or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung's evidence destruction will be factor in upcoming trial
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung's evidence destruction will be factor in upcoming trial

post #1 of 96
Thread Starter 
A federal judge on Wednesday agreed with Apple's request to inform jurors of Samsung's practice of routinely destroying documents which may have been germane to the two companies' California court case scheduled to start next week.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal said jurors can draw an ?adverse inference? from Samsung?s auto-deletion of e-mail correspondence Apple sought as evidence in the dispute's pre-trial process, reports Bloomberg.

According to the cases' referral judge, Samsung's policy to auto-delete e-mails on a ?rolling basis? as a in-built function of the company's "mySingle" mail system resulted in a similar ruling against the Galaxy maker seven years ago. In the Mosaid v. Samsung case, the District of New Jersey concluded that after "Samsung?s practices resulted in the destruction of relevant emails, and that 'common sense dictates that [Samsung] was more likely to have been threatened by that evidence,' Mosaid affirmed the imposition of both an adverse inference and monetary sanctions."

The "mySingle" e-mail system is a web-client first devised in 2000 by Samsung subsidiary Samsung Data Systems and went live across the company's entire network in 2001. Court documents note "mySingle" adheres to "a general guideline [that] calls for all e-mails to be automatically
deleted after the passage of two weeks? without exception.

Samsung argues the auto-delete protocol avoids the theft of confidential data when a computer is lost or stolen and is cheaper than using a 30-day retention period. The only effective way to continually save messages is to click a "save" button in the web client every two weeks. Samsung claims the policy is in line with Korean law.

Jury Instruction Order


For its part, the Sourth Korean electonics giant did issue litigation hold notices to staff in 2010 before litigation began which instructed employees to ?preserve any and all such documents that may be relevant to the issues in a potential litigation between Samsung and Apple until it is fully resolved." An updated message was again sent in April of 2011 when litigation started in earnest to some 23,000 workers.

While Samsung's effort is commendable, Apple argues that the company's responsibility to save evidence began when it was presented with infringement contention claims in August of 2010. The Galaxy maker also claims it had no knowledge of Apple's impending suit.

The court agreed with Apple and notes Samsung cannot "tout its prudence and responsibility" in its effort to save e-mails while at the same time arguing "it was ignorant of the possibility of litigation pre-complaint."

mySingle
Samsung's mySingle web-client portal. | Source: Samsung


More pressing an issue is the "mySingle" e-mail system implementation which possibly destroyed an untold number of documents pertinent to the case. Judge Grewal makes special mention that the few Samsung employees who used Microsoft's Outlook mail client, which isn't managed by the "mySingle" protocols, managed to turn in thousands of messages while department heads using the proprietary system handed over next to nothing.

"While the nature of the auto-delete function is such that the court will never know how much relevant material was lost, the court cannot ignore the statistical contrast depicted above," Judge Grewal writes.

As a majority of the products alleged to have infringed on Apple's design patetns were released prior to Apple's April 15, 2011 suit filing, the most relevant e-mails were likely deleted.

?Rather than building itself an off-switch — and using it — in future litigation such as this one, Samsung appears to have adopted the alternative approach of ?mend it don?t end it,? Judge Grewal wrote in his order. ?Samsung?s mend, especially during the critical seven months after a reasonable party in the same circumstances would have reasonably foreseen this suit, fell short of what it needed to do.?

Judge Grewal admits the discovery process is far from perfect but the actions, or lack thereof, taken by Samsung cannot be overlooked. He goes on to order the adverse jury instructions but leaves it up to jurors to decide whether the issue should factor into their final verdict.

From the jury instructions:

Samsung has failed to prevent the destruction of relevant evidence for Apple?s use in this litigation. This is known as the ?spoliation of evidence.?

I instruct you, as a matter of law, that Samsung failed to preserve evidence after its duty to preserve arose. This failure resulted from its failure to perform its discovery obligations.

You also may presume that Apple has met its burden of proving the following two elements by a preponderance of the evidence: first, that relevant evidence was destroyed after the duty to preserve arose. Evidence is relevant if it would have clarified a fact at issue in the trial and otherwise would naturally have been introduced into evidence; and second, the lost evidence was favorable to Apple.

Whether this finding is important to you in reaching a verdict in this case is for you to decide. You may choose to find it determinative, somewhat determinative, or not at all determinative in reaching your verdict.


