartel that fixed prices and reduced output for TFT-LCD screens between 2001 and 2006.
  • March 15, 2012: The Korean Fair Trade Commission fined Samsung for a mobile phone price fixing scheme and consumer fraud whereby consumers would be paying more than what the discounted prices advertised.
  • July 25, 2012: Magistrate Grewal informs the jury that they could take into account that "spoliation" of evidence occurred when Samsung destroyed evidence that could have been used in the Apple lawsuit; Samsung had a policy of automatically deleting emails that were two weeks old and should have suspended that policy between August 2010 (when Apple informed Samsung of patent infringement) and April 2011 (when Apple initiated the lawsuit).
  • August 24, 2012 a jury returned a verdict finding Samsung had willfully infringed on Apple's design and utility patents and had also diluted Apple's trade dresses related to the iPhone. But Samsung continues to fight the ruling, and continues in their copying behavior.
  • Dec 2012: EU issued a Statement of Objections (SO) against Samsung for abusing its Standard-Essential Patents in not providing FRAND rates. Samsung withdrew all SEP-based injunction requests against Apple in Europe days before the SO was issued, but to no avail.
  • April. 2013, Samsung is accused of and admits hiring people in several countries to falsify reports of HTC phones "constantly crashing" and posting fake benchmark reviews.
  • October 2013 Samsung in confirmed reports from independent and objective testing, found to be intentionally falsifying performance benchmarks of its flagship products: the Galaxy S4 and Note 3.

If Apple tried to pull that shit, all hell would break loose. And rightfully so. For me personally, it's enough that I don't buy anything with a Samsung brand on the outside any more. They're the only company for which that's the case.

Simon.

Re:PR Spin (3, Interesting)

sgrover (1167171) | about 7 months ago | (#45028915)

That's a pretty one sided summary. Where's the comments that the auto-deleting emails was done by apple as well? Where's the comments that apple was investigated for price fixing wrt ebooks? Or the details that the jury that awarded billions to Apple is under scrutiny for improprieties. This response is so one sided it has to be an Apple fanboi (at best) or an outright shill that wrote that article. BTW, if it is Florian Muller, then yes a known and outright shill for the anti-open source agenda. The truth is not found at the extremes of a topic like this.

Re:PR Spin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45028971)

Well for me personally, Samsung has a better quality product than Apple and has had for years.

You may say that you don't buy anything Samsung... but if you buy Apple anything or a host of other computing devices,
you will find Samsung inside. Get over it.

Re:PR Spin (3, Informative)

Gravis Zero (934156) | about 7 months ago | (#45028989)

Show me where Apple have crossed the ethical lines ?

- using what practically amounts to slave labor at Foxconn
- dodging taxes by claiming residence in ireland
- suing everyone and their moms with bullshit claims and patents
- false advertising (it should be named the Idiot Bar, not the Genius Bar)
- overpricing all their stuff
- suing everyone making compatible hardware into bankruptcy
- putting in a clause into OSX's license prohibiting using it on anything but official Apple hardware

Re:PR Spin (1)

wavedeform (561378) | about 7 months ago | (#45029339)

Show me where Apple have crossed the ethical lines ?

- using what practically amounts to slave labor at Foxconn

You mean just like every other major manufacturer? The Foxconn jobs are highly desired, anyway.

- dodging taxes by claiming residence in ireland

Don't most major US companies hold a lot of assets in overseas subsidies?

- suing everyone and their moms with bullshit claims and patents

You mean just like every other major manufacturer? If you're arguing that the patent system should be reformed, I totally agree with that. Until that time, shouldn't they play the game?

- false advertising (it should be named the Idiot Bar, not the Genius Bar)

If you say so.

- overpricing all their stuff

Well then their sales will suffer, right? Oh... wait...

- suing everyone making compatible hardware into bankruptcy

What is "compatible hardware" in this case? Are you talking about the 1990s clones?

- putting in a clause into OSX's license prohibiting using it on anything but official Apple hardware

This is a moot point now, as there is no distribution of the OS other than the Apple store. It's been an "upgrade" market for the OS rather than a "purchase" market for a long time.

Re:PR Spin (1)

Gravis Zero (934156) | about 7 months ago | (#45029873)

you seem to have confused ethics with legality and the status quo.

