or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › After putting Google on the hook for infringement of iPhone patents, Samsung lied about it
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

After putting Google on the hook for infringement of iPhone patents, Samsung lied about it

post #1 of 64
Thread Starter 
Even more startling than the news from today's trial that Google offered to indemnify Samsung for Android's infringement of Apple's iPhones patents is the fact that Samsung falsely stated in court filings that that it had not been "seeking indemnification from any third party."

Maccoun Google-Samsung indemnity deal


During today's patent trial, Apple's attorney Harold McElhinny drew attention to Samsung's interrogatory response from September, 24 2012, where the company stated, "Samsung is not currently seeking indemnification from any third party."

That set up McElhinny to next outline a video deposition with Google counsel James Maccoun, who in August 2013 outlined that Google and Samsung had actually formed an agreement where Google promised to defend Samsung from certain patent claims Apple was asserting.

Google's defense of Android part of its MADA Samsung deal



According to the deposition, Maccoun was asked "Is there any agreement with Samsung to indemnify it for defense costs or liability related to this litigation?"

His response: "There is a Mobile Applications Development Agreement, and I understand that to be an agreement between Google Inc. and Samsung relating to indemnity and defense."

Maccoun Google-Samsung indemnity deal

Maccoun Google-Samsung indemnity deal


Maccoun was then more pointedly asked, "Pursuant to that agreement that you just referred to, has Google agreed to indemnify Samsung for any liability or defense costs associated with this litigation?"

He replied, "So I understand that Google is defending Samsung and that this is reflected by emails. The -- I think that's probably a good way to characterize it."

Samsung asks Google's Andy Rubin for indemnification



Maccoun was then presented with "Exhibit 3, Letter to Andy Rubin from JaeHyoung Kim, 4/5/12," an email dated several months after Apple sued Samsung in late 2011, but more than five months before Samsung presented answers that flatly denied any indemnification agreements.

Maccoun said the email was "the first request that I'm aware of" that outlined "an agreement between Google and Samsung" which included "provisions relating to defense and indemnification."

Apple then presented Maccoun with "Exhibit 4," a letter "from Allen Lo of Google, Deputy General Counsel Patents and Patent Litigation," to Samsung's JaeHyoung Kim, dated May 21, 2012.

The email, titled, "Apple litigation alleged patent infringement," was described by Maccoun as "Google's essentially offering to defend Samsung to the MADA and does offer to defend some -- some claims."

Apple counsel then drew attention to a line in the email stating, "We believe that Apple's allegations in Apple Inc. Versus Samsung Electronics Company Limited, et al., Case Number 511CV00630LHK, regarding asserted U.S. Patent Number" [refers to the '959 patent and the '604 patent] "may fall within this obligation."

Maccoun described that line as "Google is asking Samsung to tender the defense so that Google can defend Samsung," explaining that "tender the defense" was a "legal term of art, more or less, allowing the indemnitor to control the litigation and defense."

Maccoun Google-Samsung indemnity deal

Maccoun Google-Samsung indemnity deal

Maccoun Google-Samsung indemnity deal


Samsung "tenders the defense" of Android infringement to Google



Asked, "Has Samsung tendered to Google the defense of the claims against the Quick Search Box with respect to the '959 and '604 patents?" Maccoun replied, "So far as I know, it has."

Statements from Google's attorney reveal that Samsung took Apple's two separate 2011 lawsuits very seriously, and that it thought that Google should not only take responsibility for damages related to infringement of Apple's patents, but should also "control the litigation and defense."

Meanwhile, Samsung wrapped up its own patent offensive against Apple by claiming relatively minor damages related to two patents it bought in 2011 after being sued by Apple.

The first was patent Samsung aimed at Apple's FaceTime. However the patent in question has not only already expired, but also covers the general concept of sending video "over low band width [sic] lines." The 1990s filing refers to a feed where the "audio/visual signal can be NTSC, PAL or Y/C video."

FirstLook Video vs FaceTime

FirstLook Video vs FaceTime


The invention covered by the patent was an old fashioned cellular system for broadcasting video named "FirstLook Video," detailed in a 1993 brochure (above) that described it as "a Remote Unit about the size of airline carry-on luggage," "an automated Host Unit the plugs into two telephone lines" and "a Player Unit that uses simple PC adapted operations."