Apple v. Samsung is slated to begin on Monday, July 30 in San Jose, California under the oversight of Judge Lucy Koh.
post #2 of 96
I should hope so. I still wish it was Google Apple were going after rather than these proxy battles. Kill the head of the snake.

Meanwhile ... Counting down to AAPL being 600 again after stupid Wall Street scare tactics.
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #3 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Samsung argues the auto-delete protocol avoids the theft of confidential data when a computer is lost or stolen and is cheaper than using a 30-day retention period. The only effective way to continually save messages is to click a "save" button in the web client every two weeks. Samsung claims the policy is in line with Korean law.

 

I'm sure they clicked a "save" button on any emails that support their case.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #4 of 96

"Spoilation?"

Lawyers are such nebs.

post #5 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I should hope so. I still wish it was Google Apple were going after rather than these proxy battles. Kill the head of the snake.
Meanwhile ... Counting down to AAPL being 600 again after stupid Wall Street scare tactics.

Careful what you wish for. Oracle thought they had a slam dunk on Google and came up with nothing in court. I doesn't matter who is right or wrong, it is what a jury decides and sometimes you get a bad jury that might view things with a bias regardless of the evidence.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #6 of 96
Two weeks? That's absurd.

Heck, I often don't even have a response back from a customer in under 2 weeks. And even if the customer responds in that time period, most of our projects are underway for months, at least. Deleting files after 2 weeks would mean that all the useful history was lost.

OTOH, if you're in the position of having stolen someone else's IP, the ability to hide evidence might justify the inconvenience, at least in Samsung's obvious opinion.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #7 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post
Meanwhile ... Counting down to AAPL being 600 again after stupid Wall Street scare tactics.

If you're suffering through a measly 5% drop you should definitely get rid of your AAPL stock.

post #8 of 96

Looks like samsung is going to be on the losing end. They deserve to get punished for the physical Design and crapwiz (as those of us who use pure android call it) of the SGS. Deserve to get punish on the crapwiz on the SGSII. 

 

Google even told those idiots that they are copying Apple to cut it out, but no they did not listen. 

 

While I don't agree with many of the software patents Apple has been granted, there is no doubt in my mind Crapwiz on the 1.0 to 3.0 deserve to be punish. Not only was it a cheap knock off of ios, but for making consumers suffer that piece of garbage software. They should have to pay owners of those devices $10. 

 

Nature U.I on the samsung GSIII or as I like to call in less  crappy touchwiz is okay since it tries to follow more pure android guidelines. 

post #9 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Two weeks? That's absurd.

Heck, I often don't even have a response back from a customer in under 2 weeks. And even if the customer responds in that time period, most of our projects are underway for months, at least. Deleting files after 2 weeks would mean that all the useful history was lost.

OTOH, if you're in the position of having stolen someone else's IP, the ability to hide evidence might justify the inconvenience, at least in Samsung's obvious opinion.

Yeah... I wonder how an organization can function with just two weeks of data. Three months I can understand... but I sure like having three years with offline backups of the previous 3. If you magically use email for exactly what it should be then no big deal... but it ends up being for so much more. To your example, if you put all the data into a trouble-ticket system, then the original email isn't as valuable...
post #10 of 96

I want Apple to sue Google, because that is the only way this horrible mess will get settled. Fix the non existing software problems in our system or have Apple and google duke it out until they both get tired of wasting money. 

 

These things will always end in cross licencing deals. But Apple and Google have so much money and Apple is so dependent on Mobile revenue I can see this going longer than usual unless the system get hammered out. 

 

Software patents need to be under their own umbrella.

and FRAND patents need to have strik regulations. 

post #11 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

If you're suffering through a measly 5% drop you should definitely get rid of your AAPL stock.

I bought several 6 figure blocks at 30 and 75, I said I was counting back to 600 simply because I am. Any more snide comments?
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #12 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Careful what you wish for. Oracle thought they had a slam dunk on Google and came up with nothing in court. I doesn't matter who is right or wrong, it is what a jury decides and sometimes you get a bad jury that might view things with a bias regardless of the evidence.

So is why Apple go after the bastard children? I hadn't thought of that.
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #13 of 96

But gee, isn't this a sign that it's really Apple that is doing the wrong thing?  I mean come on, if Apple weren't being overly aggressive in litigation against Samsung, there would be no issue with their deleting emails after two weeks.

