or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung execs shown confidential Apple-Nokia patent license terms, allegedly misused information
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung execs shown confidential Apple-Nokia patent license terms, allegedly misused information

post #1 of 66
Thread Starter 
It came to light on Wednesday that at least fifty Samsung employees retained access to highly confidential Apple-Nokia licensing terms originating from the Apple v. Samsung court trial, information that should not have been disclosed to anyone other than Samsung's outside counsel.

Ahn
Source: Samsung


In a court order filed as part the ongoing Apple v. Samsung court fight, Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal outlined the dire situation over which Apple, and possibly Nokia, are requesting sanctions, reports FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller.

Judge Grewal revealed that some of Samsung's licensing executives got their hands on an non-redacted document containing extremely sensitive information describing certain Apple and Nokia licensing deals meant solely for use in litigation by outside counsel. Due to the nature of such documents' contents, which could be used against another corporation as an unfair negotiation tactic, the information is normally redacted and marked as "Highly Confidential -- Attorneys' Eyes Only."

That was apparently not the case with the Apple-Nokia terms, and Samsung executives allegedly leveraged said information against Nokia during a licensing negotiation that took place on June 4, 2013. According to Wednesday's order, Nokia's Chief Intellectual Property Officer, Paul Melin alleges Samsung executive Dr. Seungho Ahn not only mentioned his cognizance of the confidential Apple-Nokia license, but used this knowledge to gain an unfair advantage "by asserting that the Apple-Nokia terms should dictate terms of a Samsung-Nokia license."

From the order:

Specifically, according to Mr. Melin, Dr. Ahn stated that Apple had produced the Apple-Nokia license in its litigation with Samsung, and that Samsung?s outside counsel had provided his team with the terms of the Apple-Nokia license. Mr. Melin recounts that to prove to Nokia that he knew the confidential terms of the Apple-Nokia license, Dr. Ahn recited the terms of the license, and even went so far as to tell Nokia that ?all information leaks.?


The revelation is somewhat shocking, considering Samsung's action breaches the widely respected rule governing protective court orders. In essence, the breach undermines a court's assurance of confidentiality. These protective orders are crucial for a court to adjudicate properly, and with adequate transparency, the full scope of a case.

Judge Grewal points out the onus to uphold the rule, and thereby the sanctity of the court, falls largely on counsel .

"A casual observer might reasonably wonder what magic a protective order works that allows outside counsel access to confidential information to advance the case without countenancing untoward uses by the client," Judge Grewal writes. "The answer is not a magical one at all: confidential information remains confidential because counsel and clients alike follow court orders. If parties breach this basic rule, the court?s assurances become meaningless."

As for how Samsung execs managed to gain access to the Apple-Nokia deal, the order explains that the document was part of fact discovery produced during the first Apple v. Samsung case between August 2011 and March 2012. In fact, not only did Apple divulge its patent license agreement with Nokia, but also ongoing arrangements with Ericsson, Sharp and Philips.

When the case moved into expert discovery, Samsung's counsel sent the company a draft of a report created by its expert witness Dr. David J. Teece. In said report, which was written in support of Samsung's per-iPhone royalty demands, Teece "included key terms of each of the four Apple license agreements."

David Teece
Expert witness David Teece. | Source: Wikipedia


The Teece report should have been fully redacted due to its inclusion of "attorneys' eyes only" information, but it was not. It is not known if Samsung's outside counsel, law firm Quinn Emanuel led by partner John Quinn, did so intentionally or by mistake.

From there, the document was posted to an FTP server accessible by Samsung personnel and an email detailing how to access the document was sent out to counsel's client distribution list meant to provide the Korean tech giant's employees updates about the case.

The information was then sent, over several different occasions, to over fifty Samsung employees, including high-ranking licensing executives. Specifically, on at least four occasions between March 24, 2012 and December 21, 2012, Samsung's outside counsel emailed a copy of some version of the report to Samsung employees, as well as various counsel representing Samsung in courts and jurisdictions outside the United States.


What happened to the information after the report's dissemination is unclear, though it is at this point in the timeline of events that the above described declaration from Nokia's Melin comes into play. Judge Grewal notes that the meeting between Nokia and Samsung may have occurred much differently than described by Melin, though he can't be sure because Samsung is not cooperating with court requests for further information.

"Unfortunately, the court cannot say, because Samsung has elected not to provide the court with any sworn testimony from Dr. Ahn or anyone else at the meeting," the order reads. "Samsung also has failed to supply the court with any evidence at all regarding other uses of the Apple-Nokia license, or those of the other confidential licenses. In fact, despite acknowledging that many dozens of individuals at Samsung and its other counsel have knowledge of confidential license terms that they had no right to access, at yesterday?s hearing, Samsung?s counsel repeatedly denied even one violation of the protective order, asserting that such a violation can only occur willfully."

