Samsung's questions sound like a qualifications check for fandroid membership on AI.
117: Do you believe that a company can own a rectangle?
192: What is the correct way to hold a tablet: portrait of landscape?
226: Have you ever watched an Apple keynote address?
245: Do you believe phone screens should not be larger than 3.5 inches?
Are you making these up, or are these from the real list? Where's the full one?
And does ANYONE seriously think that if ANY of the jurors answers 'yes' to, say, 226 (or any of them) that Samsung won't claim that is grounds for their dismissal due to bias?
Are you making these up, or are these from the real list? Where's the full one?
And does ANYONE seriously think that if ANY of the jurors answers 'yes' to, say, 226 (or any of them) that Samsung won't claim that is grounds for their dismissal due to bias?
Samsung is apparently looking to weed out so-called "Apple fan boys" and jurors who may hold negative views of Asian corporations.
Questions 4, 5 and 6 of Samsung's proposed 700:
<blockquote>"4. Do you have any negative impressions or opinions about South Korean companies or business people?"
"5. Do you think many Asian companies steal what others have created and sell products based on copied innovation?"
Oh, I dunno . . .
<p> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/business/worldbusiness/20samsung.html</p><p> </p><p> </p><div> <span style="font-size:18px;"><strong>New Bribery Allegation Roils Samsung</strong></span></div><div> </div><div> SEOUL, South Korea, Nov. 19 — Samsung, which has vigorously denied bribery charges in a snowballing corruption scandal, sustained another blow to its image on Monday when a former legal adviser to President Roh Moo-hyun said the company had once offered him a cash bribe.</div><div> </div><div> The former aide, Lee Yong-chul, who also served as a presidential monitor against corruption, said that the money — 5 million won ($5,445) — was delivered to him in January 2004 as a holiday gift from a Samsung Electronics executive, but that he immediately returned it.</div><div> </div><div> Before sending it back, Mr. Lee said, he took pictures of the cash package, which were released to the news media on Monday.</div><div> </div><div> “I was outraged by Samsung’s brazenness, by its attempt to bribe a presidential aide in charge of fighting corruption,” Mr. Lee said in a written statement released at a news conference by a civic organization. He did not attend the event.</div><div> </div><div> James Chung, a spokesman for Samsung Electronics, said, “We are trying to find out the facts around these allegations.”</div><div> </div><div> Samsung Electronics is the mainstay of the 59-subsidiary Samsung conglomerate and a world leader in computer chips, flat-panel television screens and cellphones.</div><div> </div><div> Mr. Lee’s accusation appeared to support recent assertions by a former chief lawyer at Samsung, Kim Yong-chul, that the conglomerate had run a vast network that bribed officials, prosecutors, tax collectors, journalists and scholars on behalf of Samsung’s chairman, Lee Kun-hee.</div><div> </div><div> Prosecutors are investigating Mr. Kim’s accusations, and political parties have introduced legislation that would establish an independent counsel.</div><div> </div><div> Opposition political parties say an independent prosecutor is needed because Mr. Kim identified the president’s new chief prosecutor, Lim Chai-jin, as one of many prosecutors to have received bribes from Samsung. Mr. Lim denied the assertion.</div><div> </div><div> President Roh’s office dismissed the call for an independent counsel as an election-year political maneuver. The South Korean presidential election is scheduled on Dec. 19.</div><div> </div><div> As the scandal expanded, the chairman, Lee Kun-hee, was absent Monday from a ceremony commemorating the 20th anniversary of the death of his father, Lee Byung-chul, Samsung’s founder. Company officials cited a “serious cold and illness from fatigue.”</div><div> </div><div> Lee Yong-chul, the former presidential aide, now a partner at a law firm in Seoul, issued his statement and pictures through the National Movement to Unveil Illegal Activities by Samsung and Its Chairman, an organization that was started by civic groups after Mr. Kim’s allegations were made public.</div><div> </div><div> Calls to Mr. Lee’s office were not returned on Monday.</div><div> </div><div> “This is proof that Samsung’s bribery has reached not only prosecutors but the very core of political power, the Blue House,” the group said at the news conference, referring to the South Korean presidential office. President Roh’s office called that assertion “pure speculation.”</div><div> </div><div> Mr. Lee said the bribe he received in 2004 was delivered after an executive at Samsung Electronics asked him whether his company could send him a holiday gift. Mr. Lee said he accepted, thinking that it would be a simple gift.</div><div> </div><div> He said that when he returned the money with a protest, the Samsung executive apologized. The executive said he had simply allowed his company to send the gift in his name and had not known it contained cash, Mr. Lee related.