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 - Page 2

post #41 of 96
Quote:

 

Considering that the comments regarding Google's alleged warning were redacted in Apple's trial brief, it would appear there may have been some issues regarding authenticity of the claim. Maybe someone else can speak to possible scenarios for a redaction?

 

In Samsung's graphic, it is interesting to note all the 'bar-type touchscreen' phones that Samsung had prior to the iPhone.

post #42 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

Considering that the comments regarding Google's alleged warning were redacted in Apple's trial brief, it would appear there may have been some issues regarding authenticity of the claim. Maybe someone else can speak to possible scenarios for a redaction?

In Samsung's graphic, it is interesting to note all the 'bar-type touchscreen' phones that Samsung had prior to the iPhone.
There's one phone Inthink could be considered an iPhone ripoff and that's the Glalxy S. And yes I can see that not every single detail is exactly like the iPhone but the overall design certainly is. And apparently Samsung themselves agreed.

80666d1317274110-samsung-galaxy-s-samsung-galaxy-s-pics.jpg
post #43 of 96

See, Samsung can't argue that it was their email program's fault. If they cared, they would have pressed "save". They didn't, therefor it was their fault, not the email program's.

 

 


Tim Cook using Galaxy Tabs as frisbees

 

Reply

 

 


Tim Cook using Galaxy Tabs as frisbees

 

Reply
post #44 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

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.

 

Covered by the license fees paid to chipmakers such as Qualcomm who make the chips which actually use these patents, as part of the FRAND agreements made when Samsung contributed the patents to ETSI when forming the standards.

 

Samsung terminated the agreement first made with Qualcomm in 1993, regarding Apple specifically in April 2010.

 

So maybe we don't need standards and it should be everyone for themselves.

 

So why should consumers be charged more for a $600 phone using a 10c chip than a $50 phone using a 10c chip when using a patent to do exactly the same thing?

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #45 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.

No one is arguing that Samsung is a good component supplier (or builder of said components), that is a whole different part of the Samsung organization.  One that actually has a very strong relationship with Apple, and one of the reasons the new CEO is from that part of the business and not the side that manufactures whole devices.

 

As for the basic functions of cell phones, again no one is arguing that various companies (including Samsung) have done a lot or spent a lot.  But they choose (it was their choice) to be part of a universal standard, and to agree upon a low cost process that would then be universally adopted. 

 

In fact one of the key things is that the fair value of any FRAND patent is that it is worth only what its value was before it was joined into the standard.  That's not open to debate that is the standing law.  In the last couple years, a few companies have tried to push that royalty rate, from where it had previously been set (based on the cost of that specific component it is a part of) to a new base (that of the final full manufactured unit).  That is a huge, huge issue and to date, no court as agreed to it.  And considering this is a exceptionally new argument (in court history) its not hard to see that it is only meant as a way to defend from accusation of general IP theft (or inadvertent copy).

 

When any company creates a new way of doing something (or even a new look of something) and they patent it (and that patent holds up to judicial scrutiny), if its not part of standard.  No other company has to use that to make a cell phone.  They do so only because they see its popular, and they see it as a way to help boost their sales (and at some point almost all companies have done so an absolutely this includes Apple who has had to pay fines for in the past and probably in the future).

 

The company who created or developed the new method can choose to license it (which often can happen), but they can also choose not to.  It is solely at their discretion.  

 

Now I might not agree with every lawsuit Apple has been in (actually I know I don't), but if the patent was awarded the only option is to go through judicial review to determine if that patent is valid, and if that threshold is meet, then you better not have copied it without a license agreement.

post #46 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

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.

That's a red herring.

No one has ever argued that Samsung shouldn't be compensated for their work. They choose to sell their products and that is their payment. For FRAND stuff, they made a voluntary agreement to license under FRAND terms. Now, there is a legitimate question of how much Apple owes them, but the general principle is that they have a right to be compensated for their work.

What does that have to do with them stealing Apple's work without payment?
"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 #47 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

So why should consumers be charged more for a $600 phone using a 10c chip than a $50 phone using a 10c chip when using a patent to do exactly the same thing?