Samsung's counsel still holds that formal discovery into the matter is unnecessary. Further the company is "unable to provide" evidence regarding who had access to the information, what the information was used for, when it was used, where it was used, or how it was used. Judge Grewal's "who, what, when, where, why, and how" example is underlined by Samsung's apparent lack of respect for the legal process.
"In each instance, the only response available seems to be, 'We?re working on it,'" - Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal on Samsung's response questions from the court.
"In each instance, the only response available seems to be, 'We?re working on it,'" the jurist writes.

Samsung has agreed to provide Apple with a log of documents generated as a result of the Teece report, though the company plans to use a collection protocol it first negotiated with Nokia in a separate case. Judge Grewal does not approve.

"Rarely is the fox is permitted to investigate without supervision the disappearance of chickens at the henhouse," he said.

Instead, the court has ordered discovery of at least some emails and communication pertaining to the paper trail, as well as depositions from Ahn and other Samsung employees who had access to the document.

Both Apple and Samsung will meet next on Oct. 22 for a hearing on the requested sanctions.

post #2 of 66
Scamscum just aren't interested in following the law it seems. Interesting that the responsibility (and possibly any liability?) lies with Quinn Emmanuel.

Would be funny seeing Apple and Nokia take those clowns to the dry cleaners - they're meant to be a top law firm but have acted with less competence than an ambulance chaser!
post #3 of 66
Anyone surprised about any of this???
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #4 of 66
Disbar the whole lot of Samsung attorneys.. then sue the pants off of Samsung
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #5 of 66
The more I hear about Samsung, the less I am inclined to buy any of their products, however well made (or not). Mafia springs to mind.

For instance if I buy another Android phone it'll be from anyone but them.

However, its almost impossble to not buy a manufactured electronic item without somethng they've made in it. I guess the best I can do is thnk that at least they don't make anywhere near as much money on a component than on a whole product.
post #6 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustSomDude View Post


I'm an Android user who buys nexus only. Except the S and the Galaxy versions. I refuse to support Samsung at all. No fridge no television nothing.

 

...and if we work you over, maybe a future iOS user!  :lol: (We need the numbers... no we don't... Gollum, get lost!)

Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
post #7 of 66

Remind me again which Korea is our ally and which is an enemy.  With a government that allows its' companies to result in this level of ethical behavior with regard to our laws.  I don't know which is worse, this, or our probable legal response of "yea but what are you going to do?"  Take the protection our military provides but steal any economic advantage you can over our companies.  With friends like this who needs enemies.  If your going to buy android (which I have no problem with the choice, just the substance of the os) at least buy from HTC, a Taiwanese company.  At least Taiwan behaves grateful for our protection.

post #8 of 66

Ahn

What a load of crap

post #9 of 66

Sounds to me as if it was Samsung's legal team that screwed up. If the document "should have been redacted" before being sent to Samsung then Samsung could argue that the fact that it wasn't constituted legal advice (from their own legal team to them) that they were entitled to the information. The fact that Samsung openly (well, in negotiations with Nokia) disclosed that they had the information supports this - if they thought they shouldn't have the information, the last thing they would do is quote it to a competitor. Nokia had no motive to keep quiet and every right to be upset.

 

It also sounds as though Nokia could be the party most damaged: collateral damage from someone-else's legal battle. Score one for the lawyers then? I wonder who will sue who because the losses here, certainly to Nokia and probably to Apple, could be substantial.

OS X and iOS user

Reply

OS X and iOS user

Reply
post #10 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Command_F View Post
 

Sounds to me as if it was Samsung's legal team that screwed up. If the document "should have been redacted" before being sent to Samsung then Samsung could argue that the fact that it wasn't constituted legal advice (from their own legal team to them) that they were entitled to the information. The fact that Samsung openly (well, in negotiations with Nokia) disclosed that they had the information supports this - if they thought they shouldn't have the information, the last thing they would do is quote it to a competitor. Nokia had no motive to keep quiet and every right to be upset.

 

It also sounds as though Nokia could be the party most damaged: collateral damage from someone-else's legal battle. Score one for the lawyers then? I wonder who will sue who because the losses here, certainly to Nokia and probably to Apple, could be substantial.

