Yeah... I wonder how an organization can function with just two weeks of data. Three months I can understand... but I sure like having three years with offline backups of the previous 3. If you magically use email for exactly what it should be then no big deal... but it ends up being for so much more. To your example, if you put all the data into a trouble-ticket system, then the original email isn't as valuable...
Aren't there American laws requiring the retention of emails for 7 years?
Something about Sorbanes Oxley.
Why aren't the DoJ looking into a foreign business that could be operating illegally in the US?
I suppose the price of a few ebooks is far more important.
Aren't there American laws requiring the retention of emails for 7 years?
Something about Sorbanes Oxley.
Why aren't the DoJ looking into a foreign business that could be operating illegally in the US?
I suppose the price of a few ebooks is far more important.
I don't know if it's 7 years (I believe it depends on the type of data in question), but you are required to keep certain types of emails for certain periods of home. I don't have any idea if these particular emails are covered by Sarbox or not.
It's irrelevant, though. The issue here is that Samsung already received one warning from a court. Under US law, once you have reason to believe that you're going to get sued, you are obligated to protect any evidence which is likely to be relevant to the case. It has nothing to do with Sarbox - just protection of legal evidence.
Samsung actually got off easy. Given that they recently went through this once, the court could have ruled that Apple won any argument that might have been covered by the missing evidence. As it is, the judge allowed the jury to reach that conclusion, but did not require it.
Yep. Apple is establishing wins on the fringe before going up against the head. That way they can use those previous rulings to their advantage instead of "Oop! You lose against Google! Now everyone else has free reign to outright steal everything you've ever done!"
Well I live in hope then, thanks for the explanation. Any idea on a time frame?
Wow, good for you, mate. I wish I'd done the same.
Thanks. It was a gamble based on belief in Steve. We were in a bit of a bad financial situation at the time and decided it was all in or nothing. I am not a gambler by nature, quite the opposite normally. You have no idea how many people told us we were nuts.
Google has not produced phones, what will they be sued over, Ad revenue creatively accounted down to almost nothing?
Google's wholly owned subsidiary Motorola, has changed things a little, although Microsoft can already ban them.
Samsung are the worst of the copiers and have benefitted the most.
The destruction of evidence should be punished.
I was actually thinking of the real meat of the matter, iOS and the rip off know as Android (Google's version that is after Schmitt used his inside knowledge as a director at Apple). However, it has been explained to me that attacking the bastard step children of Google is a tactic on the way to a larger picture and I accept that wisdom.
Google's wholly owned subsidiary Motorola, has changed things a little, although Microsoft can already ban them.
All of Motorola's devices have not been banned. It is 18 devices, all of which are on the older side and are not big sellers. According to Google, they have already taken "proactive measures" for the import ban, and to my knowledge, there have been no reports of any blockages. Not exactly sure what "proactive measures" means though.
Quote:
Samsung are the worst of the copiers and have benefitted the most.
Huh?...Samsung has spend tens of billions of dollars researching and developing the telecommunication standards that a phone NEEDS to even function properly. Not to mention the untold billions that have been spent to develop dozens of components that go into the majority of cellphones today...including the iPhone. Whether you want to admit it or not, many of the MAJOR components in an iPhone or iPad were manufactured by Samsung, and benefited from the hard work and research done by them.
Don't they backup their mail system every night. If their policy is to stop vital information from falling into the hands of their competitors through the loss of a computer then surely backing up onto a central server is still possible. I doubt anyone can just walk into a server room and walk out with a half tonne server (+ SAN) under their arm.
Samsung's policy is nothing to do with trade secret leaks and everything to do with cover ups of their dubious business practices. How can a company function without backups of email.
Anyway, I thought it was law that corporations must backup emails to stop this sort of shenagians....brought about after the various dubious accounting practises of some of the high profile company collapses a few years back.
Some of their hard work is based on IP theft from other companies (not just Apple)...go research the various companies that have sued Samsung in the past. No one doubts Samsung spends mony on R&D...that does not excuse them from copying or stealing others hard work at the same time.
All of Motorola's devices have not been banned. It is 18 devices, all of which are on the older side and are not big sellers. According to Google, they have already taken "proactive measures" for the import ban, and to my knowledge, there have been no reports of any blockages. Not exactly sure what "proactive measures" means though.
Huh?...Samsung has spend tens of billions of dollars researching and developing the telecommunication standards that a phone NEEDS to even function properly. Not to mention the untold billions that have been spent to develop dozens of components that go into the majority of cellphones today...including the iPhone. Whether you want to admit it or not, many of the MAJOR components in an iPhone or iPad were manufactured by Samsung, and benefited from the hard work and research done by them.