"everyone is doing it!" does not suddenly make something ethical.

- overpricing all their stuff

Well then their sales will suffer, right? Oh... wait...

selling well != ethical

- suing everyone making compatible hardware into bankruptcy

What is "compatible hardware" in this case? Are you talking about the 1990s clones?

no. try google.

- putting in a clause into OSX's license prohibiting using it on anything but official Apple hardware

This is a moot point now, as there is no distribution of the OS other than the Apple store. It's been an "upgrade" market for the OS rather than a "purchase" market for a long time.

incorrect. you can buy the full thing without needing a previous version to install it. check out this listing on amazon [amazon.com] if you dont believe me.

Re:PR Spin (1)

tyrione (134248) | about 7 months ago | (#45029359)

Show me where Apple have crossed the ethical lines ?

- using what practically amounts to slave labor at Foxconn - dodging taxes by claiming residence in ireland - suing everyone and their moms with bullshit claims and patents - false advertising (it should be named the Idiot Bar, not the Genius Bar) - overpricing all their stuff - suing everyone making compatible hardware into bankruptcy - putting in a clause into OSX's license prohibiting using it on anything but official Apple hardware

Legal on all counts. The taxes is par for the entire course of all corporations and non-profits, if legally available to them. The rest of your stuff is hilarious, especially the Design Patents for clone hardware and OS X only on Apple hardware.

Re:PR Spin (1, Insightful)

Gravis Zero (934156) | about 7 months ago | (#45029667)

Legal on all counts.

"Show me where Apple have crossed the ethical lines ?"

invest in either a dictionary or glasses.

Re:PR Spin (4, Insightful)

Dixie_Flatline (5077) | about 7 months ago | (#45029641)

The labour at Foxconn is actually fairly well paid. The suicide rate at the factory is LESS than in the general populace. Many workers were upset when their hours were reduced because they're only working there so they can make some money now then leave in a year or two. A lot of these people are sending money home to their farming families. There are lines outside the company of people wanting to work there. AND Apple is working to improve conditions and clamp down on working violations.

Dodging taxes is legal, though of dubious ethics. But no other large company is playing by any different rules.

Everyone is suing everyone. You think Samsung isn't also on the suing end of courtroom as well? In any case, the problem is the patent system that allows those patents in the first place; once the patent is actually accepted, Apple legally has the right to defend it. You're looking at this from the wrong side.

That 'false advertising' claim is subjective. I've never had a problem at the genius bar.

By definition, their stuff isn't overpriced because people buy it at that price. If it were overpriced, nobody would buy it. It's what the market will bear, and people are perfectly happy to pay it.

I don't know who you're talking about on the compatible hardware front, exactly, but Apple isn't under any obligation to make software that allows OS X or iOS to run. That's not unethical, that's just a philosophical discussion. If you don't like it--and I'm sure you'll tell me you don't--don't run it.

Re:PR Spin (2)

Karlt1 (231423) | about 7 months ago | (#45029717)

"- using what practically amounts to slave labor at Foxconn"

The same company that a dozen other companies use

"- dodging taxes by claiming residence in ireland"

Do you take every tax deduction you are eligible to take?

"- suing everyone and their moms with bullshit claims and patents"

Every company is suing everyone. Do you know that Motorola basically blackmailed Google into buying them by threatening to sue other Android manufacturers?

" false advertising (it should be named the Idiot Bar, not the Genius Bar)"

Example?

"- overpricing all their stuff"

There is no such thing as something being "overpriced" in a capitalist economy -- especially if it not an essential good.

"- suing everyone making compatible hardware into bankruptcy"

????

"- putting in a clause into OSX's license prohibiting using it on anything but official Apple hardware"

How is that unethical? Is it unethical that I can't use GPL 3.0 license software in the method I want?

Re:PR Spin (1)

evilviper (135110) | about 7 months ago | (#45029181)

Hmm... Lots of those are about memory price fixing. Many memory manufacturers were found guilty of the same, and Apple isn't there because THEY DON'T MANUFACTURE MEMORY. Ditto for TFT-LCDs.

Samsung is ripe to get in more trouble than Apple, because they're a vastly larger company, with interests in innumerable diverse industries that Apple doesn't care to be involved in.