 

I agree. However, if Apple didn't like the initial licensing cost , why was a counter-offer not made as typically done? Apple's own statements suggest that they felt the patents should not be valid since they were not disclosed to ETSI, and they are the ones to have simply decided to "ignore" Samsung's intellectual property rights. In this situation, Apple is the party that has decided to not negotiate, and instead, simply benefit from 20 years of groundwork and billions invested in research by 'stealing' it.

post #48 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


That's a red herring.
 
What does that have to do with them stealing Apple's work without payment?

 

My comment has nothing to do with Samsung stealing Apple's work without payment. If Samsung is proven guilty of stealing Apple's IP, they should pay everything owed.

 

My comment was in response to the claim that Samsung is the "worst of the copiers". In my mind, Apple stealing/copying telecommunication technology that took 20 years and billions to innovate is a much "worst copier" than Samsung's alleged "copying" of 'rectangles', and 'bounce-back scrolling'...

post #49 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

 

I agree. However, if Apple didn't like the initial licensing cost , why was a counter-offer not made as typically done? Apple's own statements suggest that they felt the patents should not be valid since they were not disclosed to ETSI, and they are the ones to have simply decided to "ignore" Samsung's intellectual property rights. In this situation, Apple is the party that has decided to not negotiate, and instead, simply benefit from 20 years of groundwork and billions invested in research by 'stealing' it.

Apple had agreements with Qualcomm and other chipmakers, Samsung terminating these agreements terminated the payments Apple was already making for the patents as part of the cost of the chips.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #50 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

 

My comment has nothing to do with Samsung stealing Apple's work without payment. If Samsung is proven guilty of stealing Apple's IP, they should pay everything owed.

 

My comment was in response to the claim that Samsung is the "worst of the copiers". In my mind, Apple stealing/copying telecommunication technology that took 20 years and billions to innovate is a much "worst copier" than Samsung's alleged "copying" of 'rectangles', and 'bounce-back scrolling'...

 

Apple was paying the fees for these patents as part of the cost of the chips that used them, just like everyone else does.

 

It was Samsung's decision to terminate agreements and NOT be paid for the patents.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #51 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

Apple was paying the fees for these patents as part of the cost of the chips that used them, just like everyone else does.

 

It was Samsung's decision to terminate agreements and NOT be paid for the patents.

 

Only the latest 4S and the new iPad use UTMS licensed Qualcomm baseband chips. Whether or not "patent exhaustion" can be claimed with the Qualcomm chips is a different story. Previous iPhones and iPads used Intel and Infineon baseband chips that did not carry licensing costs. A Dutch court has already ruled on this and found Apple to be guilty of infringement, and must pay an undisclosed amount.

 

The idea that it is the 'licensing cost' that Apple is balking about is the actual red herring in the room. Apple has always asserted that Samsung's intellectual property rights should be "free for the taking" since they allegedly 'deceived' the ETSI standards-setting group. Interestingly, Apple seems to be standing alone in this allegation of 'deception'...how convenient.


Edited by e_veritas - 7/25/12 at 7:32pm
post #52 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

 Apple has always asserted that Samsung's intellectual property rights should be "free for the taking" since they allegedly 'deceived' the ETSI standards-setting group. Interestingly, Apple seems to be standing alone in this allegation of 'deception'...how convenient.

 

Given that Samsung are *demonstrable* crooks and tech gangsters in the first place  (http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/151516/samsungs-evidence-destruction-will-be-factor-in-upcoming-trial#post_2154098), I'm perfectly prepared to believe Apple. 

post #53 of 96
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.

There are still a lot of grey areas still in the way that the implementation of Sarbanes-Oxley works for foreign firms -- even those listed -- in the US. Not everything applies (for example, Samsung doesn't even bother with any detailed segment reporting like many US firms do).

 

Also, I am not sure if it's the DoJ that would have oversight here, as opposed to the SEC.

post #54 of 96

This "advisory" from the judge to the jury is pure dynamite in Apple's favor.