Some of their hard work is based on IP theft from other companies (not just Apple)...go research the various companies that have sued Samsung in the past. No one doubts Samsung spends mony on R&D...that does not excuse them from copying or stealing others hard work at the same time.
Some of their hard work is based on IP theft from other companies (not just Apple)...go research the various companies that have sued Samsung in the past. No one doubts Samsung spends mony on R&D...that does not excuse them from copying or stealing others hard work at the same time.
Just did, and the first dozen pages of results just lists Apple vs Samsung. Do you have a reference? I would be curious to review.
Some of their hard work is based on IP theft from other companies (not just Apple)...go research the various companies that have sued Samsung in the past. No one doubts Samsung spends mony on R&D...that does not excuse them from copying or stealing others hard work at the same time.
And even if they had cosmically developed their IP in parallel with Apple's, there would be evidence of this.
And even if they had cosmically developed their IP in parallel with Apple's, there would be evidence of this.
In fact, in many instances, that is exactly what Samsung is claiming. The trial brief presented by Samsung a couple days ago for the US case laid out several pieces of evidence showing 'iPhone-like' candy bar prototype designs and grid UI designs dated prior to the iPhone announcement. Most of the other alleged infringements were countered with prior art.
Of course, you would never see Samsung's trial brief announced on AI...too much damning evidence contrary to Apple's "slavishly copying" propaganda.
hey, where are all the apple haters? usually they have plenty to say. wonder what they think of the "company policy" to delete all e-mail just after 2 weeks. who does that? what company does that??? lol! i can come up with a few excuses myself but i'd like to hear their thoughts about this one.
Heck, I often don't even have a response back from a customer in under 2 weeks. And even if the customer responds in that time period, most of our projects are underway for months, at least. Deleting files after 2 weeks would mean that all the useful history was lost.
OTOH, if you're in the position of having stolen someone else's IP, the ability to hide evidence might justify the inconvenience, at least in Samsung's obvious opinion.
Believe me, Samsung keep e-mails for much longer on mySingle. When I worked for an equipment vendor who sold to Samsung, their equipment engineers would drag out e-mails years old with only the slightest relevance in an attempt to get us to give them yet more free upgrades.
hey, where are all the apple haters? usually they have plenty to say. wonder what they think of the "company policy" to delete all e-mail just after 2 weeks. who does that? what company does that???
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.
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.
Before sending it back, Mr. Lee said, he took pictures of the cash package, which were released to the news media on Monday.
“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.
James Chung, a spokesman for Samsung Electronics, said, “We are trying to find out the facts around these allegations.”
Samsung Electronics is the mainstay of the 59-subsidiary Samsung conglomerate and a world leader in computer chips, flat-panel television screens and cellphones.
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.
Prosecutors are investigating Mr. Kim’s accusations, and political parties have introduced legislation that would establish an independent counsel.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
Calls to Mr. Lee’s office were not returned on Monday.
“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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
Samsung has denied Mr. Kim’s allegations as “groundless.” A couple of Samsung executives Mr. Kim accused of delivering bribes have sued him.
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.
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.
Bribery, Massive Corruption at Samsung, Says Exposé by Former S. Korean Prosecutor
. . . 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.
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.
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.
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.
The comments come as news of shadiness inside Samsung spreads, after an inspection found that elements of the company were involved in corruption.
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.
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.
"Corruption and fraud" at Samsung Techwin came about accidentally, and was a result of a "complacent attitude during the past decade", he told reporters
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.
According to our analyst, speaking under condition of anonymity, these are well known facts.
"Let's be honest, Samsung's philanderings are not a secret, the company has been at it for years," he said.
Yeah... I wonder how an organization can function with just two weeks of data. Three months I can understand... but I sure like having three years with offline backups of the previous 3. If you magically use email for exactly what it should be then no big deal... but it ends up being for so much more. To your example, if you put all the data into a trouble-ticket system, then the original email isn't as valuable...
Where I work, email archives are practically the only way anything is remembered. Without old emails, everything would grind to a halt. I simply don't believe a company the size of Samsung would delete everything after two weeks, but there it is. I mean, Outlook has a search function that would practically be useless if a 14-day automatic deletion policy was applied... Wait a few more days and you won't have to bother searching.
Considering that the comments regarding Google's alleged warning were redacted in Apple's trial brief, it would appear there may have been some issues regarding authenticity of the claim. Maybe someone else can speak to possible scenarios for a redaction?
