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 - Page 2

post #41 of 66

Really, what else should one expect from a company that would have a convicted felon as its CEO?  Google 'Samsung CEO slush fund'.  Unethicality, corruption, and criminality pervade every nook and cranny of this company's corporate culture. Their principal guideline is 'Don't get caught.'

 

Anyone who thinks that Apple's ARM CPU designs don't leak from Samsung's chip fabrication unit into its chip design unit needs to rethink his assumptions about this Mafia of high tech.


Edited by tundraboy - 10/3/13 at 8:47am
post #42 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

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.

 

Wow ... just freakin' wow. 100% shameless.

 

Edit: It's so fitting that they did this with their Code of Conduct! Copy with minor adjustments, that's what we're all about!

post #43 of 66
It's amazing to me how hard samscum works to destroy their own brand! In the beginning they were just the mediocre company that flooded the market with a huge swath of products. They slowly gained name recognition by inundation, not by producing quality products. Then they grew their market share and became a world player but their problem is, they don't have a creative bone in their corporate body. They copy EVERYONE! They lie, cheat and steal and produce inferior products while taking your hard earned money. They are now reminding the consumers of the world that they are that lying, lazy, cheating thief that steals your ideas and tries to take all the credit without doing any work. They are the creep that cuts in line when you've patiently waited. Their the bully that steals your idea and then claims they had it first. They now represent every unethical, soul less corporation with no conscience and shows no respect for the consumer. Only a person with no sense of ethics or has no self respect would support a company that is so despicable. I will never buy a samscum product, ever
Edited by iBagwan - 10/3/13 at 10:03am
post #44 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


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.

It's just a convergence of clip art design. I would say "I'm shocked" but I'm not.
post #45 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.

 

Yes.  An ethical executive, especially one in charge of licensing negotiations, would know the import of such a document and upon first glance, first glance, would right away decide to tell his bosses "I don't think we are supposed to have this document, much less use it in negotiations."  He would then sound the alarm and build a Chinese firewall around the document, notify their counsel, and if he's truly ethical, notify Apple and Nokia of the breach.  Instead, the good doctor, in true Mafia fashion, used the document (even quoting verbatim it seems) to strong arm Nokia in negotiations.  This is just thug mentality through and through.  (Heh, heh, heh, just wait and watch their faces when I quote these contract terms to them. Heh, heh.)

 

Nope, you're in charge of licensing.  You don't get away with 'I didn't know this wasn't supposed to be revealed by our counsel.  It's their fault.'

 

Contrast the way this unauthorized breach was handled with the way J. K. Rowling's counsel handled the unauthorized leak of the real author behind the pseudonym she used in her latest novel.

 

I hope the judge throws the book at Samsung, one of the very few mega-corporations, probably the only one right now, who would have a convicted felon for its CEO.  The last one I can think of is Steinbrenner when he ran the Yankees.


Edited by tundraboy - 10/3/13 at 8:56am
post #46 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

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?

 

Actually, having edited the paint rollers, they look like they're holding dildos.  Which is emblematic of the sort of thinking that apparently goes on in Samsung's executive suites.

post #47 of 66
Lawyers do not like to be sanctioned - it is a major punishment for them.

And it looks like it is a responsible path for the court in this situation.

In addition, lawyers for the firm that screwed up should be held liable to those companies that were damaged by their actions.
Ken
Reply
Ken
Reply
post #48 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.

There is a thing called "ethical behavior." Apparently, certain key Samsung people do not have it. Knowing that the information was "attorney only" should have keyed every employee seeing it that they should not be seeing it and that they should not use it — even though they saw it.

Further, while we don't know it for fact, apparently no one in Samsung thought to get the material taken down to minimize the breach of confidentiality. Or, if they did, others made a deliberate decision to keep it up.

Either way, it's apparent that Samsung has a culture that lacks common ethical standards of behavior. They lie. They cheat. They steal.