 

And even when you are looking to fight a thermonuclear war, a little dynamite can always come in handy :-)

post #55 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

 

Given that Samsung are *demonstrable* crooks and tech gangsters in the first place  (http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/151516/samsungs-evidence-destruction-will-be-factor-in-upcoming-trial#post_2154098), I'm perfectly prepared to believe Apple. 

http://www.bgr.com/2012/07/25/samsung-apple-patent-lawsuit-documents-revealed/

 

It is interesting even in this pro-Apple site.  popcorn ready?

post #56 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

 

Given that Samsung are *demonstrable* crooks and tech gangsters in the first place  (http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/151516/samsungs-evidence-destruction-will-be-factor-in-upcoming-trial#post_2154098), I'm perfectly prepared to believe Apple. 

 

Please...every company of Samsung's size has a laundry list of 'scandals', including Apple.

 

Apparently a Dutch court did not believe Apple's 'deception' story as well, since they have been found guilty of infringement and ordered to pay an undisclosed sum to Samsung.

post #57 of 96

E Veritas

 

Yes, on the point that Apple will have to pay some "Cost" for all the earlier devices.  There really isn't any disagreement about that., Apple agrees with that.

 

The disagreement on the FRAND side is that Apple feels that Samsung's request isn't meeting FRAND Standards.  Samsung itself has admitted that Apple made them a payment offer.  One that they refused.  Samsung's argument is that the amount Apple wished to pay wasn't high enough. 

 

The issue here is what is Samsung's legitimate asking price.  Ie what is the true value of the patent's in question.  And remember those patents values are set by law as being formulated as the value before being entered into a standard.

 

For example a patent that is absolutely necessary to meet the requirement for operating a cellphone on paper is very valuable.  But due to being part of a standard is only valued at what that patent would be worth if not part of the cell phone standard.  Some will still have some unit by unit value, others will be literally without value.  and some of the evidence of this will be what are others who use this patent paying for it.  If X company is paying 2 cents a unit on it, then by law and that is what Apple (or anyone else for that matter) is paying for it.  Now if everyone else is paying $10 for it (they aren't simply research on all those parts show that is impossible) then of course Apple should also pay the same amount.

 

The Dutch case Apple's opponent was trying for two things, one a banning of Apple sales (that didn't not occur) and that the court would agree to a large license for those patents, no one currently believes that Apple is going to be paying the high amounts asked for.  They will pay for those patents, just not what the other company wanted.

 

Another example of this was Nokia (the first suit against Apple), Nokia wanted a price far above what Apple believed was FRAND for those particular patents.  Nokia demanded X amount, Apple said no.  Case went to court, and the amount Apple paid was considered favorable to Apple not Nokia.  Meaning Nokia got paid for those patents, but at a value close to what Apple initially offered.  

 

The only real victory against Apple to date on these types of issues was a non FRAND patent in Germany about pushed notifications.  Apple had to remove that function (so they couldn't be instant pushed notifications, it could instead be updated notifications that occur every  minute instead), not a huge lose, one that in most cases unless you truly depend on second to second updates isn't going to by a significant factor for the majority of Apple's user base.

post #58 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

 

Also, I am not sure if it's the DoJ that would have oversight here, as opposed to the SEC.

 

Considering Samsung Electronics Co exchanges on the Korean Exchange, how would the SEC even have oversight?

post #59 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by mswood View Post

 

Yes, on the point that Apple will have to pay some "Cost" for all the earlier devices.  There really isn't any disagreement about that., Apple agrees with that.

 

 

If Apple isn't disagreeing with having to pay licensing costs for UTMS technology, why is section VII of their US trial brief titled "SAMSUNG’S STANDARD-SETTING DECEIT RESULTS IN WAIVER OF ITS RIGHTS TO ASSERT THE PATENTS AGAINST APPLE"?

post #60 of 96

Well in the Dutch case, for example Samsung sued with 4 patents, one which one was found to be in valid against Apple.  

 

What wasn't reported is that Samsung had been asking 2.4% for that FRAND patent.  The Dutch court ruled that wasn't an acceptable FRAND rate.

 

And that While Apple will pay a FRAND rate (as well as a penalty in the Netherlands) for that one patent the interesting question is will Apple actually have to pay anything.