In Samsung's graphic, it is interesting to note all the 'bar-type touchscreen' phones that Samsung had prior to the iPhone.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh
Yeah... I wonder how an organization can function with just two weeks of data. Three months I can understand... but I sure like having three years with offline backups of the previous 3. If you magically use email for exactly what it should be then no big deal... but it ends up being for so much more. To your example, if you put all the data into a trouble-ticket system, then the original email isn't as valuable...
Aren't there American laws requiring the retention of emails for 7 years?
Something about Sorbanes Oxley.
Why aren't the DoJ looking into a foreign business that could be operating illegally in the US?
I suppose the price of a few ebooks is far more important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techstalker
I want Apple to sue Google, because that is the only way this horrible mess will get settled.
They're working their way up to it.... Going after the "low-hanging fruit" is the first step.
Contributory infringement.
I don't know if it's 7 years (I believe it depends on the type of data in question), but you are required to keep certain types of emails for certain periods of home. I don't have any idea if these particular emails are covered by Sarbox or not.
It's irrelevant, though. The issue here is that Samsung already received one warning from a court. Under US law, once you have reason to believe that you're going to get sued, you are obligated to protect any evidence which is likely to be relevant to the case. It has nothing to do with Sarbox - just protection of legal evidence.
Samsung actually got off easy. Given that they recently went through this once, the court could have ruled that Apple won any argument that might have been covered by the missing evidence. As it is, the judge allowed the jury to reach that conclusion, but did not require it.
Well I live in hope then, thanks for the explanation. Any idea on a time frame?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN
If you're suffering through a measly 5% drop you should definitely get rid of your AAPL stock.
I think you misunderstood his point.
Thanks. It was a gamble based on belief in Steve. We were in a bit of a bad financial situation at the time and decided it was all in or nothing. I am not a gambler by nature, quite the opposite normally. You have no idea how many people told us we were nuts.
I was actually thinking of the real meat of the matter, iOS and the rip off know as Android (Google's version that is after Schmitt used his inside knowledge as a director at Apple). However, it has been explained to me that attacking the bastard step children of Google is a tactic on the way to a larger picture and I accept that wisdom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Google's wholly owned subsidiary Motorola, has changed things a little, although Microsoft can already ban them.
All of Motorola's devices have not been banned. It is 18 devices, all of which are on the older side and are not big sellers. According to Google, they have already taken "proactive measures" for the import ban, and to my knowledge, there have been no reports of any blockages. Not exactly sure what "proactive measures" means though.
Quote:
Samsung are the worst of the copiers and have benefitted the most.
Huh?...Samsung has spend tens of billions of dollars researching and developing the telecommunication standards that a phone NEEDS to even function properly. Not to mention the untold billions that have been spent to develop dozens of components that go into the majority of cellphones today...including the iPhone. Whether you want to admit it or not, many of the MAJOR components in an iPhone or iPad were manufactured by Samsung, and benefited from the hard work and research done by them.
Don't they backup their mail system every night. If their policy is to stop vital information from falling into the hands of their competitors through the loss of a computer then surely backing up onto a central server is still possible. I doubt anyone can just walk into a server room and walk out with a half tonne server (+ SAN) under their arm.
Samsung's policy is nothing to do with trade secret leaks and everything to do with cover ups of their dubious business practices. How can a company function without backups of email.
Anyway, I thought it was law that corporations must backup emails to stop this sort of shenagians....brought about after the various dubious accounting practises of some of the high profile company collapses a few years back.
Some of their hard work is based on IP theft from other companies (not just Apple)...go research the various companies that have sued Samsung in the past. No one doubts Samsung spends mony on R&D...that does not excuse them from copying or stealing others hard work at the same time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas
All of Motorola's devices have not been banned. It is 18 devices, all of which are on the older side and are not big sellers. According to Google, they have already taken "proactive measures" for the import ban, and to my knowledge, there have been no reports of any blockages. Not exactly sure what "proactive measures" means though.
Huh?...Samsung has spend tens of billions of dollars researching and developing the telecommunication standards that a phone NEEDS to even function properly. Not to mention the untold billions that have been spent to develop dozens of components that go into the majority of cellphones today...including the iPhone. Whether you want to admit it or not, many of the MAJOR components in an iPhone or iPad were manufactured by Samsung, and benefited from the hard work and research done by them.
Some of their hard work is based on IP theft from other companies (not just Apple)...go research the various companies that have sued Samsung in the past. No one doubts Samsung spends mony on R&D...that does not excuse them from copying or stealing others hard work at the same time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by global.philosopher
Some of their hard work is based on IP theft from other companies (not just Apple)...go research the various companies that have sued Samsung in the past. No one doubts Samsung spends mony on R&D...that does not excuse them from copying or stealing others hard work at the same time.