 

The first sensible post of the thread. :) 

post #11 of 66
Samsung hopes the $1.1 billion in early trials was absurd. It's rather clear that Apple should and most likely will divert all future manufacturing contracts from them and demand much higher sanctions, including those held under FRAND.
post #12 of 66

If Apple counsel or a consultant in their employ had related to to Apple confidential information they shouldn't have, no one would blame Apple - it would rightly be ascribed as the fault of the counsel/consultant.

 

This sounds like the fault lies with Teece.

post #13 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post
 

If Apple counsel or a consultant in their employ had related to to Apple confidential information they shouldn't have, no one would blame Apple - it would rightly be ascribed as the fault of the counsel/consultant.

 

This sounds like the fault lies with Teece.

 

To be fair, Apple is not a scumbag like Samsung. If Samsung's past behavior is noble then everybody will think twice before blaming them.

post #14 of 66
I would not put other Korean companies in the same bag than Samsung : HTC and LG are pretty forward in their business practices. Samsung executive head, on the other hand, seems to be quite a bunch of liars%u2026

While Samsung's legal counsel may have screwed up, high ranking Samsung exec chose to pass the document to other executives working on a Samsung-Nokia deal to allow them to strong-arm Nokia in agreeing to their terms. Good luck with explaining they didn't know it gave them an unfair and illegal advantage%u2026

I sincerely hope US and EU adopt a stronger position against Samsung which does not seem to care about law outside of their country%u2026
post #15 of 66

Cosa nostra…

post #16 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Command_F View Post
 

Sounds to me as if it was Samsung's legal team that screwed up. If the document "should have been redacted" before being sent to Samsung then Samsung could argue that the fact that it wasn't constituted legal advice (from their own legal team to them) that they were entitled to the information. The fact that Samsung openly (well, in negotiations with Nokia) disclosed that they had the information supports this - if they thought they shouldn't have the information, the last thing they would do is quote it to a competitor. Nokia had no motive to keep quiet and every right to be upset.

 

It also sounds as though Nokia could be the party most damaged: collateral damage from someone-else's legal battle. Score one for the lawyers then? I wonder who will sue who because the losses here, certainly to Nokia and probably to Apple, could be substantial.

 

Thing is, Samsung were definitely aware that Apple and Nokia did not want to disclose these details in the first place due to commercial sensitivities - they were ordered to disclose by the court and Samsung's counsel was obligated to keep it safe.  Now Quinn Emmanuel may have failed in their obligation, but Samsung can't argue they didn't know they were given something they shouldn't have been. Instead, Samsung went about using the information that'd been inappropriately disclosed to them to seek a commercial advantage improperly.  The proper thing to do would have been to notify their counsel of the disclosed information and take steps to prevent the information being shared with the executives negotiating with Nokia.

 

Except they didn't do that and now they're back in court and appear to be refusing to cooperate.  Rarely do big corporations refuse to co-operate with the law and when they do it is because a) management have no respect for the law and b) they realise the potential liability could cripple their business.....

post #17 of 66

Don't think for a moment it was an "accident".

post #18 of 66
Maybe a spell in prison will refresh some of Samsung counsel's memories, they can also ponder the effect of disbarment on their careers.

Samsung has demonstrated once again their ruthless disregard of the law.
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 #19 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Command_F View Post
If the document "should have been redacted" before being sent to Samsung then Samsung could argue that the fact that it wasn't constituted legal advice (from their own legal team to them) that they were entitled to the information.

 

Yeah, not sure Samsung can argue  "We are innocent because we broke the law".

Doodle Dice iPhone puzzle game: A fun, free physics-laden collection of dice games.  Greatest app made yet?  Perhaps young man... Perhaps.
Reply
Doodle Dice iPhone puzzle game: A fun, free physics-laden collection of dice games.  Greatest app made yet?  Perhaps young man... Perhaps.
Reply
post #20 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Command_F View Post

Sounds to me as if it was Samsung's legal team that screwed up. If the document "should have been redacted" before being sent to Samsung then Samsung could argue that the fact that it wasn't constituted legal advice (from their own legal team to them) that they were entitled to the information. The fact that Samsung openly (well, in negotiations with Nokia) disclosed that they had the information supports this - if they thought they shouldn't have the information, the last thing they would do is quote it to a competitor. Nokia had no motive to keep quiet and every right to be upset.

I guess you've never been involved in litigation involving confidential business information. Samsung executives should have known better than to use this. Even at a much lower level in a Fortune 500 company, it was made clear to me early on that I could not use competitors confidential information.

Furthermore:
"Paul Melin alleges Samsung executive Dr. Seungho Ahn not only mentioned his cognizance of the confidential Apple-Nokia license, but used this knowledge to gain an unfair advantage "by asserting that the Apple-Nokia terms should dictate terms of a Samsung-Nokia license.""

