If the document "should have been redacted" before being sent to Samsung then Samsung could argue that the fact that it wasn't constituted legal advice (from their own legal team to them) that they were entitled to the information.
Yeah, not sure Samsung can argue "We are innocent because we broke the law".
Sounds to me as if it was Samsung's legal team that screwed up. If the document "should have been redacted" before being sent to Samsung then Samsung could argue that the fact that it wasn't constituted legal advice (from their own legal team to them) that they were entitled to the information. The fact that Samsung openly (well, in negotiations with Nokia) disclosed that they had the information supports this - if they thought they shouldn't have the information, the last thing they would do is quote it to a competitor. Nokia had no motive to keep quiet and every right to be upset.
I guess you've never been involved in litigation involving confidential business information. Samsung executives should have known better than to use this. Even at a much lower level in a Fortune 500 company, it was made clear to me early on that I could not use competitors confidential information.
Furthermore:
"Paul Melin alleges Samsung executive Dr. Seungho Ahn not only mentioned his cognizance of the confidential Apple-Nokia license, but used this knowledge to gain an unfair advantage "by asserting that the Apple-Nokia terms should dictate terms of a Samsung-Nokia license.""
I don't have any doubt that Samsung knew when they used this information that it was confidential.
Scamscum just aren't interested in following the law it seems. Interesting that the responsibility (and possibly any liability?) lies with Quinn Emmanuel.
Would be funny seeing Apple and Nokia take those clowns to the dry cleaners - they're meant to be a top law firm but have acted with less competence than an ambulance chaser!
Our lawyers will be our death as a country, ultimately.
Sounds to me as if it was Samsung's legal team that screwed up. If the document "should have been redacted" before being sent to Samsung then Samsung could argue that the fact that it wasn't constituted legal advice (from their own legal team to them) that they were entitled to the information. The fact that Samsung openly (well, in negotiations with Nokia) disclosed that they had the information supports this - if they thought they shouldn't have the information, the last thing they would do is quote it to a competitor. Nokia had no motive to keep quiet and every right to be upset.
It also sounds as though Nokia could be the party most damaged: collateral damage from someone-else's legal battle. Score one for the lawyers then? I wonder who will sue who because the losses here, certainly to Nokia and probably to Apple, could be substantial.
That's a poor excuse if I ever heard one: 'the devil made me do it.'
No halfway decent company would tolerate this type of behavior by their execs, since it puts the company in serious legal jeopardy.
I'm an Android user who buys nexus only. Except the S and the Galaxy versions. I refuse to support Samsung at all. No fridge no television nothing.
I think the HTC One is the nicest phone on the market currently. Absolutely love it- although it runs android- which is why I wouldn't buy it.
If I HAD to buy an android phone, I'd also settle with the nexus just so I could get regular android updates without potentially bricking my phone. Plus I wouldn't have everyone else's overlay- essentially having a "fresh install" of android without the "freeware".
But, luckily, as it stands- I can just stick with iOS.
To your other point- Samsung makes an incredible plasma TV. But I just got an LG instead. I'll never get samsung again either. Only thing left of theirs in my house is my washer and dryer.
Puh-leeeeeeese. The outside council knows the law. They were clearly pressured by the scumbags (the Lee Family) that runs Samsung. What do you expect from a two-time convicted felon?
Oh Sammy. I wish this would surprise me but it doesn't. I'm surprised Sammy didn't use the "convergence of patent licensing" phrase as an excuse. Perhaps they have a 132 page slide deck comparing the license agreement with their own.
... The fact that Samsung openly (well, in negotiations with Nokia) disclosed that they had the information supports this - if they thought they shouldn't have the information, the last thing they would do is quote it to a competitor….
Kinda hard to buy the fact that they thought it was OK to do with the taunting by Dr. Ahn that per Melin he went so far as to tell Nokia that "all information leaks." IMHO This seems to imply that he had info he should not have had.
This could have intersting long-term implications. The judge is right that court orders are only powerful because compliance is so high. It's like having speed limits posted but no speed traps and no traffic cops and yet almost everyone obeys the speed limit. Courts request information (and issue other kinds of orders) all the time and they expect that everyone will do their best to comply. They simply don't have the resources to enforce their orders, so voluntary consistent complaince is critical. Now we have a judge calling out Samsung and their firm for what appears to be a serious breach of that trust and Samsung's response is lackadasical. Other judges will see this and (likely) take personal offense. In their next case (and 100 cases after that) opposing counsel will make sure that the judge keeps in mind that they really can't be sure that Samsung can be trusted. That'll help opposing counsel in more than a few cases, I expect.
Well played, Samsung. Short-term gain, (hopefully) long-term pain.
I don't think that culturally, corporations like Samsung "get" concepts like ethics in the way the rest of the players do. It's as if they really don't know any better and are struggling to make sense of things like accountability, legality, and best (ethical) practices.