Besides, why are you giving Apple a free pass, when THEY BUY SAMSUNG PARTS for their own products, and apparently don't care about all of the above?

 

Re:PR Spin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45029499)

Also, they do illegal things.

Re:PR Spin (4, Informative)

sjvn (11568) | about 7 months ago | (#45028203)

Why does this read like a PR document written by Apple to sway public opinion? Both parties have come close or outright crossed the ethical lines in their various legal battles. Finger waving or sanctioning a lawyer here or there does not change the core issues. Rather is distracts from the core issues and gains sentiment (or attempts to).

It reads like PR because it's written by a known Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle patent shill.

Steven

Who can Samsung pay off now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45027755)

How can Samsung continue its tremendous innovation if it hasn't enough money to pay off all the people it needs?

usa is do pathetically dead. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45027799)

Obabo lifting ban for Apple, now u.s. government fighting Samsung again. usa is do pathetically dead.

Sounds like lawyers playing lawyer (0)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 7 months ago | (#45027813)

So Apple gave Samsung's lawyers a document and told them not to give it to Samsung, the company they're working for?
Did the lawyers all then get in a circle and jerk each other off? [urbandictionary.com]

Lawyers are supposed to work for their client, not hide information from them.

Re:Sounds like lawyers playing lawyer (5, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about 7 months ago | (#45027901)

Lawyers are supposed to work for their client, not hide information from them.

Except, as TFS says, there are strict rules in place for some things.

Sometimes, a lawyer is needed to be a buffer between you and something else you're not legally allowed to know. If this was the case, then the lawyer has either broken the law, or the standards of the Bar. Those are the kinds of things that can get you in trouble.

Whether or not this is true is a different story, but if it is true, there could be some serious consequences.

Re:Sounds like lawyers playing lawyer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45028017)

Especially when a Judge tells company 1 to give the documents to Company 2's lawyers and that said lawyers are NOT to divulge the contents to their clients.
If this is the case and Samsung's lawyers have goofed here then Apple will have precident on their side to present to a judge in the future in order to stop it happening again.
IMHO, IANAL, if true, those lawyers are toast. They'd better be preparing to start work flipping burgers for the rest of their working life

Re:Sounds like lawyers playing lawyer (1)

drolli (522659) | about 7 months ago | (#45028799)

Lawyers are also a part of the legal system. While they may work for their clients, they are granted special rights in many crountries, inclusding the US aince they agree to the normal proessional ethics. It is very possible that a lawyer must retain knowledge from the client under specific circumstances. Lawyers are paid by the client for a very specific service. They got access to the licensing condition so that they could judge if these touch their clients interest. while i would liek to see patent swaps/licensing deals more transparent (I would think of a "stock exchange model" for licenses) , i have to recognize that currently these are view as a kind of private contract.

Re:Sounds like lawyers playing lawyer (1)

jbeaupre (752124) | about 7 months ago | (#45029113)

Heck, I was involved in a lawsuit where the plaintiff company obtained confidential information about the defendant company before the lawsuit (industrial espionage, anyone?) and managed to get a judge's order to restrict that knowledge to the lawyers. The result was defendant's lawyers were not allowed to show the defendant their own documents.

How do I know? During a deposition, plaintiffs showed me (on the defendant side) one of defendants documents marked confidential, but also marked as produced by plaintiff in discovery. And STILL defendants' lawyers were not allowed to tell the defendants that plaintiffs confidential information in their possession.

because the company's LAWYERS had provided it (4, Insightful)

themushroom (197365) | about 7 months ago | (#45027819)

Not Samsung. The legal firm, the only ones privvy to the terms. Samsung itself only received the information, and stupidly let on knowing the information, but ultimately it's the legal firm that screwed up. Not Samsung.

Re: because the company's LAWYERS had provided it (0)

Yehat (13154) | about 7 months ago | (#45028105)

You know what? Stick that Samsung in your ass.

Re: because the company's LAWYERS had provided it (5, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about 7 months ago | (#45028159)

but ultimately it's the legal firm that screwed up. Not Samsung

If they accepted it with the knowledge that the judge had forbidden them from having it, and didn't tell anybody about it, then Samsung may well have crossed a line.

The reason these things are intended to be kept only by the lawyers is so that neither party can gain an advantage by using information they're not legally allowed to have.