</div><div> </div><div> The executive could not be reached for comment. Samsung said the man left the company in June 2004 and now lived in the United States.</div><div> </div><div> Lee Yong-chul said he decided to go public after reading about the lawyer Kim Yong-chul’s whistle-blowing. He said he believed Mr. Kim’s assertion that Samsung had run a systematic bribery effort.</div><div> </div><div> Samsung has denied Mr. Kim’s allegations as “groundless.” A couple of Samsung executives Mr. Kim accused of delivering bribes have sued him.</div><div> </div><div> In his statement, Lee Yong-chul said the cash was delivered to him while prosecutors were investigating assertions that Samsung and other conglomerates had provided large amounts of illegal campaign funds to presidential candidates during the 2002 election, which Mr. Roh won.</div><div> </div><div> Several campaign officials for Mr. Roh and his opponent, Lee Hoi-chang, as well as Samsung executives, were convicted of playing major roles in raising slush funds in that campaign.</div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div> </div><div> More recent:</div><div> </div><div>http://gizmodo.com/5524174/controversial-book-claims-samsung-is-basically-the-most-corrupt-company-in-asia http://www.fastcompany.com/1627411/former-samsung-prosecutors-expose-accuses-samsung-of-massive-corruption</div><div> </div><div> <div> <span style="font-size:18px;"><strong>Bribery, Massive Corruption at Samsung, Says Exposé by Former S. Korean Prosecutor</strong></span></div> <div> </div> <div> . . . In addition, a lawmaker said she had once been offered a golf bag full of cash from Samsung, and a former presidential aide said he had received and returned a cash gift from the company.</div> <div> </div> <div> Lee Kun-hee, the chairman of Samsung, was convicted of hiding more than $42 million from tax collection, and received nothing more than a suspended sentence. The media decided not to mention the whistle-blowing book at all, despite it achieving remarkable sales for a non-fiction book in that country. (Not a single newspaper published a review, and the only discussion of the book mentioned its sales--but not its title or author. Yeah, you read that right. They left out the title.) Even worse, the media refused to print any op-eds or articles explaining, let alone backing, Kim Yong-chul's side, out of fear that Samsung would pull advertisements from their TV shows and newspapers.</div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div> http://news.techeye.net/business/south-korea-makes-example-of-samsung-corruption</div> <div> </div> <div> <div> <span style="font-size:18px;"><strong>South Korea makes example of Samsung corruption</strong></span></div> <div> </div> <div> Samsung has been publicly forced to get its act together to stamp out corruption, with the South Korean government choosing to make an example of it. </div> <div> </div> <div> According to a top industry consultant familiar with the company, Samsung's legal "philanderings" are no secret. While other companies are also at it, the South Korean government is keeping them safe as it looks to drive revenue and reputation to the country.</div> <div> </div> <div> The comments come as news of shadiness inside Samsung spreads, after an inspection found that elements of the company were involved in corruption. </div> <div> </div> <div> The findings led to CEO Oh Chang-Suk stepping down and Lee Kun-Hee, chairman of the company, claiming there would be some managerial changes.</div> <div> </div> <div> However, he would not specify what the investigation had uncovered - only saying that it included taking bribes and enjoying hospitality from suppliers. He said the "worst type" of abuse was pressure on junior staff to commit corrupt acts.</div> <div> </div> <div> "Corruption and fraud" at Samsung Techwin came about accidentally, and was a result of a "complacent attitude during the past decade", he told reporters</div> <div> </div> <div> This isn't the first time Samsung has been alleged to have its hands in the till. In 2007 the company's former executives accused it of bribing police and politicians to stop probes into its management, while in 2009 the chairman, along with nine other senior executives, were indicted on tax dodging charges. </div> <div> </div> <div> According to our analyst, speaking under condition of anonymity, these are well known facts. </div> <div> </div> <div> <span style="font-size:16px;"><strong>"Let's be honest, Samsung's philanderings are not a secret, the company has been at it for years," he said. </strong></span></div> <div> </div> <div> <span style="font-size:16px;"><strong>
</strong></span></div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div> </div> </div></div><div> <strong>
This is what Japan (ask Mitsubishi Motors), China (do I need to ask?) and South Korea (again?) do esp. when they are still in their infancy. Their way of competing with the west in quick time. Only once they got past big US/EU companies that they start to innovate (poorly we could see that in Samsung). Heck even smaller Asian countries got walked over during those cooperative technology exchange exercise/projects (e.g. Proton).