Samsung's countersuit involves two patents it acquired after being sued by Apple, and stands in stark contrast to Apple's patent offense, which focuses on four feature patents that Samsung meticulously detailed as features it needed in its own products in order to compete against Apple, including Slide to Unlock and Apple Data Detectors.

Samsung has refused to license the patents on Apple's terms, which currently demand more than $2 billion in royalties and lost profits.
post #2 of 64

Can Samsung open their mouth without lying? Ummm, no...

post #3 of 64
There's a reason Verhoeven and Co represent nearly every Android licensee accused of infringement. Lawyers involved with the cases have long thought Google has an indemnity clause to support their Android partners.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #4 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phone-UI-Guy View Post

Can Samsung open their mouth without lying? Ummm, no...

Doesn't seem like it sometimes.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #5 of 64

I hope the jury is paying attention, so is Lucy Koh.

post #6 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

... Apple's patent offense, which focuses on four feature patents that Samsung meticulously detailed as features it needed in its own products in order to compete against Apple, including Slide to Unlock and Apple Data Detectors.

 

According to an AI article posted earlier today (which used Re/code as a source) the slide to unlock and apple data detectors were dropped from the lawsuit before the trial ever began.

 

"Two other claims were pared from Apple's assertions in an effort to narrow the case for an early trial start date."

http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/04/22/google-agreed-to-pick-up-tab-for-some-samsung-legal-fees-take-on-liability-in-case-of-loss

 

"Of the four patents Google over which offered to cover at least some costs, two were dropped from the case before the trial began. The two patents that remain in the case, the ’414 and ’959 patents, cover background synchronization and universal search, respectively."

http://recode.net/2014/04/22/google-agreed-to-pick-up-at-least-some-of-samsungs-legal-defense-in-apple-case/

"Proof is irrelevant" - Solipsism
Reply
"Proof is irrelevant" - Solipsism
Reply
post #7 of 64
Seems Apple's offense is just allowing Samsung to play defense.
post #8 of 64

It's not lying if Samsung hasn't sought indemnification yet.;)

post #9 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post
 

 

According to an AI article posted earlier today (which used Re/code as a source) the slide to unlock and apple data detectors were dropped from the lawsuit before the trial ever began.

 

"Two other claims were pared from Apple's assertions in an effort to narrow the case for an early trial start date."

http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/04/22/google-agreed-to-pick-up-tab-for-some-samsung-legal-fees-take-on-liability-in-case-of-loss

 

[There were multiple claims per patent, some of which have been dropped to streamline the case. That doesn't mean Apple dropped all claims on those four patents. Apple still has claims for all 4 patents in play.]

 

"Of the four patents Google over which offered to cover at least some costs, two were dropped from the case before the trial began. The two patents that remain in the case, the ’414 and ’959 patents, cover background synchronization and universal search, respectively."

http://recode.net/2014/04/22/google-agreed-to-pick-up-at-least-some-of-samsungs-legal-defense-in-apple-case/

 

[The patents Google offered to indemnify Samsung against relate to search. Google didn't offer to indemnify Samsung over all of Apple's patent claims.]

post #10 of 64
A company built on corruption, lies, deception, and IP theft lies in Court under oath. I'm shocked.
post #11 of 64

RAZE THEM TO THE GROUND. MAKE THEM BURN. DESTROY SAMSUNG’S PRESENCE OUTSIDE SOUTH KOREA.

post #12 of 64

What else would anybody expect from that company?

 

I wouldn't be surprised if they killed people to further their "business", like the Mafia.

post #13 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

There's a reason Verhoeven and Co represent nearly every Android licensee accused of infringement. Lawyers involved with the cases have long thought Google has an indemnity clause to support their Android partners.
"have long thought"

So does Google have an official indemnification policy or not? Care to provide a link to it? And no, a "personalized" version for a specific company doesn't count. It has to be an official policy that applies to all companies equally, like Microsoft has listed on their website.
post #14 of 64
What is that expression?

