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?
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.
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...
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....
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)
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....
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.
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.
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
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
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."
"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."
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.
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)
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...
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.
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...
Learn how to read the English language, grasshopper.
Comments
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?
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...
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)
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.
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.
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 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
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
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.
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)
Never going to happen
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.
Learn how to read the English language, grasshopper.
‘Kay. Prove it.