Correction to the article: the proposed voir dire questions from either side are both short. Those are linked in the article and are what the parties want to ask prospective jurors. The proposed jury verdict forms are completely separate. They are for the end of the trial, when the jury has to make findings of fact. These forms (or whatever is adopted as the actual form) are to guide the jury in what facts it should find. (Judge Koh then will apply the pertinent law to those facts.) That’s why it could make more sense to have granular questions, depending of course on the specifics. Obviously, Samsung doesn’t want the jury to lump products together and make assumptions that if one infringes, all infringe. But if there’s no dispute that the software is the same, or something like that, then it could needlessly confuse the jury. There are a lot of highly technical moving parts, and it’s just difficult for a jury to mind every detail in the thick of things.
But nowadays almost all of Apple's lawsuits are against South Korea's Samsung. Why don't they go against Google?
The funny/sad thing is, Apple used to be known as a maker a good computers -- if they continue going down this path of lawsuits (while exploiting latent racism and xenophobia) they will soon be associated primarily with lawsuits! "Apple -- the lawsuit company!"
To your first paragraph: Apple is going after Samsung because they most blatantly copied Apple's product, even down to how Apple packages their product and the printing on the boxes. It is no secret that Samsung's top management Has been in criminal trouble in South Korea by their own government. Because Google GIVES AWAY the Android OS, they cannot be charged with profiting from Apple's IP. However, since Samsung and HTC and others have profited from selling hardware with Apple's IP included, they are the best targets to sue.
To your second paragraph: Is it really a bad thing that Apple gets the reputation that they won't allow others to rip of their IP?? Think about it... If they have created that reputation then anyone who thinks ripping off Apple will pause and think again, "Is it really profitable to piss off Apple?"
As a matter of history: Before Apple entered the phone market it was common practice of the various companies to steal from each other. How well did that work out for the phone users? Basically the phone handset market was in a terrible state. It was so bad before Apple entered the market that Microsoft's Windows CE phone actually looked good! Apple is forcing it's competitors to innovate and produce really good products, or get their asses sued up one side and down the other for copying.
Given that samsung's lawyers dated their submission 11th July 2011 (page 3 line 10), I don't hold out much hope for their chances in the actual court case.
Given that samsung's lawyers dated their submission 11th July 2011 (page 3 line 10), I don't hold out much hope for their chances in the actual court case.
Someone who is accused of stealing and asks "do you have a problem with stealing"? Well... derrrr... isn't that what this is all about. Isn't that what this is all about?
I don't know if these guys broke any laws, I don't really care, but I'll say this:
I once purchased a Samsung TV, within 1 month I had a problem with it. 6 months later, they sent a rep to fix it, they tried to fix it, could not fix it, promised they would escalate it to Samsung, Samsung sent the same rep back again simply to state that there was "nothing wrong with it". I almost hit the guy.
WORST CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE EVER.
Luckily, the place where I purchased it from swapped the TV for me. I now have a Panasonic. Yay!
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I think myapplelove figured out how to make a new account.
LOL.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Ooh, are these public? The entire things, I mean. I want to go through and answer all 700.
And all 49.
Holy cow, Samsung's question 5. I love it.
Samsung's questions sound like a qualifications check for fandroid membership on AI.