I don't have any doubt that Samsung knew when they used this information that it was confidential.
"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 #21 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emrul View Post

Scamscum just aren't interested in following the law it seems. Interesting that the responsibility (and possibly any liability?) lies with Quinn Emmanuel.

Would be funny seeing Apple and Nokia take those clowns to the dry cleaners - they're meant to be a top law firm but have acted with less competence than an ambulance chaser!

Our lawyers will be our death as a country, ultimately.
1hmm.gif
post #22 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Command_F View Post

Sounds to me as if it was Samsung's legal team that screwed up. If the document "should have been redacted" before being sent to Samsung then Samsung could argue that the fact that it wasn't constituted legal advice (from their own legal team to them) that they were entitled to the information. The fact that Samsung openly (well, in negotiations with Nokia) disclosed that they had the information supports this - if they thought they shouldn't have the information, the last thing they would do is quote it to a competitor. Nokia had no motive to keep quiet and every right to be upset.

It also sounds as though Nokia could be the party most damaged: collateral damage from someone-else's legal battle. Score one for the lawyers then? I wonder who will sue who because the losses here, certainly to Nokia and probably to Apple, could be substantial.

That's a poor excuse if I ever heard one: 'the devil made me do it.'

No halfway decent company would tolerate this type of behavior by their execs, since it puts the company in serious legal jeopardy.
post #23 of 66

This .... PRICELESS! ROFLMAO

 

"Rarely is the fox is permitted to investigate without supervision the disappearance of chickens at the henhouse," he said.

 

Samsung and all their products must be banned worldwide ... FOREVER!

....the lack of properly optimized apps is one of the reasons "why the experience on Android tablets is so crappy".

Tim Cook ~ The Wall Street Journal - February 7, 2014

Inside Google! 

Reply

....the lack of properly optimized apps is one of the reasons "why the experience on Android tablets is so crappy".

Tim Cook ~ The Wall Street Journal - February 7, 2014

Inside Google! 

Reply
post #24 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustSomDude View Post

I'm an Android user who buys nexus only. Except the S and the Galaxy versions. I refuse to support Samsung at all. No fridge no television nothing.

I think the HTC One is the nicest phone on the market currently. Absolutely love it- although it runs android- which is why I wouldn't buy it.
If I HAD to buy an android phone, I'd also settle with the nexus just so I could get regular android updates without potentially bricking my phone. Plus I wouldn't have everyone else's overlay- essentially having a "fresh install" of android without the "freeware".

But, luckily, as it stands- I can just stick with iOS.

To your other point- Samsung makes an incredible plasma TV. But I just got an LG instead. I'll never get samsung again either. Only thing left of theirs in my house is my washer and dryer.

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini 2, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini 2, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #25 of 66

Puh-leeeeeeese.  The outside council knows the law.  They were clearly pressured by the scumbags (the Lee Family) that runs Samsung.  What do you expect from a two-time convicted felon?

post #26 of 66
Oh Sammy. I wish this would surprise me but it doesn't. I'm surprised Sammy didn't use the "convergence of patent licensing" phrase as an excuse. Perhaps they have a 132 page slide deck comparing the license agreement with their own.
post #27 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustSomDude View Post

Good. Fine them 50 billion or something. Destroy them.

And then send them to the jail. :-)

post #28 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Command_F View Post
 

... The fact that Samsung openly (well, in negotiations with Nokia) disclosed that they had the information supports this - if they thought they shouldn't have the information, the last thing they would do is quote it to a competitor….

 

Kinda hard to buy the fact that they thought it was OK to do with the taunting by Dr. Ahn that per Melin he went so far as to tell Nokia that "all information leaks." IMHO This seems to imply that he had info he should not have had.

post #29 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by crysisftw View Post

Ahn

What a load of crap
This graphic was stolen from a kiddie show - Samsung just slapped their name on top ...
post #30 of 66

This could have intersting long-term implications.  The judge is right that court orders are only powerful because compliance is so high.  It's like having speed limits posted but no speed traps and no traffic cops and yet almost everyone obeys the speed limit.  Courts request information (and issue other kinds of orders) all the time and they expect that everyone will do their best to comply.  They simply don't have the resources to enforce their orders, so voluntary consistent complaince is critical.  Now we have a judge calling out Samsung and their firm for what appears to be a serious breach of that trust and Samsung's response is lackadasical.  Other judges will see this and (likely) take personal offense.  In their next case (and 100 cases after that) opposing counsel will make sure that the judge keeps in mind that they really can't be sure that Samsung can be trusted.  That'll help opposing counsel in more than a few cases, I expect.