 

Since Samsun lost on three of the four patents, Apple will get to recover court costs for 3/4 of the case which is estimated to be 800,000 euros.  The question is once the Dutch court rules on the FRAND value of that patent (hasn't yet) and figures the penalty will it exceed what Apple is owed for court costs, and if so how much.

post #61 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb View Post

http://www.bgr.com/2012/07/25/samsung-apple-patent-lawsuit-documents-revealed/

 

It is interesting even in this pro-Apple site.  popcorn ready?

 

Apple didn't steal anything from Samsung. Samsung is playing a game of reductio ad absurdum and doing a poor job of it.

 

All nonsense. Samsung has *repeatedly* been handed their asses in the courts by Apple, have been forced to change their designs on more than one occasion, have already suffered bans and injunctions, and they are *already* well-known for their thieving, corruption and gangsterism in the industry, so most of what they say is rightfully under an immediate could of suspicion (and should be) until they can prove otherwise. 

 

There is only ONE THING that matters in any of this. And it's absolutely stunning and glorious in its sheer simplicity:

 

 

1000

 

 

 

1000


Edited by Quadra 610 - 7/25/12 at 8:34pm
post #62 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post
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 so so true! I've done Jury Duty, honestly I lost some confidence in the human race, Its amazing how obvious something can be & people have such different perception of the same thing.
Basically toss a coin, a Jury or your peers doesn't mean much to me, i wont tell my lawyer friends this tho :p

post #63 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

 

Only the latest 4S and the new iPad use UTMS licensed Qualcomm baseband chips. Whether or not "patent exhaustion" can be claimed with the Qualcomm chips is a different story. Previous iPhones and iPads used Intel and Infineon baseband chips that did not carry licensing costs. A Dutch court has already ruled on this and found Apple to be guilty of infringement, and must pay an undisclosed amount.

 

The idea that it is the 'licensing cost' that Apple is balking about is the actual red herring in the room. Apple has always asserted that Samsung's intellectual property rights should be "free for the taking" since they allegedly 'deceived' the ETSI standards-setting group. Interestingly, Apple seems to be standing alone in this allegation of 'deception'...how convenient.

 

So tell us about the agreements Infineon and Intel have with Samsung re UMTS patents?

 

Are they unlicensed chips?

 

btw Apple was found not to infringe this patent by a German court and found only to be partly infringing in the Netherlands.

 

They were not infringing two other Samsung UMTS patents and one Samsung patent was ruled invalid.

 

Samsung had to pay €800,000 in costs.


Edited by hill60 - 7/25/12 at 8:42pm
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #64 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

 

Only the latest 4S and the new iPad use UTMS licensed Qualcomm baseband chips. Whether or not "patent exhaustion" can be claimed with the Qualcomm chips is a different story. Previous iPhones and iPads used Intel and Infineon baseband chips that did not carry licensing costs. A Dutch court has already ruled on this and found Apple to be guilty of infringement, and must pay an undisclosed amount.

 

The idea that it is the 'licensing cost' that Apple is balking about is the actual red herring in the room. Apple has always asserted that Samsung's intellectual property rights should be "free for the taking" since they allegedly 'deceived' the ETSI standards-setting group. Interestingly, Apple seems to be standing alone in this allegation of 'deception'...how convenient.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

 

Please...every company of Samsung's size has a laundry list of 'scandals', including Apple.

 

Apparently a Dutch court did not believe Apple's 'deception' story as well, since they have been found guilty of infringement and ordered to pay an undisclosed sum to Samsung.

 

Just give it up already. How many times are you going to repeat the same things over and take things out of context?

 

Apple has never, ever said that Samsung's IP is "free for the taking". You are outright lying by making such a statement. What they are saying is a couple of specific patents should not be included because of how Samsung "declared" them. This represents a fraction of the sum total of Samsung's patents regarding telecommunications. You are taking Apple's position on a few patents and trying to imply Apple treats all Samsung IP the same way. This just isn't true.