"The only thing worse than a liar, is a bad liar"
Android: pitting every phone company in the world against one, getting a higher number, and considering it a major achievement.
Reply
Android: pitting every phone company in the world against one, getting a higher number, and considering it a major achievement.
Reply
post #15 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post
 

It's not lying if Samsung hasn't sought indemnification yet.;)

I see the smiley, but, you did read the article right... :)

post #16 of 64
This is hilarious. samsung's patent claim is so pathetic, in so many ways, it validates all the claims Apple is making.

   

Reply

   

Reply
post #17 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

What else would anybody expect from that company?

I wouldn't be surprised if they killed people to further their "business", like the Mafia.

They don't kill people they just "Terminate them with prejudice."
"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 #18 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

What else would anybody expect from that company?

I wouldn't be surprised if they killed people to further their "business", like the Mafia.

Yep, you are right!

http://stopsamsung.wordpress.com

Allot of people dying to help further Samsung business.

They are evil!
post #19 of 64
The samsung are liar and evil. So I am not going to buy their samsung galaxy smartphones because i don't like any bad samsung business.
post #20 of 64
What's still quite incredible, is access to all these e-mails!
post #21 of 64
Fxxking Google should go to South Korea
post #22 of 64

How many more times does Samsung have to demonstrate utter contempt for the American legal process before a judge has the balls to censure them over it?

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 #23 of 64
I'm still a bit confused as to who approached who. I have a feeling, if Google truly has this "indemnification" clause with its licensees, that they directed this whole show so that they would not appear to be directly involved, and would not appear to be attacking Applr themselves and could play ignorant.
post #24 of 64
Remember, these are the guys who put benchmark cheating code in their phones, and when it was revealed for all to see, they flat denied it.

This is the company that leaked Apple's confidential business info that Koh made them turn over. When they did so, they said"all information leaks". When they were caught, they denied it. For some reason, Koh let them go without a single sanction.

This company's CEO was convicted of bribery of government officials. After he leaned on the president of South Korea to pardon him, he denied the original bribery.

This is a rogue lawless corporation that needs a good slap upside the head...
post #25 of 64
As noted yesterday - I a practicing attorney.

Yesterday I posted about the deceit and dishonesty of Eric S - being on the Apple Board, effectively blatantly ripping off Apple's shareholders when he stood in a fiduciary relationship to Apple and its Shareholders.

I basically viewed this as Google is a deep pocket ripping off virtually all patent owners when it can get away with it - much the behavior like an out of control insurance company saying "invalid claim - sue me if you think I am wrong" .. even when the claim is valid.

I was cursed by a few ignorants who post here.

Little did I know that this was going on in Court. Apple's lawyers did a great job. Now we have PROOF that Google (insurance company/ mafioso behavior) agreed to be a deep pocket for Samsung %u2026encouraging it to continue with its Android rip-off of Apple %u2026 by giving it deep pocket coverage/indemnification.

I don't know which company is worse - the dishonest Mafioso type character - Google (hate to say that - its American.. but so what - Bing/Yahoo don't rip off like this .. for MSFT - that was done years ago and settled by Gates/Jobs). We don't need to back a dishonest American company %u2026%u2026%u2026 or is Samsung the one? It LIED about not being offered the indemnification.

This is HUGE. This should Treble the damages - this out of control behavior by E Scmidt, Google and Samsung must stop. And its not bad to the U.S. - we have companies that are playing straight and have great engineers/products.

Google had a great search engine%u2026.. they did not need to rip off . They could have paid Apple. They could be sitting down with Apple now and coming clean, staying as the Apple search engine.

Apple would be nuts if it does not take Yahoo's offer to be Apple's search engine seriously - Apple can work with Yahoo and be better -Apple has the greatest engineers, it has Ives - I think Google will be toast if its does not come clean IMMEDIATELY - with Apple - incredibly ignorant. If it was not Yahoo Partnership - I would be for a MSFT deal - nothing is beyond possibility - being the fuel search engine for Apple / Safari would make Bing #1.