Just did, and the first dozen pages of results just lists Apple vs Samsung. Do you have a reference? I would be curious to review.
Quote:
Originally Posted by global.philosopher
Some of their hard work is based on IP theft from other companies (not just Apple)...go research the various companies that have sued Samsung in the past. No one doubts Samsung spends mony on R&D...that does not excuse them from copying or stealing others hard work at the same time.
And even if they had cosmically developed their IP in parallel with Apple's, there would be evidence of this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
And even if they had cosmically developed their IP in parallel with Apple's, there would be evidence of this.
In fact, in many instances, that is exactly what Samsung is claiming. The trial brief presented by Samsung a couple days ago for the US case laid out several pieces of evidence showing 'iPhone-like' candy bar prototype designs and grid UI designs dated prior to the iPhone announcement. Most of the other alleged infringements were countered with prior art.
Of course, you would never see Samsung's trial brief announced on AI...too much damning evidence contrary to Apple's "slavishly copying" propaganda.
hey, where are all the apple haters? usually they have plenty to say. wonder what they think of the "company policy" to delete all e-mail just after 2 weeks. who does that? what company does that??? lol! i can come up with a few excuses myself but i'd like to hear their thoughts about this one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Two weeks? That's absurd.
Heck, I often don't even have a response back from a customer in under 2 weeks. And even if the customer responds in that time period, most of our projects are underway for months, at least. Deleting files after 2 weeks would mean that all the useful history was lost.
OTOH, if you're in the position of having stolen someone else's IP, the ability to hide evidence might justify the inconvenience, at least in Samsung's obvious opinion.
Believe me, Samsung keep e-mails for much longer on mySingle. When I worked for an equipment vendor who sold to Samsung, their equipment engineers would drag out e-mails years old with only the slightest relevance in an attempt to get us to give them yet more free upgrades.
http://allthingsd.com/20120725/apple-google-warned-samsung-against-copying-us/
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcallows
hey, where are all the apple haters? usually they have plenty to say. wonder what they think of the "company policy" to delete all e-mail just after 2 weeks. who does that? what company does that???
THIS kind:
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/business/worldbusiness/20samsung.html
New Bribery Allegation Roils Samsung
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.
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.
Before sending it back, Mr. Lee said, he took pictures of the cash package, which were released to the news media on Monday.
“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.
James Chung, a spokesman for Samsung Electronics, said, “We are trying to find out the facts around these allegations.”
Samsung Electronics is the mainstay of the 59-subsidiary Samsung conglomerate and a world leader in computer chips, flat-panel television screens and cellphones.
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.
Prosecutors are investigating Mr. Kim’s accusations, and political parties have introduced legislation that would establish an independent counsel.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
Calls to Mr. Lee’s office were not returned on Monday.
“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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
Samsung has denied Mr. Kim’s allegations as “groundless.” A couple of Samsung executives Mr. Kim accused of delivering bribes have sued him.
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.
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.
More recent:
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
Bribery, Massive Corruption at Samsung, Says Exposé by Former S. Korean Prosecutor
. . . 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.
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.
http://news.techeye.net/business/south-korea-makes-example-of-samsung-corruption
South Korea makes example of Samsung corruption
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.
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.
The comments come as news of shadiness inside Samsung spreads, after an inspection found that elements of the company were involved in corruption.
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.
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.
"Corruption and fraud" at Samsung Techwin came about accidentally, and was a result of a "complacent attitude during the past decade", he told reporters
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.
According to our analyst, speaking under condition of anonymity, these are well known facts.
"Let's be honest, Samsung's philanderings are not a secret, the company has been at it for years," he said.
Where I work, email archives are practically the only way anything is remembered. Without old emails, everything would grind to a halt. I simply don't believe a company the size of Samsung would delete everything after two weeks, but there it is. I mean, Outlook has a search function that would practically be useless if a 14-day automatic deletion policy was applied... Wait a few more days and you won't have to bother searching.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Pass the popcorn
http://allthingsd.com/20120725/apple-google-warned-samsung-against-copying-us/
Considering that the comments regarding Google's alleged warning were redacted in Apple's trial brief, it would appear there may have been some issues regarding authenticity of the claim. Maybe someone else can speak to possible scenarios for a redaction?
In Samsung's graphic, it is interesting to note all the 'bar-type touchscreen' phones that Samsung had prior to the iPhone.