 

Apple has nowhere near the number of scandals as Samsung. How many Apple CEO's went to prison? How many times has Apple been ordered to pay fines in the hundreds of millions for price fixing (Samsung has 3 I can remember off the top of my head)? How many Apple employees have been in the news recently for bribery? Which Apple employee leaked inside information to a hedge fund about upcoming products? Go on, name any "scandal" or "conviction" you can come up with for Apple.

 

As for the Dutch ruling, you left out several key parts. Like the fact that Samsung will have to license to Apple on FRAND terms. Or the fact that Samsung failed to get a sales ban (even though they tried). Or the fact Samsung failed on the other 3 patents in the same case and has to pay Apple 800,000 Euros in court costs relating to the failed patents. Some even say Apple's licensing costs might not even be enough to cover those 800,000 Euros Samsung now owes them.

 

I wonder why you keep leaving out so many important details all the time? Perhaps you'd care to explain?

post #65 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

So tell us about the agreements Infineon and Intel have with Samsung re UMTS patents?

 

Are they unlicensed chips?

 

According to ComputerWorld...

 

Originally Posted by ComputerWorld View Post

The court ruled that Apple infringes on Samsung's UMTS (Universal Mobile Telecommunications System) patent by using Intel and Infineon baseband chips in the iPhone 3G, 3GS and 4 and the iPad 1 and 2. By using these chips without paying a license fee, Apple has caused harm to Samsung since August 2010, the court said in the verdict.
 
The verdict does not include the iPhone 4S and the new iPad because they use Qualcomm baseband chips.
post #66 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

 

If Apple isn't disagreeing with having to pay licensing costs for UTMS technology, why is section VII of their US trial brief titled "SAMSUNG’S STANDARD-SETTING DECEIT RESULTS IN WAIVER OF ITS RIGHTS TO ASSERT THE PATENTS AGAINST APPLE"?

Apple has stated of how they see the FRAND value of SEP of Samsung.  Both parties have admitted that offers have been made, and denied on both sides.  How far back those talks and offers have gone (thats not known, certainly be my).

 

As for the court filings, when it comes to court time, both parties of any case typically play hard ball.  Apple (in this case since we are referencing their filing) will argue for paying nothing, for everything, and will ask for prices generally higher then what juries or courts would offer.

 

But that doesn't mean offers have never been made, or that the amounts offered here are the highest level ever offered.


For example on my earlier post I try to make clear that the real issue is finding the "Truth" between both parties feelings on issues.  

post #67 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

 

According to ComputerWorld...

 

"Apple infringes on Samsung's EP1188269 patent that describes an "apparatus for encoding a transport format combination indicator for a communication system," according to the court in The Hague. The court also noted that the regional court in Mannheim, Germany, ruled in March this year that Apple does not infringe on the same patent."

 

Seems pretty subjective, they infringe in the Netherlands but not in Germany, I wonder what would happen if your iPhone straddled the border, would it explode at the half infringement?

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #68 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post


Just give it up already. How many times are you going to repeat the same things over and take things out of context?

Apple has never, ever said that Samsung's IP is "free for the taking". You are outright lying by making such a statement. What they are saying is a couple of specific patents should not be included because of how Samsung "declared" them. This represents a fraction of the sum total of Samsung's patents regarding telecommunications. You are taking Apple's position on a few patents and trying to imply Apple treats all Samsung IP the same way. This just isn't true.

Apple has nowhere near the number of scandals as Samsung. How many Apple CEO's went to prison? How many times has Apple been ordered to pay fines in the hundreds of millions for price fixing (Samsung has 3 I can remember off the top of my head)? How many Apple employees have been in the news recently for bribery? Which Apple employee leaked inside information to a hedge fund about upcoming products? Go on, name any "scandal" or "conviction" you can come up with for Apple.

As for the Dutch ruling, you left out several key parts. Like the fact that Samsung will have to license to Apple on FRAND terms. Or the fact that Samsung failed to get a sales ban (even though they tried). Or the fact Samsung failed on the other 3 patents in the same case and has to pay Apple 800,000 Euros in court costs relating to the failed patents. Some even say Apple's licensing costs might not even be enough to cover those 800,000 Euros Samsung now owes them.

I wonder why you keep leaving out so many important details all the time? Perhaps you'd care to explain?