I had huge position of Google (for me) couple years ago because I suspected this - I do believe unless there is a dramatic shift of "insurance mafioso type" behavior" of Google that the Goog will go down dramatically in value in 2 years or less (as soon as the search engine is changed on Apple as default)
post #26 of 64
It certainly appears to me that Apple has uncovered securities fraud on behalf of Google. Agreeing to take on defense and indemnify on these patents is exactly the type of potential liability (given the past trial and the level of the stakes at risk) that Google is required to disclose in its annual report. A potential hit of $2 billion plus $800 million in legal costs is material to their earnings. Oh wait - after this agreement, Google disenfranchised many of its shareholders--but this conduct came BEFORE that occurred. So why isn't the Department of Justice looking into Google's security fraud, or is this a quid pro quo for the spying that Google allows the feds to do? Just saying....
post #27 of 64

Meh.  The lie will annoy the judge; maybe a slap on the wrist and she'll remember it when Samsung files motion to reduce the damages.

 

The ordinary reason to exclude evidence of insurance/surety/indemnification is because [supposedly] the jury will see that evidence and think: deep pockets!  Lots of damages!  In this case both Samsung and Google have pretty deep pockets; I'm not sure if an American jury would reach a different conclusion just because, instead of deep-pocketed company A, deep-pocketed company B will be footing the bill. 

I have seen the future, and it's my mac mini server. I love that little guy...
Reply
I have seen the future, and it's my mac mini server. I love that little guy...
Reply
post #28 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyopiaRocks View Post
 

Meh.  The lie will annoy the judge; maybe a slap on the wrist and she'll remember it when Samsung files motion to reduce the damages.

 

The ordinary reason to exclude evidence of insurance/surety/indemnification is because [supposedly] the jury will see that evidence and think: deep pockets!  Lots of damages!  In this case both Samsung and Google have pretty deep pockets; I'm not sure if an American jury would reach a different conclusion just because, instead of deep-pocketed company A, deep-pocketed company B will be footing the bill. 

 

...but will the jury like being lied to, being treated as dumb hicks by shyster lawyers.

 

Apple's lawyers should hammer this message home and no doubt they will.

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 #29 of 64

Samsung is a f****d up company anyway. So, no surprise here!

 

But  Google seems to be the most hatred! From some other board ....

 

Microsoft hates Chrome
Amazon hates Google Play and Google Cloud Platform
Oracle hates the fact that Google robbed it’s Java platform
Comcast hates Google Fiber
FOX hates Google Fiber
Biogen Idec hates Google Genetech
Facebook hates Google Plus
eBay hates Google Wallet, Google Shopping
Baidu hates Google
QQQ hates Google
Yahoo hates Google everything
Adobe hates Google Analytics, Web Ad’s design software
Tesla hates Google Driverless Car
Netflix hates Google Play
Symantec hates Google Chrome OS
NetApp hates Google Cloud Platform

....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 #30 of 64

The obvious reading of this whole thing is that Google wants $$$$$$ from Android search/adds.   It wants to "power" "control" those clicks/add stream - not to have to actually negotiate with Apple on a reasonable basis or anyone else for that matter.  With indemnification - wouldn't any human being / judge want to stick it to Google to stop this dishonesty (which is LYING in Court proceedings - obviously Goog knew what Samsung was saying in response to interrogs et al).

 

On the other hand wouldn't the Court/Jury want to punish / stop dishonesty of Samsung- the one using the rip-off product?   

 

Do an analogy - if the Mafioso king (Goog) directs underling (Samsung) to take-out a "competitor", the underling commits the crime with a weapon .. then do you really think that the Court / Jury would let the underling off because his mafioso boss told him to commit the crime?

 

Google /Samsung are OUT OF THEIR MIND for not coming clean immediately with Apple - Google is in deep dodo … Apple would be nuts in not cutting Google ASAP - doing a deal with Yahoo/Msft behind the scenes - using Apple's talent to make the greatest search engine like it does with its products.

 

At minimum though - the Court / Jury is going to nail Samsung (goog as the indemnifying party) shortly 

post #31 of 64

Very good list -

 

Google is based on rip-off not "new" 

 

I am telling you - Thinking a little more into this .. Steve Jobs was brilliant.  My initial take was SJ messed up with ES on the board to rip-off Apple - after Apple/SJ got taken by Bill / Msft (who came clean reasonably with funding to Apple in settlement).

 

Maybe - Jobs reasoned - stick ES on the board.  Maybe he saw this like I have always - Google is a rip-off company - have them in your site - and if they rip off then you have the closing Kobe shot on the buzzer that takes them out.