I don't think that culturally, corporations like Samsung "get" concepts like ethics in the way the rest of the players do...
that's right, because, you know, they're a korean company. and koreans, like the japanese, chinese, russians, indians etc. are genetically predisposed to being dishonest and not understanding concepts such as fairness, unlike companies run by rock solid individuals from countries like the u.s., u.k. and europe (well, the good part of it, anyway).
and in those very rare cases where a corporation from one of those hallowed lands is caught out in a lie, there's probably a korean (or something) lurking in the background.
I do not like the term, punish. Repercussions opens a wider field of possibilities with 'punishment ' as but one resulting action. Big corporations may have questionable ethics in many areas of their business practices, but here is one field advanced by Samsung that even the most flexible thinkers might find deplorable. On the other hand, I may just be a wee bit naive.
Comments
Samsung has demonstrated once again their ruthless disregard of the law.
Yeah, not sure Samsung can argue "We are innocent because we broke the law".
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.
Our lawyers will be our death as a country, ultimately.
That's a poor excuse if I ever heard one: 'the devil made me do it.'
No halfway decent company would tolerate this type of behavior by their execs, since it puts the company in serious legal jeopardy.
This .... PRICELESS! ROFLMAO
"Rarely is the fox is permitted to investigate without supervision the disappearance of chickens at the henhouse," he said.
Samsung and all their products must be banned worldwide ... FOREVER!
I think the HTC One is the nicest phone on the market currently. Absolutely love it- although it runs android- which is why I wouldn't buy it.
If I HAD to buy an android phone, I'd also settle with the nexus just so I could get regular android updates without potentially bricking my phone. Plus I wouldn't have everyone else's overlay- essentially having a "fresh install" of android without the "freeware".
But, luckily, as it stands- I can just stick with iOS.
To your other point- Samsung makes an incredible plasma TV. But I just got an LG instead. I'll never get samsung again either. Only thing left of theirs in my house is my washer and dryer.
Puh-leeeeeeese. The outside council knows the law. They were clearly pressured by the scumbags (the Lee Family) that runs Samsung. What do you expect from a two-time convicted felon?
Good. Fine them 50 billion or something. Destroy them.
And then send them to the jail. :-)
... The fact that Samsung openly (well, in negotiations with Nokia) disclosed that they had the information supports this - if they thought they shouldn't have the information, the last thing they would do is quote it to a competitor….
Kinda hard to buy the fact that they thought it was OK to do with the taunting by Dr. Ahn that per Melin he went so far as to tell Nokia that "all information leaks." IMHO This seems to imply that he had info he should not have had.
This could have intersting long-term implications. The judge is right that court orders are only powerful because compliance is so high. It's like having speed limits posted but no speed traps and no traffic cops and yet almost everyone obeys the speed limit. Courts request information (and issue other kinds of orders) all the time and they expect that everyone will do their best to comply. They simply don't have the resources to enforce their orders, so voluntary consistent complaince is critical. Now we have a judge calling out Samsung and their firm for what appears to be a serious breach of that trust and Samsung's response is lackadasical. Other judges will see this and (likely) take personal offense. In their next case (and 100 cases after that) opposing counsel will make sure that the judge keeps in mind that they really can't be sure that Samsung can be trusted. That'll help opposing counsel in more than a few cases, I expect.
Well played, Samsung. Short-term gain, (hopefully) long-term pain.
This graphic was stolen from a kiddie show - Samsung just slapped their name on top ...
Samsung: taste the rainbow.
I don't think that culturally, corporations like Samsung "get" concepts like ethics in the way the rest of the players do. It's as if they really don't know any better and are struggling to make sense of things like accountability, legality, and best (ethical) practices.
[URL]http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/10/03/apple-samsung-sanctions-grewal/[/URL]
I've been enlightened today - all this time I thought the whole "Samsung-paid posters" thing was a joke; consider me more informed: [URL]http://m.blogs.computerworld.com/smartphones/22066/samsung-admits-paying-students-fake-web-reviews-did-it-attack-apple-too[/URL]
I don't think that culturally, corporations like Samsung "get" concepts like ethics in the way the rest of the players do...
that's right, because, you know, they're a korean company. and koreans, like the japanese, chinese, russians, indians etc. are genetically predisposed to being dishonest and not understanding concepts such as fairness, unlike companies run by rock solid individuals from countries like the u.s., u.k. and europe (well, the good part of it, anyway).
and in those very rare cases where a corporation from one of those hallowed lands is caught out in a lie, there's probably a korean (or something) lurking in the background.
thanks for the insightful post, quadra610.
In just wish apple would use some of their PR force to publisize the hell out of all the fradulant low life behaivior samsung resorts to!
Anyone surprised about any of this???
Not surprised at all; its Samscum.
I do not like the term, punish. Repercussions opens a wider field of possibilities with 'punishment ' as but one resulting action. Big corporations may have questionable ethics in many areas of their business practices, but here is one field advanced by Samsung that even the most flexible thinkers might find deplorable. On the other hand, I may just be a wee bit naive.