 

It's the right thing for Samsung to do - given the cost of memory is so high and they have no control over that.  And you can't trust encryption or other security measures either.  I would actually also blame Apple for agreeing to buy from Samsung in the first place, because it's obvious that Apple knew this is how Samsung's system worked - it was probably a selling feature they used to convince Apple to buy from them.

post #14 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I bought several 6 figure blocks at 30 and 75
Wow, good for you, mate. I wish I'd done the same.
post #15 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post
So is why Apple go after the bastard children? I hadn't thought of that.

 

Yep. Apple is establishing wins on the fringe before going up against the head. That way they can use those previous rulings to their advantage instead of "Oop! You lose against Google! Now everyone else has free reign to outright steal everything you've ever done!"

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #16 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmgregory1 View Post

 I mean come on, if Apple weren't being overly aggressive in litigation against Samsung ........
How so?
post #17 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

"Spoilation?"

Lawyers are such nebs.

 

Except "spoilation" is a real word and was used in the correct context and one can't say the same about your use of "nebs."

post #18 of 96

My whole post was just an homage to those who believe Apple is in the wrong - getting patents and defending said patents.  Especially against Samsung, who is quite clearly doing nothing wrong.

 

Perhaps you don't have your sarcasm detector running?

post #19 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I should hope so. I still wish it was Google Apple were going after rather than these proxy battles. Kill the head of the snake.
Meanwhile ... Counting down to AAPL being 600 again after stupid Wall Street scare tactics.

 

Google has not produced phones, what will they be sued over, Ad revenue creatively accounted down to almost nothing?

 

Google's wholly owned subsidiary Motorola, has changed things a little, although Microsoft can already ban them.

 

Samsung are the worst of the copiers and have benefitted the most.

 

The destruction of evidence should be punished.

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #20 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Careful what you wish for. Oracle thought they had a slam dunk on Google and came up with nothing in court. I doesn't matter who is right or wrong, it is what a jury decides and sometimes you get a bad jury that might view things with a bias regardless of the evidence.

 

Nothing...

 

..yet.

 

The case is still ongoing.

 

Oracle don't want money, they want Google to respect Java's GPL license.

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #21 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techstalker View Post

Looks like samsung is going to be on the losing end. They deserve to get punished for the physical Design and crapwiz (as those of us who use pure android call it) of the SGS. Deserve to get punish on the crapwiz on the SGSII. 

 

Google even told those idiots that they are copying Apple to cut it out, but no they did not listen. 

 

While I don't agree with many of the software patents Apple has been granted, there is no doubt in my mind Crapwiz on the 1.0 to 3.0 deserve to be punish. Not only was it a cheap knock off of ios, but for making consumers suffer that piece of garbage software. They should have to pay owners of those devices $10. 

 

Nature U.I on the samsung GSIII or as I like to call in less  crappy touchwiz is okay since it tries to follow more pure android guidelines. 

 

Touchwiz is the most popular version of Android, the one more people choose, the only really successful Android implementation.

 

If it's "crapwiz" as you call it, it doesn't say much for android, does it?

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #22 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post


Yeah... I wonder how an organization can function with just two weeks of data. Three months I can understand... but I sure like having three years with offline backups of the previous 3. If you magically use email for exactly what it should be then no big deal... but it ends up being for so much more. To your example, if you put all the data into a trouble-ticket system, then the original email isn't as valuable...

 

Aren't there American laws requiring the retention of emails for 7 years?

 

Something about Sorbanes Oxley.

 

Why aren't the DoJ looking into a foreign business that could be operating illegally in the US?

 

I suppose the price of a few ebooks is far more important.

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #23 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techstalker View Post

I want Apple to sue Google, because that is the only way this horrible mess will get settled.

 

They're working their way up to it.... Going after the "low-hanging fruit" is the first step.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #24 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Google has not produced phones, what will they be sued over, Ad revenue creatively accounted down to almost nothing?

Contributory infringement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Aren't there American laws requiring the retention of emails for 7 years?

Something about Sorbanes Oxley.

Why aren't the DoJ looking into a foreign business that could be operating illegally in the US?

I suppose the price of a few ebooks is far more important.

I don't know if it's 7 years (I believe it depends on the type of data in question), but you are required to keep certain types of emails for certain periods of home. I don't have any idea if these particular emails are covered by Sarbox or not.

It's irrelevant, though. The issue here is that Samsung already received one warning from a court. Under US law, once you have reason to believe that you're going to get sued, you are obligated to protect any evidence which is likely to be relevant to the case. It has nothing to do with Sarbox - just protection of legal evidence.