(For the record, I have inadvertently had access to material that was supposed to be restricted. Not only did I not disclose or use it, I also made sure that no one else got access to the material by reporting the breach. So, I know that breaches of confidentiality can be handled ethically.)
post #49 of 66

On a vaguely related note, take a look at Pogue's review of the Samsung watch ("a human interface train wreck"): http://nyti.ms/1dXX7pu

 

'Ouch' is putting it mildly.

post #50 of 66
Why am I not surprised...
In July 2012, Judge Koh summoned Samsung's lawyers - Quinn Emmanuel to explain their release of forbidden material about the Sony F700.
In his statement defending the release, Quinn said: "These false representations by Apple's counsel publicly and unfairly called my personal reputation into question and have resulted in media reports likewise falsely impugning me personally."

Someone's head is about to explode in ...5..4..3..
post #51 of 66
This is a huge piece of ammo for Apple going forward. In the future, when Samsung wants info in discovery, Apple can show that Samsung will not keep the info private as promised.

This will tie the hands of any honest judge, which will hurt samsung going forward in any litigation with Apple.
post #52 of 66
I wonder if this is related - Kevin Packingham, the chief product officer for the mobile division of Samsung Electronics has left the Company

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/samsungs-mobile-chief-departs/?_r=0


I would be very surprised if they haven't had a major exodus of talent with all these offenses.
post #53 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by crysisftw View Post

Ahn

What a load of crap

When Samsung lies, rainbows come out.

"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
post #54 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.

 

 

Samsung's legal team clearly screwed up, but Samsung also likely screwed up. It authorized and initiated the request for the licensing  terms between Apple and Nokia. The lawyers were acting on Samsung's behalf. The lawyers should not have provided Samsung the documents, but Samsung should have known they were for the lawyers eyes only. This is substantiated by the Nokia representative quote attributed to Samsung where the Samsung representative says information always leaks. If Samsung feels it got the information legitimately, that is not a leak. 

 

Both Nokia and Apple were harmed. Nokia especially so because its negotiations for licensing terms was tainted and prejudiced. Moreover, it sounds like Nokia gave Apple favorable terms. Probably because Nokia could use the settlement to get more favorable terms from competitors who were not as well financed and protected by their own patents like Apple.

post #55 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


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.

good catch!... the daewoo graphic makes sense with the paint-roller, making everything that daewoo contructs "rainbow"... of course the pot-of-gold at the end of the rainbow is daewoo's cost LOL.../sarcasm..

in anycase shameless for samsung not to get their own rainbow image!...

i remember the oginal article on apple insider and it was just after the article on the breach of ethics that that samsungs american lawyers office had....

so i think it will be an extremely rough time for the lawyer that gets blamed for this... so much so that lawyer will be disbared (if not, how can anyone trust this lawyer/lawyers... ) basically they broke lawyer/client privilege, only worst they went against the judges wishes to not share the information with the client...
also samsung should be worried because what reason does a lawyer working for them follow the wish of Authoritys?...
post #56 of 66
one thing that seems odd about this report is that in comparable IP Litigation and discovery the lawyers of the party supplying documents ALWAYS review these carefully and mark up the documents very carefully where claims of privileged information or highly confidential or personal information is involved.

Having been involved personally in this review process in the company I work for I know that the internal release and review process is a matter of considerable importance and we have very strict procedures, so it would seem to me that the Apple attorneys screwed up badly.
post #57 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha View Post

one thing that seems odd about this report is that in comparable IP Litigation and discovery the lawyers of the party supplying documents ALWAYS review these carefully and mark up the documents very carefully where claims of privileged information or highly confidential or personal information is involved.

Having been involved personally in this review process in the company I work for I know that the internal release and review process is a matter of considerable importance and we have very strict procedures, so it would seem to me that the Apple attorneys screwed up badly.

Wrong. If the items were redacted by Apple's lawyers, how would Sammy's lawyers gleam any information from it? Besides I pretty sure the judge stated the agreement be unaltered.
post #58 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha View Post

one thing that seems odd about this report is that in comparable IP Litigation and discovery the lawyers of the party supplying documents ALWAYS review these carefully and mark up the documents very carefully where claims of privileged information or highly confidential or personal information is involved.