To then take the information you're not legally allowed to have and then use that to gain leverage in a contract negotiation would be illegal. And it sounds like Samsung went into negotiations with someone and said "well, I know the terms of this deal with these people, and I want better".

It's like SEC regulations on insider trading -- they're designed to keep people from profiting from information which isn't public. And there are cases where you could be told something as part of your job, and warned sternly that, for that issue you are now an insider and can't act on that. (Which is why many of us try very hard to not actually know the specifics of some of the systems we work with. It's just easier to keep some information at arms length.)

Having that information may be illegal. Using the information may certainly be illegal. I'm not so sure that Samsung would be blameless here.

Re: because the company's LAWYERS had provided it (1)

intermodal (534361) | about 7 months ago | (#45028245)

Always. The more sensationalized this can become, the better Apple and Nokia will get from the courts and/or settlement.

Re: because the company's LAWYERS had provided it (1)

nytes (231372) | about 7 months ago | (#45029381)

That Samsung received the information is the lawyer's fault. But then Samsung, knowing fully well that they had information they were not supposed to have, distributed it further and utilized it in negotiations with Nokia.

It's obvious that Samsung knew they had information they weren't supposed to have, from the statement alleged to have been made to Nokia by a Samsung executive: "All information leaks."

Only acceptable when USA does it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45027839)

Well every country spy on each other and every company spy on each other. But since might makes right, it is only acceptable when the american government does it to foreign companies for the benefit of american companies.

Who is Dr. Ang? (1)

Arker (91948) | about 7 months ago | (#45027909)

He doesnt seem to be notable enough for wikipedia but there's a cite in an IBM press conference from two years ago as "Dr. Seungho Ahn, Executive Vice President and Head of the IP Center, Samsung Electronics."

He may become an overnight celebrity of sorts.

Public knowledge (5, Interesting)

fredprado (2569351) | about 7 months ago | (#45027911)

All legal settlements should be public knowledge. It is a reversal on the basic ethic principles of our society when public entities, like the NSA, can spy upon private affairs with impunity, and individuals and private entities are denied what should be public knowledge.

Re:Public knowledge (4, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about 7 months ago | (#45028047)

All legal settlements should be public knowledge

Except many settlements are essentially a contract between two private parties, enforced and accepted by the court. Often time, the settlement is made to allow anybody admitting any legal responsibility while making the issue go away -- like Michael Jackson't settlement with the kids he allegedly molested.

There's lots of occasions where some of this stuff remains private information, because it's an agreement between the two entities, and spares them having it discussed in court and going on the record.

This isn't something where the court has ruled, this is a case where the two parties agreed to stop the court proceedings and come up with a settlement. Since this can involve information which can affect stock prices and the like, it sometimes needs to be confidential.

Re:Public knowledge (2)

fredprado (2569351) | about 7 months ago | (#45028227)

Sorry but no. If it reached the courts it should not be private anymore.

If you want to set them privately don't use public institutions to arbitrate your problems in the first place.

And even if you do not involve any public entity in your dispute keeping your secrets should be your problem, not mine, the government's or societys.

Re:Public knowledge (2)

Just Some Guy (3352) | about 7 months ago | (#45028469)

That's an interesting topic of conversation, but how could you possibly enforce it? Suppose I sue you. We go to lunch, sit down, and hash out our differences: "Tell you what, fredprado. Let's just end this. If you promise not to build that fence and quit yelling at my kid for walking down the sidewalk, I'll drop the suit. Can we make a gentleman's agreement?" We shake hands, go our separate ways, and both follow through on the agreement.

First, how would you craft a law enforcing that our private negotiations have to be part of the permanent record? Second, how would you square that with our 1st amendment right to publish (or not publish) the terms of our agreements?

Re:Public knowledge (2)

fredprado (2569351) | about 7 months ago | (#45028627)

Easy, you "enforce" it by not enforcing at all. Secrets are the keeper responsibility to keep. If it leaked, bad luck to you.

Even if you decide to lie in court about the contents of your settlement I see no problem, as long as you do not come crying when someone discovers the truth.

When you file the suit, you make it public (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 7 months ago | (#45029099)

By filing a suit, you have raised the stakes and any resolution should be public.