You left out the one covered by this thread. Samsung was sternly told by the last judge that US law requires them to retain evidence when a lawsuit was pending. They failed to do so - even after a very clear order.

Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

Considering Samsung Electronics Co exchanges on the Korean Exchange, how would the SEC even have oversight?

I'm not sure, but I believe that since depository receipts are traded in the US that the SEC can get involved. In any event, it's irrelevant - this is not an SEC matter. It's a trial court matter (see below).

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

There are still a lot of grey areas still in the way that the implementation of Sarbanes-Oxley works for foreign firms -- even those listed -- in the US. Not everything applies (for example, Samsung doesn't even bother with any detailed segment reporting like many US firms do).

Also, I am not sure if it's the DoJ that would have oversight here, as opposed to the SEC.

As I pointed out previously, this is not a Sarbox issue.

The issue is that Samsung was ordered that in the US, legal standards require retention of evidence when a lawsuit is imminent. They failed to do so - even after getting chastised by a court not too long ago. It's not a securities (SEC) case, it's a trial matter (which is why it's being handled at the trial court level). In principle, sanctions could be ordered against Samsung, but a more common response is what happened here - the jury is instructed that Samsung destroyed evidence and the jury is free to consider that as proof of guilt.
"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 #69 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

Apple has never, ever said that Samsung's IP is "free for the taking". You are outright lying by making such a statement. What they are saying is a couple of specific patents should not be included because of how Samsung "declared" them. This represents a fraction of the sum total of Samsung's patents regarding telecommunications. You are taking Apple's position on a few patents and trying to imply Apple treats all Samsung IP the same way. This just isn't true.

 

When Apple states that they should not pay for IP that everyone else pays for, have been ruled against in other courts, and make outrageous claims to justify (Samsung deceiving ETSI), how is this not the same as claiming "free for the taking"?

 

Also, I never said Apple treats ALL Samsung IP the same way. You are putting words in my mouth, exaggerating my comments, and throwing out a straw man.


Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

Apple has nowhere near the number of scandals as Samsung. How many Apple CEO's went to prison? How many times has Apple been ordered to pay fines in the hundreds of millions for price fixing (Samsung has 3 I can remember off the top of my head)? How many Apple employees have been in the news recently for bribery? Which Apple employee leaked inside information to a hedge fund about upcoming products? Go on, name any "scandal" or "conviction" you can come up with for Apple.

 

Fair enough, I would agree that Samsung has more 'scandals' than does Apple, but I think this can be attributed more to a difference in regulation than some 'company moral compass'. In many other countries, these 'shady practices' are common. Walmart realized this when they expanded into Mexico and found multiple instances of bribery as this is commonplace in the country. Same can be said for South Korea as they have a much more 'laissez faire' attitude towards business.

 

However, Apple is not perfectly clean. They have recently been fined for misleading advertising in Australia and fined in Italy for consumer guarantee issues. Don't forget the looming e-book price fixing DoJ investigation as well.


Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

As for the Dutch ruling, you left out several key parts. Like the fact that Samsung will have to license to Apple on FRAND terms. Or the fact that Samsung failed to get a sales ban (even though they tried). Or the fact Samsung failed on the other 3 patents in the same case and has to pay Apple 800,000 Euros in court costs relating to the failed patents. Some even say Apple's licensing costs might not even be enough to cover those 800,000 Euros Samsung now owes them.

 

 

First, these were 3 seperate cases, not 1 ruling. Samsung must pay Apple for the 2 lost cases, but Apple must pay for the 1 case that they lost as well. The net result of this is not 800k Euros as you suggest. As to how much the penalty will be for patent infringement, this is undecided, so how can you possibly figure the outcome?

 

Even if a sales ban was not granted, how does this change the fact that Apple infringed on Samsung's patent?

post #70 of 96

Are you sure about Apple needed to cover court cost in the Dutch case.  I freely admit I am not up on the various differences in Europe, but I thought if you were the party brought to trial, that you didn't have to also cover cost.  Again I freely admit to not knowing.

post #71 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by mswood View Post

Are you sure about Apple needed to cover court cost in the Dutch case.  I freely admit I am not up on the various differences in Europe, but I thought if you were the party brought to trial, that you didn't have to also cover cost.  Again I freely admit to not knowing.