Having been involved personally in this review process in the company I work for I know that the internal release and review process is a matter of considerable importance and we have very strict procedures, so it would seem to me that the Apple attorneys screwed up badly.

You didn't read the article.

The documents WERE marked "Confidential - lawyer's eyes only" when Apple submitted them. They could not delete relevant information because the judge told them to include the information - assuming that the attorneys would follow the law.

What apparently happened is that Samsung's lawyers then gave them to a consultant who created a document without the warning. Samsung needs to be SERIOUSLY penalized and the attorneys should be disbarred.
"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 #59 of 66

Samsung's new "M7" wireless speaker...hhmmmm, I wonder where they got the name for that product? 

 

http://www.cultofandroid.com/42693/samsung-unveils-400-shape-m7-wireless-speaker/

For your sake, I hope you're right.
Reply
For your sake, I hope you're right.
Reply
post #60 of 66
I have looking for the tsunami of negative press from Wall Street about these latest allegations against Samsung, but I primarily found promotions about Samsung's upcoming record profits.

If this were Apple, IMHO there would a hailstorm of articles deploring Apple's actions AND Apple's stock would have been hammered. Still, considering the crookedness that is Wall Street, being quiet about its poster corporation is to be expected.

Something else, I am thinking the Samsung investment in Sharp was due to the information illegally discovered in the documents.
post #61 of 66
Sounds like Samsung will hide behind the tactic it wasn't willful. Regardless of what Samsung claims it was (and thumbs their nose at the law at the same time), we shouldn't kid ourselves that they are an upstanding and honest company.
"...Samsung%u2019s counsel repeatedly denied even one violation of the protective order, asserting that such a violation can only occur willfully."
post #62 of 66

Gnusmas needs to be sanctioned to the tune of $2 BILLION.  That should get their attention for disrespecting and shredding the court rules.

post #63 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 you are reading too much into Quadra610's post.
post #64 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taniwha View Post

one thing that seems odd about this report is that in comparable IP Litigation and discovery the lawyers of the party supplying documents ALWAYS review these carefully and mark up the documents very carefully where claims of privileged information or highly confidential or personal information is involved.

Having been involved personally in this review process in the company I work for I know that the internal release and review process is a matter of considerable importance and we have very strict procedures, so it would seem to me that the Apple attorneys screwed up badly.

You didn't read the article.

The documents WERE marked "Confidential - lawyer's eyes only" when Apple submitted them. They could not delete relevant information because the judge told them to include the information - assuming that the attorneys would follow the law.

What apparently happened is that Samsung's lawyers then gave them to a consultant who created a document without the warning. Samsung needs to be SERIOUSLY penalized and the attorneys should be disbarred.

I did read the article, but reading it more carefully I see you are quite correct. Independently of which party may have screwed up, it is clearly a serious breach of confidence and deserves, rightly, to be heavily sanctioned. There is no doubt about that. If in fact a Samsung agent produced a copy of any document and REMOVED the  confidentiality notice then that would seem to me to be evidence of malicious intent which would in itself justify sanctions. This is really a serious issue and I hope the court follows it up and does what is necessary. The point that I am focussing on is that it really is a critical responsibility to comply with confidentiality orders and agreements. There is NO excuse for breaching confidentiality.

post #65 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by leavingthebigG View Post

I have looking for the tsunami of negative press from Wall Street about these latest allegations against Samsung, but I primarily found promotions about Samsung's upcoming record profits.
 

 

Why bite the hand that feeds you a 10 page ad spread.

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 #66 of 66
The EU formally accused Samsung of antitrust violations in December of last year, threatening the company with a fine of up to $18.3 billion.

Samsung did something even worse this year by violating a court confidentiality order in sharing the Apple-Nokia patent license terms with its executives.

A $1 Billion sanction is not enough. A $20 Billion sanction for contempt of court should be levied against Samsung for violating the sanctity of the court - payable immediately.
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