There are only two conditions where the settlement would want to be private - the defendant knows they screwed up and want to cover up any future liability or embarrassment, or the plaintiff was over aggressive and filed a questionable suit to force an issue with the defendant and wants to save face. Fuck that.

If you file a suit it has the MEAN something. Using it in any other way makes it easy to back down, undermining the system and either letting real crooks off the hook or giving bullies another tool to badger their opponents.

Re:When you file the suit, you make it public (1)

bws111 (1216812) | about 7 months ago | (#45029405)

No, those are most certainly not the only two conditions where the settlement woud want to be private. In fact, neither of those conditions are the most common one. The most common one is that the defendant, even though he does not think he is in the wrong, finds it cheaper and easier to settle than to have the enormous expense of a court trial. And those are the ones that the defendant most wants to keep private, because making them public puts a giant target for every scam artist on his back. Can you imagine what would happen if it became known that Ford would settle for $500 if you claim you pinched your finger in the door?

Re:Public knowledge (3, Insightful)

bws111 (1216812) | about 7 months ago | (#45028591)

You do know that using the public institutions is not something the parties agree to, right? ONE party can take it to court, which according to you seems to me that the OTHER party loses all it's right to privacy. That is a pretty stupid idea.

Finally, the reasons the secrets were not kept secret is because the court ordered them to be shared with the other party. I fail to see why any of my secrets should be made public just because I was ordered to provide them to another party that happened to file suit against me.

Re:Public knowledge (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about 7 months ago | (#45028789)

Sorry, but settlements are NOT unilateral and have nothing do do with the court ordering you to disclose anything. Whenever a court orders you to disclose something private against your will it should be responsible for helping to control how much it leaks in my opinion, as futile and irrelevant those attempts may be in the end..

Re:Public knowledge (2)

bws111 (1216812) | about 7 months ago | (#45029287)

I didn't say settlements were unilateral, I said going to court was a unilateral action.

What you seem to want to do is create a kind of legal extortion. If someone claims you have wronged them your choice is either agree to their terms, or lose your right to privacy. The plaintiff can demand absolutely anything, and there is nothing you can do about it. Plaintiff can claim he injured himself and demand $1000. What are you going to do, just pay it? If you refuse, and the plaintiff sues, it is now 'in court'. Now the plaintiff can offer to settle for only $100. If that fact will be kept secret it is probably better for you to just pay the $100 rather than pay legal fees, etc. However, if the terms of the settlement will NOT be kept secret then it is a lousy deal for you, as everyone knows you are an easy target for $100. How is that fair to the defendant, whose only options would be pay the initially requested amount, or let the whole world know what you are willing to pay?

Re:Public knowledge (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about 7 months ago | (#45029425)

On the contrary, what I want to create is a system where legal extortion does not exist. Where settling when you are in the right does not pay off, and where people that have real interests in settling will try to do it without involving courts in the process.

Re:Public knowledge (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 7 months ago | (#45028893)

Except your secrets are being shared because you're the party taking the other one to court. This was Apple-Nokia trying to get Samsung to pay for their patents - which should all be public anyway, and so should all dealings with them, If you want it to be private, keep it as a trade secret and don't file a patent.

Re:Public knowledge (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45029043)

If you want to set them privately don't use public institutions to arbitrate your problems in the first place.

Where's the public law opt-out form? I can't find it.

Re:Public knowledge (1)

Solandri (704621) | about 7 months ago | (#45029687)

Except many settlements are essentially a contract between two private parties, enforced and accepted by the court. Often time, the settlement is made to allow anybody admitting any legal responsibility while making the issue go away -- like Michael Jackson't settlement with the kids he allegedly molested.

In general I agree with you. Two parties should be allowed to come up with whatever agreement they want to, including keeping it out of the eyes of the public.

However, patent and copyright issues are not "natural". They're artificial property constructs imposed upon society by the government ostensibly to serve a greater public good. Consequently, in the interest of making sure they are serving a greater public good, I believe their licensing terms should be mandated to be open and public.

In other words, any time a patent or copyright is licensed or transferred, it's not strictly between two parties. It's between three - the licensor, the licensee, and the general public. If a license or transfer of one of these artificial properties is not in the best interest of the public, the public has a right to know about it.