Samsung actually got off easy. Given that they recently went through this once, the court could have ruled that Apple won any argument that might have been covered by the missing evidence. As it is, the judge allowed the jury to reach that conclusion, but did not require it.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #25 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Yep. Apple is establishing wins on the fringe before going up against the head. That way they can use those previous rulings to their advantage instead of "Oop! You lose against Google! Now everyone else has free reign to outright steal everything you've ever done!"

Well I live in hope then, thanks for the explanation. Any idea on a time frame?
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #26 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

If you're suffering through a measly 5% drop you should definitely get rid of your AAPL stock.

I think you misunderstood his point.

post #27 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

Wow, good for you, mate. I wish I'd done the same.

Thanks. It was a gamble based on belief in Steve. We were in a bit of a bad financial situation at the time and decided it was all in or nothing. I am not a gambler by nature, quite the opposite normally. You have no idea how many people told us we were nuts.
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #28 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Google has not produced phones, what will they be sued over, Ad revenue creatively accounted down to almost nothing?

Google's wholly owned subsidiary Motorola, has changed things a little, although Microsoft can already ban them.

Samsung are the worst of the copiers and have benefitted the most.

The destruction of evidence should be punished.

I was actually thinking of the real meat of the matter, iOS and the rip off know as Android (Google's version that is after Schmitt used his inside knowledge as a director at Apple). However, it has been explained to me that attacking the bastard step children of Google is a tactic on the way to a larger picture and I accept that wisdom.
Edited by digitalclips - 7/25/12 at 4:31pm
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #29 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Google's wholly owned subsidiary Motorola, has changed things a little, although Microsoft can already ban them.

 

All of Motorola's devices have not been banned. It is 18 devices, all of which are on the older side and are not big sellers. According to Google, they have already taken "proactive measures" for the import ban, and to my knowledge, there have been no reports of any blockages. Not exactly sure what "proactive measures" means though.

 

Quote:
Samsung are the worst of the copiers and have benefitted the most.

 

Huh?...Samsung has spend tens of billions of dollars researching and developing the telecommunication standards that a phone NEEDS to even function properly. Not to mention the untold billions that have been spent to develop dozens of components that go into the majority of cellphones today...including the iPhone. Whether you want to admit it or not, many of the MAJOR components in an iPhone or iPad were manufactured by Samsung, and benefited from the hard work and research done by them.

post #30 of 96

Don't they backup their mail system every night. If their policy is to stop vital information from falling into the hands of their competitors through the loss of a computer then surely backing up onto a central server is still possible. I doubt anyone can just walk into a server room and walk out with a half tonne server (+ SAN) under their arm.

 

Samsung's policy is nothing to do with trade secret leaks and everything to do with cover ups of their dubious business practices. How can a company function without backups of email.

 

Anyway, I thought it was law that corporations must backup emails to stop this sort of shenagians....brought about after the various dubious accounting practises of some of the high profile company collapses a few years back.

post #31 of 96

Some of their hard work is based on IP theft from other companies (not just Apple)...go research the various companies that have sued Samsung in the past. No one doubts Samsung spends mony on R&D...that does not excuse them from copying or stealing others hard work at the same time.

post #32 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

 

All of Motorola's devices have not been banned. It is 18 devices, all of which are on the older side and are not big sellers. According to Google, they have already taken "proactive measures" for the import ban, and to my knowledge, there have been no reports of any blockages. Not exactly sure what "proactive measures" means though.

 

 

Huh?...Samsung has spend tens of billions of dollars researching and developing the telecommunication standards that a phone NEEDS to even function properly. Not to mention the untold billions that have been spent to develop dozens of components that go into the majority of cellphones today...including the iPhone. Whether you want to admit it or not, many of the MAJOR components in an iPhone or iPad were manufactured by Samsung, and benefited from the hard work and research done by them.

 

Some of their hard work is based on IP theft from other companies (not just Apple)...go research the various companies that have sued Samsung in the past. No one doubts Samsung spends mony on R&D...that does not excuse them from copying or stealing others hard work at the same time.

post #33 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by global.philosopher View Post

 

Some of their hard work is based on IP theft from other companies (not just Apple)...go research the various companies that have sued Samsung in the past. No one doubts Samsung spends mony on R&D...that does not excuse them from copying or stealing others hard work at the same time.

