So since Apple asked for them to be confidential, the fact that they weren’t sounds a lot like not Apple’s problem.
Nokia also asked that they be kept confidential, as NEC almost assuredly did too before agreeing to submit them. Surely you don't believe Apple can simply ignore the other parties rights even if you think they could ignore the court order.
It was a dumb and perhaps inexplicable mistake on their attorneys part. A dumb mistake from Samsung's attorneys too.
Apple can be careless with their own confidential material as much as they want, but when another party has a stake in the confidential material then Apple has obligations to keep it confidential, or face legal consequences. Obviously.
I don’t see how this applies. Apple also wanted it confidential. So Apple ignored Apple’s rights?
Really TS?
If Nokia wanted the terms confidential and Apple inadvertently revealed them, the same complaint that Nokia registered with the judge when Samsung's counsel did so, you don't see a similarity? In both cases a court order was ignored, whether by plan or accident.
At least Samsung kept it in-house (and says that's not where it came from anyway) while Apple made it available for public discovery. I expect those confidential Nokia contract details mistakenly revealed by Apple will be passed around among interested companies when someone inevitably finds they have it.
In any event I don't expect Apple to be sanctioned by the court, but I wouldn't be at all surprised at all if Apple gets to pay their own attorneys fees.
You're very mistaken TS. the court found QE's reveal was unintentional. Of course you're free to make up your own theory, but it won't change the facts.
You're very mistaken TS. the court found QE's reveal was unintentional. Of course you're free to make up your own theory, but it won't change the facts.
Still...2 different situations entirely.
#1: I'm found dead off the side of a cliff. My wife (spotted at the scene of the crime) had divorce papers based on me cheating not to mention my multi-million dollar life insurance policy.
#2: I'm found dead off the side of a cliff. My mom (spotted at the scene of the crime) was there to meet me for lunch.
Clearly, in the eyes of a judge/jury...2 very different situations...even IF both may have been an "accident".
Edit: I do get that there are ramifications besides Apple's.
Didn't the court already rule the disclosure by Quinn Emanuel to be inadvertent and require the law firm to pay penalties? I believed it's a settled matter, regardless of opinion.
The accidental disclosures by Apple are being brought up to reduce the penalties to the law firm, not Samsung. The argument being made that inadvertent is inadvertent and Apple did release confidential information they were bound not to disclose publicly.
Secondly, the damage being higher as instead of information being 'leaked' to 1 company, it was leaked to the general public and even though no longer posted, there's no realistic way to make the information private again.
The only thing more insecure than Windows/Android is their users.
Should "The only thing more insecure than Windows/Android are their users." Windows and Android are two different entities, is = singular, are = plural.
My only thought in this is standing. What legal right does Samsung have to request sanctions against Apple or their legal team when they were not the injured party? Do they even have standing to do so? :???:
Should "The only thing more insecure than Windows/Android are their users." Windows and Android are two different entities, is = singular, are = plural.
It was a quote of what someone else said, leave it be...
Ask the dead guy if what his killer is charged with matters.
We’ll have to kill Samsung first.
Originally Posted by mesomorphicman
Should "The only thing more insecure than Windows/Android are their users." Windows and Android are two different entities, is = singular, are = plural.
Given slashed options in a sentence, only one is read at a time. Think of it how a compound complex sentence is diagrammed; each branch of the subject/predicate that has multiple parts can be read with the primary verb and other half of the sentence on its own.
Devil is in the details. When did the Samsung leak occur. If it was before the posting then the posting Is a moot argument. Apple and Nokia are welcome to reveal whatever they want because it is their terms. Samsung has no grounds to cry anything, only Nokia could. If they didn't give approval.
The articles that Samsung wouldn't be sanctioned cause Apple etc couldn't prove it was on purpose or the information misused were around oct 1-3. About events from several weeks to months before. Apple's alleged accident was posted to PACER. In Oct 10th. Who knows what happened in between then. But given this was in Oct if Nokia or NEC had an issue it likely would have been spotted and dealt with by now.
Comments
Nokia also asked that they be kept confidential, as NEC almost assuredly did too before agreeing to submit them. Surely you don't believe Apple can simply ignore the other parties rights even if you think they could ignore the court order.
It was a dumb and perhaps inexplicable mistake on their attorneys part. A dumb mistake from Samsung's attorneys too.
I don’t see how this applies. Apple also wanted it confidential. So Apple ignored Apple’s rights?
Apple can be careless with their own confidential material as much as they want, but when another party has a stake in the confidential material then Apple has obligations to keep it confidential, or face legal consequences. Obviously.
Really TS?
If Nokia wanted the terms confidential and Apple inadvertently revealed them, the same complaint that Nokia registered with the judge when Samsung's counsel did so, you don't see a similarity? In both cases a court order was ignored, whether by plan or accident.
At least Samsung kept it in-house (and says that's not where it came from anyway) while Apple made it available for public discovery. I expect those confidential Nokia contract details mistakenly revealed by Apple will be passed around among interested companies when someone inevitably finds they have it.
In any event I don't expect Apple to be sanctioned by the court, but I wouldn't be at all surprised at all if Apple gets to pay their own attorneys fees.
There we go. The difference is intent.
Purposefully. Not inadvertently.
Because murder 1 ? murder 4¡
You're very mistaken TS. the court found QE's reveal was unintentional. Of course you're free to make up your own theory, but it won't change the facts.
Ask the dead guy if what his killer is charged with matters.
You're very mistaken TS. the court found QE's reveal was unintentional. Of course you're free to make up your own theory, but it won't change the facts.
Still...2 different situations entirely.
#1: I'm found dead off the side of a cliff. My wife (spotted at the scene of the crime) had divorce papers based on me cheating not to mention my multi-million dollar life insurance policy.
#2: I'm found dead off the side of a cliff. My mom (spotted at the scene of the crime) was there to meet me for lunch.
Clearly, in the eyes of a judge/jury...2 very different situations...even IF both may have been an "accident".
Edit: I do get that there are ramifications besides Apple's.
Didn't the court already rule the disclosure by Quinn Emanuel to be inadvertent and require the law firm to pay penalties? I believed it's a settled matter, regardless of opinion.
The accidental disclosures by Apple are being brought up to reduce the penalties to the law firm, not Samsung. The argument being made that inadvertent is inadvertent and Apple did release confidential information they were bound not to disclose publicly.
Secondly, the damage being higher as instead of information being 'leaked' to 1 company, it was leaked to the general public and even though no longer posted, there's no realistic way to make the information private again.
The only thing more insecure than Windows/Android is their users.
Should "The only thing more insecure than Windows/Android are their users." Windows and Android are two different entities, is = singular, are = plural.
We’ll have to kill Samsung first.
Should "The only thing more insecure than Windows/Android are their users." Windows and Android are two different entities, is = singular, are = plural.
Given slashed options in a sentence, only one is read at a time. Think of it how a compound complex sentence is diagrammed; each branch of the subject/predicate that has multiple parts can be read with the primary verb and other half of the sentence on its own.
The articles that Samsung wouldn't be sanctioned cause Apple etc couldn't prove it was on purpose or the information misused were around oct 1-3. About events from several weeks to months before. Apple's alleged accident was posted to PACER. In Oct 10th. Who knows what happened in between then. But given this was in Oct if Nokia or NEC had an issue it likely would have been spotted and dealt with by now.
Lol I wouldn't have a problem with that.