 

I think you may be correct. The first case where infringement was found may be a wash.

 

"Because both Apple and Samsung in this way won part of the lawsuit, they both had to pay their own litigation costs, the court ruled. Both parties agreed that the winner had to pay for all the litigation costs."

post #72 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

 

There is only ONE THING that matters in any of this. And it's absolutely stunning and glorious in its sheer simplicity:

 

 

According to Samsung's trial brief, the picture looks completely different when it isn't Apple 'cherry-picking' the phones to compare.

 

 

1000

 

Also, a list of their design prototypes in 2006...

 

 

1000

post #73 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

Even if a sales ban was not granted, how does this change the fact that Apple infringed on Samsung's patent?

 

They didn't infringe on the exact same patent in Germany, as was mentioned by the court.

 

Apple is offering Samsung $0.0049 for each patent in this US case.


Edited by hill60 - 7/25/12 at 10:14pm
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #74 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

Also, a list of their design prototypes in 2006...

Is there any proof that these were made in 2006?
post #75 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

"Spoilation?"

Lawyers are such nebs.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

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."

 

It’s “spoliation.”
post #76 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Is there any proof that these were made in 2006?
The phones in that photo remind me of the LG Prada more than the iPhone. Plus I think it's about more than the phone looking like a chocolate bar.

I could see someone maybe mistaking this for an iPhone:
sgs.png

But I don't see anyone looking at an iPhone and thinking 'oh that reminds me of an LG Prada'
L49-0044-main01-am.jpg

It's the hardware plus the UI that makes the Samsung Galaxy more of a (bad) clone.
post #77 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

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

 

Not in the least.  Content of a document determines which regulatory requirements apply to it  how long it is retained, not media.  No more than you would make a law saying you must keep "paper" for seven years.  

 

Responding appropriately to a preservation order is another matter though.  Typically a company of this size ordering a preservation would do some kind of crawl based on a key terms pertinent to pending litigation and isolate responsive documents until the criteria are more clearly defined in conference with opposing counsel.  And it seem like Samsung was negligent in that regard.  

 

Two weeks is on the shorter side for automated email management systems, but not unheard of.  A month is more typical for short term storage, but that is for user business operation need rather than from any regulatory driver.

post #78 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


The phones in that photo remind me of the LG Prada more than the iPhone. Plus I think it's about more than the phone looking like a chocolate bar.
I could see someone maybe mistaking this for an iPhone:
sgs.png
But I don't see anyone looking at an iPhone and thinking 'oh that reminds me of an LG Prada'

1000

 

It's the hardware plus the UI that makes the Samsung Galaxy more of a (bad) clone.

 

Are you blind?

 

In a discussion involving one of the iPhone's distinguishing features you trot out a picture that is entirely irrelevant.

 

Three is greater than one.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #79 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas View Post

According to Samsung's trial brief, the picture looks completely different when it isn't Apple 'cherry-picking' the phones to compare.




Also, a list of their design prototypes in 2006...



Incredibly disingenuous.

Note that the ones pre-2006 that look similar to the iPhone are listed as prototypes. The ones after 2006 are commercial products. So one can conclude from Samsung's own chart that before 2006, they didn't sell anything that looked like the iPhone and after 2006, they did.
"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 #80 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Incredibly disingenuous.
Note that the ones pre-2006 that look similar to the iPhone are listed as prototypes. The ones after 2006 are commercial products. So one can conclude from Samsung's own chart that before 2006, they didn't sell anything that looked like the iPhone and after 2006, they did.

It's reported that the FC700, supposedly one of those Samsung 2006 "prototype" images, made it to market before the iPhone. Personally I don't have any doubt that Samsumg was exploring cleaner, simpler smartphone designs prior to the iPhone's release. That's pretty obvious from the second set of images. It still doesn't change the fact that at least the older Galaxy S series of phones strayed a bit too close to Apple's design patent IMO. Of course that might not matter legally if the design patent isn't held to be valid anyway which is one of the aims of Samsung's defense.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
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