 

Just did, and the first dozen pages of results just lists Apple vs Samsung. Do you have a reference? I would be curious to review.

post #34 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by global.philosopher View Post

Some of their hard work is based on IP theft from other companies (not just Apple)...go research the various companies that have sued Samsung in the past. No one doubts Samsung spends mony on R&D...that does not excuse them from copying or stealing others hard work at the same time.

 

And even if they had cosmically developed their IP in parallel with Apple's, there would be evidence of this.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #35 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

 

And even if they had cosmically developed their IP in parallel with Apple's, there would be evidence of this.

 

In fact, in many instances, that is exactly what Samsung is claiming. The trial brief presented by Samsung a couple days ago for the US case laid out several pieces of evidence showing 'iPhone-like' candy bar prototype designs and grid UI designs dated prior to the iPhone announcement. Most of the other alleged infringements were countered with prior art.

 

Of course, you would never see Samsung's trial brief announced on AI...too much damning evidence contrary to Apple's "slavishly copying" propaganda.

post #36 of 96

hey, where are all the apple haters?  usually they have plenty to say.  wonder what they think of the "company policy" to delete all e-mail just after 2 weeks.  who does that?  what company does that???  lol!  i can come up with a few excuses myself but i'd like to hear their thoughts about this one.

post #37 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Two weeks? That's absurd.
Heck, I often don't even have a response back from a customer in under 2 weeks. And even if the customer responds in that time period, most of our projects are underway for months, at least. Deleting files after 2 weeks would mean that all the useful history was lost.
OTOH, if you're in the position of having stolen someone else's IP, the ability to hide evidence might justify the inconvenience, at least in Samsung's obvious opinion.

 

Believe me, Samsung keep e-mails for much longer on mySingle.  When I worked for an equipment vendor who sold to Samsung, their equipment engineers would drag out e-mails years old with only the slightest relevance in an attempt to get us to give them yet more free upgrades.

post #38 of 96
post #39 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcallows View Post

hey, where are all the apple haters?  usually they have plenty to say.  wonder what they think of the "company policy" to delete all e-mail just after 2 weeks.  who does that?  what company does that??? 

 

THIS kind:
 
Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/business/worldbusiness/20samsung.html

 

 

New Bribery Allegation Roils Samsung
 
SEOUL, South Korea, Nov. 19 — Samsung, which has vigorously denied bribery charges in a snowballing corruption scandal, sustained another blow to its image on Monday when a former legal adviser to President Roh Moo-hyun said the company had once offered him a cash bribe.
 
The former aide, Lee Yong-chul, who also served as a presidential monitor against corruption, said that the money — 5 million won ($5,445) — was delivered to him in January 2004 as a holiday gift from a Samsung Electronics executive, but that he immediately returned it.
 
Before sending it back, Mr. Lee said, he took pictures of the cash package, which were released to the news media on Monday.
 
“I was outraged by Samsung’s brazenness, by its attempt to bribe a presidential aide in charge of fighting corruption,” Mr. Lee said in a written statement released at a news conference by a civic organization. He did not attend the event.
 
James Chung, a spokesman for Samsung Electronics, said, “We are trying to find out the facts around these allegations.”
 
Samsung Electronics is the mainstay of the 59-subsidiary Samsung conglomerate and a world leader in computer chips, flat-panel television screens and cellphones.
 
Mr. Lee’s accusation appeared to support recent assertions by a former chief lawyer at Samsung, Kim Yong-chul, that the conglomerate had run a vast network that bribed officials, prosecutors, tax collectors, journalists and scholars on behalf of Samsung’s chairman, Lee Kun-hee.
 
Prosecutors are investigating Mr. Kim’s accusations, and political parties have introduced legislation that would establish an independent counsel.
 
Opposition political parties say an independent prosecutor is needed because Mr. Kim identified the president’s new chief prosecutor, Lim Chai-jin, as one of many prosecutors to have received bribes from Samsung. Mr. Lim denied the assertion.
 
President Roh’s office dismissed the call for an independent counsel as an election-year political maneuver. The South Korean presidential election is scheduled on Dec. 19.
 
As the scandal expanded, the chairman, Lee Kun-hee, was absent Monday from a ceremony commemorating the 20th anniversary of the death of his father, Lee Byung-chul, Samsung’s founder. Company officials cited a “serious cold and illness from fatigue.”
 
Lee Yong-chul, the former presidential aide, now a partner at a law firm in Seoul, issued his statement and pictures through the National Movement to Unveil Illegal Activities by Samsung and Its Chairman, an organization that was started by civic groups after Mr. Kim’s allegations were made public.
 