 

After thought - I think SJ may have his best play right here NOW - this deceitful lie / indemnification - whatever you would like to call it may be the closing NBA Final - Kobe shot (maybe it was various playoffs .. I am only around for playoffs ..not regular basketball fan!)… 2 thumbs up to Steve Jobs again

post #32 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post
 

 

According to an AI article posted earlier today (which used Re/code as a source) the slide to unlock and apple data detectors were dropped from the lawsuit before the trial ever began.

 

"Two other claims were pared from Apple's assertions in an effort to narrow the case for an early trial start date."

http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/04/22/google-agreed-to-pick-up-tab-for-some-samsung-legal-fees-take-on-liability-in-case-of-loss

 

"Of the four patents Google over which offered to cover at least some costs, two were dropped from the case before the trial began. The two patents that remain in the case, the ’414 and ’959 patents, cover background synchronization and universal search, respectively."

http://recode.net/2014/04/22/google-agreed-to-pick-up-at-least-some-of-samsungs-legal-defense-in-apple-case/

This doesn't really matter because 1) Apple can sue them over these at a later date, and 2) this shows that Google is actually supporting Samsung and this might give Apple the ammunition they need to sue Google directly even though they technically gave the software to Samsung for no charge. Google is now a co-conspirator in this lawsuit unless Judge Koh says it doesn't matter.

post #33 of 64

I like the co-conspirator note - I am sure Apple's counsel has young associates doing the research.   Secret agreement of indemnification - if Google was aware of deceipt/lies in discovery (can't imagine that it does not have counsel reviewing 100% of discovery since Google is on the hook) - then issue is can Google be added as additional defendant.

 

Why not?  Apple holds the cards.   Apple cuts google from Safari - google gets its lifeblood cut off by a huge huge percentage .. amazing how STUPID Goog  is ..and this is why I dumped that stock and I am still not thinking twice about it despite the run-up (because I feel they will TANK by their business practice and this i believe is the core)

post #34 of 64
We are entering a post-Google world, people. We are through the looking glass.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #35 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

RAZE THEM TO THE GROUND. MAKE THEM BURN. DESTROY SAMSUNG’S PRESENCE OUTSIDE SOUTH KOREA.


Never going to happen
post #36 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensi View Post

Zz more of the same inane garbage and overall libel. The author of this 'article' could be sued for affirming that Samsung lied without any proof, despite his usual tedious non-demonstration, that's defamatory...

All Daniel did was post the actual transcripts and highlighted a few of the actual comments. How is this libel? Can't you see the proof in the court documented transcripts from a Google lawyer? How much more proof do you need? Publishing the truth is not libel, it's honest reporting, something all these people who post rumors and guesses aren't doing.

post #37 of 64
It might be that Samsung did not seek indemnity but that Google offered it.
post #38 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensi View Post

Zz more of the same inane garbage and overall libel. The author of this 'article' could be sued for affirming that Samsung lied without any proof, despite his usual tedious non-demonstration, that's defamatory...

I guess Sammy only pays per post and not per article read.

Sammy D: everyone is doing it.
post #39 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by starbird73 View Post

I'm still a bit confused as to who approached who. I have a feeling, if Google truly has this "indemnification" clause with its licensees, that they directed this whole show so that they would not appear to be directly involved, and would not appear to be attacking Applr themselves and could play ignorant.


I'm pretty sure Samsung approached Google in this matter. Essentially this means Google will have to cover some of the compensation and legal costs if Samsung is found guilty, and I'm sure Google isn't jumping with joy to do this. But since it's in the "Mobile Application Distribution Agreement" that Google has with all the OEM's that use Google Services they pretty much have no choice but to comply with the contractual obligations. The emails don't detail a separate deal between Samsung and Google but rather Samsung asking Google to comply with their contractual obligations.

 

This of course doesn't explain why Samsung lied about this standard clause from the MADA when asked about it...

post #40 of 64
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that Samsung committed perjury. Anyone?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • After putting Google on the hook for infringement of iPhone patents, Samsung lied about it
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › After putting Google on the hook for infringement of iPhone patents, Samsung lied about it