Re:Public knowledge (1)

bws111 (1216812) | about 7 months ago | (#45028403)

That makes no sense at all. First, you have stated zero reasons why agreements between two private parties (any agreements) should be made public. Second, you somehow manage to drag goverment spying into it, as if that has anything at all to do with it.

There are good reasons why such things should be kept private. Let's say I file a claim against you, claiming your slightly uneven sidewalk caused me to stub my toe. You go ask your friendly lawyer what to do, and he says 'well, you could fight it but that could be expensive even if you win, but I talked to the guy and he is willing to settle for $100'. You accept the settlement. According to you, that should now be public information, thereby inviting everyone and his brother to file a claim against you, knowing that not only will you settle, but you will settle for at least $100.

The only thing your idea would do is eliminate settlements altogether, which is pretty much the opposite of the ideal situation.

Re:Public knowledge (2)

fredprado (2569351) | about 7 months ago | (#45028759)

As soon as you go to court you should lose the ability to settle in secret. If you want to do it do it before going to court.

Furthermore any private content should be your responsibility to keep secret about if you so want, not the government's. If someone else found about your dirty secrets it is your problem and nobody else's. If you can prove your lawyer or anyone that has signed your contract broke it and leaked information he should not by all means go after him for any punishment contained in the contract, but you have no business going after someone who didn't sign any contract with you.

And no, I don't recognize your reason to keep settlements private as a good one.

Re:Public knowledge (1)

bws111 (1216812) | about 7 months ago | (#45029417)

And you still have provided zero reasons why this information should be public.

Re:Public knowledge (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about 7 months ago | (#45029451)

Because you are using the public to arbitrate it, and it is the public right to know EVERYTHING their representatives are doing in their name.

The real story (5, Insightful)

ysth (1368415) | about 7 months ago | (#45027921)

Ignoring all the florian-spew and articles based on it, it seems an expert report was accidentally insufficiently redacted, and Samsung has not been fast enough in their investigation of where all the information went, so the magistrate judge is setting a deadline and ordering some depositions. Yawn.

Re:The real story (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 7 months ago | (#45028189)

So... They didn't redact information, and distributed it. And now Samsung's on the hook?

Well, seems like the NSA could save a BUNCH of money by posting everything secret unredacted on Wikipedia.

Re:The real story (1)

StormReaver (59959) | about 7 months ago | (#45029671)

Ignoring all the florian-spew

That's an excellent visual, and highly accurate. Everyone can safely ignore this article, as it comes from fosspatents (Florian's anti-FOSS website). You can safely assume that nothing in the article is even remotely true; except, perhaps, that Samsung, Nokia, and Apple are real companies.

Oh Quinn Emanuel... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45027957)

I believe this is the same law firm that "leaked" the terms of the Facebook settlement involving the Winklevi Twins .... in their quarterly firm newsletter?

Go After the Lawyers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45027975)

Apple and Nokia need to go after the lawyers for this violation. Ideally the court will sanction the lawyer including possible bar suspensions for any of the lawyers involved.

Present Company Excepted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45028027)

Guys, in the present situation vis-a-vis secrecy and government snooping are you really going to get pissed over some lawyers over-share?

As a great man once said: "Privacy is dead, GET OVER IT!" ...Brought to you by your friends at Setec Astronomy...

Crapple Fanboys Aside (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45028089)

The article puts it a little differently. An expert wrote a report supporting Samsung's royalty claims and his report contained some information on royalties Apple was paying to other IP holders. At some point Samsung's law firm sent executives a draft of the report containing the Apple royalty info.

Shocked (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45028117)

I'm shocked that Samsung, a company that was run by a CEO convicted of tax evasion and indicted for bribery and embezzlement, would do something like this.

Following government message (3, Funny)

gmuslera (3436) | about 7 months ago | (#45028149)

If you did nothing wrong, then you have nothing to hide. Why not embrace that culture of transparency giving the example?

gee, that makes sense (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 7 months ago | (#45028719)

So ONLY the lawyers can see the agreement between the two companies? Not the executives? So in other words, an agreement occurred but it is completely impossible to comply with them because nobody at the company knows what the terms are. Genius!

Hum, guys? This is a Florian Mueller article. (1)

Brandano (1192819) | about 7 months ago | (#45029763)

When has he ever been unbiased? Most important, when has he ever been actually right in his forecasts?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...