Calls to Mr. Lee’s office were not returned on Monday.
 
“This is proof that Samsung’s bribery has reached not only prosecutors but the very core of political power, the Blue House,” the group said at the news conference, referring to the South Korean presidential office. President Roh’s office called that assertion “pure speculation.”
 
Mr. Lee said the bribe he received in 2004 was delivered after an executive at Samsung Electronics asked him whether his company could send him a holiday gift. Mr. Lee said he accepted, thinking that it would be a simple gift.
 
He said that when he returned the money with a protest, the Samsung executive apologized. The executive said he had simply allowed his company to send the gift in his name and had not known it contained cash, Mr. Lee related.
 
The executive could not be reached for comment. Samsung said the man left the company in June 2004 and now lived in the United States.
 
Lee Yong-chul said he decided to go public after reading about the lawyer Kim Yong-chul’s whistle-blowing. He said he believed Mr. Kim’s assertion that Samsung had run a systematic bribery effort.
 
Samsung has denied Mr. Kim’s allegations as “groundless.” A couple of Samsung executives Mr. Kim accused of delivering bribes have sued him.
 
In his statement, Lee Yong-chul said the cash was delivered to him while prosecutors were investigating assertions that Samsung and other conglomerates had provided large amounts of illegal campaign funds to presidential candidates during the 2002 election, which Mr. Roh won.
 
Several campaign officials for Mr. Roh and his opponent, Lee Hoi-chang, as well as Samsung executives, were convicted of playing major roles in raising slush funds in that campaign.
 
 
 
 
More recent:
 
 
Bribery, Massive Corruption at Samsung, Says Exposé by Former S. Korean Prosecutor
 
. . . In addition, a lawmaker said she had once been offered a golf bag full of cash from Samsung, and a former presidential aide said he had received and returned a cash gift from the company.
 
Lee Kun-hee, the chairman of Samsung, was convicted of hiding more than $42 million from tax collection, and received nothing more than a suspended sentence. The media decided not to mention the whistle-blowing book at all, despite it achieving remarkable sales for a non-fiction book in that country. (Not a single newspaper published a review, and the only discussion of the book mentioned its sales--but not its title or author. Yeah, you read that right. They left out the title.) Even worse, the media refused to print any op-eds or articles explaining, let alone backing, Kim Yong-chul's side, out of fear that Samsung would pull advertisements from their TV shows and newspapers.
 
 
 
 
South Korea makes example of Samsung corruption
 
Samsung has been publicly forced to get its act together to stamp out corruption, with the South Korean government choosing to make an example of it. 
 
According to a top industry consultant familiar with the company, Samsung's legal "philanderings" are no secret. While other companies are also at it, the South Korean government is keeping them safe as it looks to drive revenue and reputation to the country.
 
The comments come as news of shadiness inside Samsung spreads, after an inspection found that elements of the company were involved in corruption. 
 
The findings led to CEO Oh Chang-Suk stepping down and Lee Kun-Hee, chairman of the company, claiming there would be some managerial changes.
 
However, he would not specify what the investigation had uncovered - only saying that it included taking bribes and enjoying hospitality from suppliers. He said the "worst type" of abuse was pressure on junior staff to commit corrupt acts.
 
"Corruption and fraud" at Samsung Techwin came about accidentally, and was a result of a "complacent attitude during the past decade", he told reporters
 
This isn't the first time Samsung has been alleged to have its hands in the till. In 2007 the company's former executives accused it of bribing police and politicians to stop probes into its management, while in 2009 the chairman, along with nine other senior executives, were indicted on tax dodging charges. 
 
According to our analyst, speaking under condition of anonymity, these are well known facts. 
 
"Let's be honest, Samsung's philanderings are not a secret, the company has been at it for years," he said. 
 

 
 
post #40 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post

Yeah... I wonder how an organization can function with just two weeks of data. Three months I can understand... but I sure like having three years with offline backups of the previous 3. If you magically use email for exactly what it should be then no big deal... but it ends up being for so much more. To your example, if you put all the data into a trouble-ticket system, then the original email isn't as valuable...

Where I work, email archives are practically the only way anything is remembered. Without old emails, everything would grind to a halt. I simply don't believe a company the size of Samsung would delete everything after two weeks, but there it is. I mean, Outlook has a search function that would practically be useless if a 14-day automatic deletion policy was applied... Wait a few more days and you won't have to bother searching.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung's evidence destruction will be factor in upcoming trial