 

Well played, Samsung.  Short-term gain, (hopefully) long-term pain.

post #31 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by reydn View Post


This graphic was stolen from a kiddie show - Samsung just slapped their name on top ...

 

Samsung: taste the rainbow.

post #32 of 66

I don't think that culturally, corporations like Samsung "get" concepts like ethics in the way the rest of the players do. It's as if they really don't know any better and are struggling to make sense of things like accountability, legality, and best (ethical) practices.

post #33 of 66
Hey Dr. Ahn, "all information leaks" - including yours lol

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

I've been enlightened today - all this time I thought the whole "Samsung-paid posters" thing was a joke; consider me more informed: http://m.blogs.computerworld.com/smartphones/22066/samsung-admits-paying-students-fake-web-reviews-did-it-attack-apple-too
Edited by reydn - 10/3/13 at 7:36am
post #34 of 66
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post
 

I don't think that culturally, corporations like Samsung "get" concepts like ethics in the way the rest of the players do...

 

that's right, because, you know, they're a korean company. and koreans, like the japanese, chinese, russians, indians etc. are genetically predisposed to being dishonest and not understanding concepts such as fairness, unlike companies run by rock solid individuals from countries like the u.s., u.k. and europe (well, the good part of it, anyway).

 

and in those very rare cases where a corporation from one of those hallowed lands is caught out in a lie, there's probably a korean (or something) lurking in the background.

 

thanks for the insightful post, quadra610.

post #35 of 66
Everyday samsung sinks lower and lower ..... Great! Let them dig their own grave...

In just wish apple would use some of their PR force to publisize the hell out of all the fradulant low life behaivior samsung resorts to!
post #36 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

Anyone surprised about any of this???

 

Not surprised at all; its Samscum.

post #37 of 66
Really, who would've guessed?

I do not like the term, punish. Repercussions opens a wider field of possibilities with 'punishment ' as but one resulting action. Big corporations may have questionable ethics in many areas of their business practices, but here is one field advanced by Samsung that even the most flexible thinkers might find deplorable. On the other hand, I may just be a wee bit naive.

When I find time to rewrite the laws of Physics, there'll Finally be some changes made round here!

I am not crazy! Three out of five court appointed psychiatrists said so.

Reply

When I find time to rewrite the laws of Physics, there'll Finally be some changes made round here!

I am not crazy! Three out of five court appointed psychiatrists said so.

Reply
post #38 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by ged View Post
 

 

that's right, because, you know, they're a korean company. and koreans, like the japanese, chinese, russians, indians etc. are genetically predisposed to being dishonest and not understanding concepts such as fairness, unlike companies run by rock solid individuals from countries like the u.s., u.k. and europe (well, the good part of it, anyway).

 

and in those very rare cases where a corporation from one of those hallowed lands is caught out in a lie, there's probably a korean (or something) lurking in the background.

 

thanks for the insightful post, quadra610.

 

I think he meant corporate culture (which is set at the top, and when your top guy has been indicted multiple times ...), but I could be wrong.

post #39 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I guess you've never been involved in litigation involving confidential business information. Samsung executives should have known better than to use this. Even at a much lower level in a Fortune 500 company, it was made clear to me early on that I could not use competitors confidential information.

Furthermore:
"Paul Melin alleges Samsung executive Dr. Seungho Ahn not only mentioned his cognizance of the confidential Apple-Nokia license, but used this knowledge to gain an unfair advantage "by asserting that the Apple-Nokia terms should dictate terms of a Samsung-Nokia license.""

I don't have any doubt that Samsung knew when they used this information that it was confidential.

Not only that but one of the guys from Samsung said "all information leaks" during negotiations with Nokia. The idea that it's just a attorney mistake is laughable.
post #40 of 66
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Ahn

Source: Samsung

 

THEY STOLE THIS IMAGE FROM DAEWOO CONSTRUCTION.

 

Specifically, the Ministry of Employment. Specifically The Daewoo Human Resources consultant who writes for their blog. It’s part of a series of images, and look: Samsung edited out the paint rollers (so THAT’S what these two morons are holding up, not sticks of string cheese) so that it would be “different”.

 

 

 

Unbe-effing-lievable.

 

Granted, this could just be stock art, but it’s part of a set and if so, why would Samsung have edited out the only thing that makes the image make sense?

 

It even talks about Steve Jobs and Bill Gates on that page. Maybe this is where Samsung got their business advice, as well as their ethical… images.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung execs shown confidential Apple-Nokia patent license terms, allegedly misused information