117: Do you believe that a company can own a rectangle?
192: What is the correct way to hold a tablet: portrait of landscape?
226: Have you ever watched an Apple keynote address?
245: Do you believe phone screens should not be larger than 3.5 inches?
I'd hesitate to reach conclusions based on 4 of Samsung's 700 questions and 2 of Apple's 49.
Are you making these up, or are these from the real list? Where's the full one?
And does ANYONE seriously think that if ANY of the jurors answers 'yes' to, say, 226 (or any of them) that Samsung won't claim that is grounds for their dismissal due to bias?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Ooh, are these public? The entire things, I mean. I want to go through and answer all 700.
And all 49.
Holy cow, Samsung's question 5. I love it.
I don't think that the cow is holy in all of Asia.... ;-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by KoreaFighting
While most people don't talk about, it is clear that this stupid old stereotype ("Asians copy") is at the heart of Apple's bullying.
I don't think that's true at all.
Search the questions for keywords.
"Do you hate Asians"?
Apple questions based on principles.
"Do you think it's alright to steal someone else's work"?
So easy to tell who's desperate here.
HEY. THAT'S RACISM, BIAS, AND… AND… Your Honor, I want him off the case.
"Apple, am I right? I mean, you know, look at how hypocritical they are. Xerox had it first, you know?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Are you making these up, or are these from the real list? Where's the full one?
And does ANYONE seriously think that if ANY of the jurors answers 'yes' to, say, 226 (or any of them) that Samsung won't claim that is grounds for their dismissal due to bias?
Made up, of course.
Could've had me fooled.
Had me fooled.
Oh, I dunno . . .
Samsung certainly isn't helping.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Oh, I dunno . . .
Samsung certainly isn't helping.
You wanna borrow my tinfoil hat?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KoreaFighting
But nowadays almost all of Apple's lawsuits are against South Korea's Samsung. Why don't they go against Google?
The funny/sad thing is, Apple used to be known as a maker a good computers -- if they continue going down this path of lawsuits (while exploiting latent racism and xenophobia) they will soon be associated primarily with lawsuits! "Apple -- the lawsuit company!"
To your first paragraph: Apple is going after Samsung because they most blatantly copied Apple's product, even down to how Apple packages their product and the printing on the boxes. It is no secret that Samsung's top management Has been in criminal trouble in South Korea by their own government. Because Google GIVES AWAY the Android OS, they cannot be charged with profiting from Apple's IP. However, since Samsung and HTC and others have profited from selling hardware with Apple's IP included, they are the best targets to sue.
To your second paragraph: Is it really a bad thing that Apple gets the reputation that they won't allow others to rip of their IP?? Think about it... If they have created that reputation then anyone who thinks ripping off Apple will pause and think again, "Is it really profitable to piss off Apple?"
As a matter of history: Before Apple entered the phone market it was common practice of the various companies to steal from each other. How well did that work out for the phone users? Basically the phone handset market was in a terrible state. It was so bad before Apple entered the market that Microsoft's Windows CE phone actually looked good! Apple is forcing it's competitors to innovate and produce really good products, or get their asses sued up one side and down the other for copying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
You wanna borrow my tinfoil hat?
You can keep your tinfoil hat to hide under while plugging your ears and going la la la la la to try to drown out the facts.
Given that samsung's lawyers dated their submission 11th July 2011 (page 3 line 10), I don't hold out much hope for their chances in the actual court case.
Brilliant!
This is bizarre behaviour !
Someone who is accused of stealing and asks "do you have a problem with stealing"? Well... derrrr... isn't that what this is all about. Isn't that what this is all about?
I don't know if these guys broke any laws, I don't really care, but I'll say this:
I once purchased a Samsung TV, within 1 month I had a problem with it. 6 months later, they sent a rep to fix it, they tried to fix it, could not fix it, promised they would escalate it to Samsung, Samsung sent the same rep back again simply to state that there was "nothing wrong with it". I almost hit the guy.
WORST CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE EVER.
Luckily, the place where I purchased it from swapped the TV for me. I now have a Panasonic. Yay!