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...
I guess Sammy only pays per post and not per article read.
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.
I'm pretty sure Samsung approached Google in this matter. Essentially this means Google will have to cover some of the compensation and legal costs if Samsung is found guilty, and I'm sure Google isn't jumping with joy to do this. But since it's in the "Mobile Application Distribution Agreement" that Google has with all the OEM's that use Google Services they pretty much have no choice but to comply with the contractual obligations. The emails don't detail a separate deal between Samsung and Google but rather Samsung asking Google to comply with their contractual obligations.
This of course doesn't explain why Samsung lied about this standard clause from the MADA when asked about it...
The court let Samsung off the hook for releasing confidential information, so why should it fear getting caught perjuring itself?
So far Samsung has paid zero penalty for years of lying and stealing.
FWIW Apple themselves released that same court-stamped confidential information. Both claim it was inadvertent, tho I don't tend to believe Samsung as much as I would Apple.
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.
They also (still) lied to the court: Samsung sought indemnification from Google, as early as 4/5/12. DroidFTW's no-true-Scotsman defense doesn't change that.
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...
Exhibit 3 contradicts the statement that Samsung sought no indemnification from third parties. They did. Try again.
~~and you do not think Apple lie, steal and copy. Compare just your iPhone with Android and a large part of the latest initiative comes directly from Android.
Of course the last time Samsung was obviously caught out not following court rules (passing evidence of Apple's contracts to other branches of the same company), it turned out that somehow Apple's lawyers had made the same information public without noticing it. Samsung may be slimy, but you can't deny that they are equally slick and seem to avoid any repercussions on anything they do. It seems like they always manage to get away with any subterfuge they try. The CEO's own ability to avoid prosecution and legal consequences is the prime example here. Even stranger is how many otherwise honest people who think that Samsung is the hardworking innovator with the "real" patents. I guess some people are willing to take a bribe even if it is cheaper smart phones for everyone.
Lie after lie Samsung can't be trusted even in court. The judge and jury should way heavily on this in favor of Apple if they have any brains at all. Samsung is a copycat, lying, cheating, scumbag with no morales and will do anything to make a buck including stealing other companies ideas and products and claiming them as there own.
Just so people know, when a company uses or buys another companies IP, it is not unusual for the selling/giving company to indemnify the purchasing/using company if some sues them over their use of the IP. The fact Google is willing to pay Samsung costs for the IP that Apple is suing Samsung over is not unusual. Also, the purchasing company does not automatically get indemnified, they would have to ask for it, and Google most likely did not offer this to all their licensees. From the sounds of it the agreement that Samsung may have had with Google required them to defend against the lawsuit and do everything they could to mitigate the costs and risk, otherwise, Google would not indemnify them. Meaning Samsung could not throw up there hands and say uncle and give Apple what every they wanted.
This explains why Samsung is fighting so hard to claim the value is much lower, they are not arguing they did not sell a product with IP which they did not have the rights to, and why they claiming it was all Google's fault. Again, Google may not be required to pay unless it can be shown the IP in question was in fact theirs.
Comments
I guess Sammy only pays per post and not per article read.
Sammy
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.
I'm pretty sure Samsung approached Google in this matter. Essentially this means Google will have to cover some of the compensation and legal costs if Samsung is found guilty, and I'm sure Google isn't jumping with joy to do this. But since it's in the "Mobile Application Distribution Agreement" that Google has with all the OEM's that use Google Services they pretty much have no choice but to comply with the contractual obligations. The emails don't detail a separate deal between Samsung and Google but rather Samsung asking Google to comply with their contractual obligations.
This of course doesn't explain why Samsung lied about this standard clause from the MADA when asked about it...
They’ve committed crimes from theft to murder. Doesn’t mean they won’t get away with it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that Samsung committed perjury. Anyone?
That's certainly a possibility. I guess it depends on the person questioned at that time being aware of this clause in the MADA.
They’ve committed crimes from theft to murder. Doesn’t mean they won’t get away with it.
Murder???
Citation please!
Murder??? Citation please!
Isn’t that what I keep seeing? From their executives and in their factories or somesuch… Hmm. I’ll find it.
So far Samsung has paid zero penalty for years of lying and stealing.
FWIW Apple themselves released that same court-stamped confidential information. Both claim it was inadvertent, tho I don't tend to believe Samsung as much as I would Apple.
They also (still) lied to the court: Samsung sought indemnification from Google, as early as 4/5/12. DroidFTW's no-true-Scotsman defense doesn't change that.
Exhibit 3 contradicts the statement that Samsung sought no indemnification from third parties. They did. Try again.
~~and you do not think Apple lie, steal and copy. Compare just your iPhone with Android and a large part of the latest initiative comes directly from Android.
In other obvious news the sky is up and the ground is down.
You fandroids take a s-troll.
Lie after lie Samsung can't be trusted even in court. The judge and jury should way heavily on this in favor of Apple if they have any brains at all. Samsung is a copycat, lying, cheating, scumbag with no morales and will do anything to make a buck including stealing other companies ideas and products and claiming them as there own.
I hope the jury is paying attention, so is Lucy Koh.
Lucy Koh is already in Apple's pocket.
As noted yesterday - I a practicing attorney.
Are you a IP lawyer or a real-estate lawyer?
Just so people know, when a company uses or buys another companies IP, it is not unusual for the selling/giving company to indemnify the purchasing/using company if some sues them over their use of the IP. The fact Google is willing to pay Samsung costs for the IP that Apple is suing Samsung over is not unusual. Also, the purchasing company does not automatically get indemnified, they would have to ask for it, and Google most likely did not offer this to all their licensees. From the sounds of it the agreement that Samsung may have had with Google required them to defend against the lawsuit and do everything they could to mitigate the costs and risk, otherwise, Google would not indemnify them. Meaning Samsung could not throw up there hands and say uncle and give Apple what every they wanted.
This explains why Samsung is fighting so hard to claim the value is much lower, they are not arguing they did not sell a product with IP which they did not have the rights to, and why they claiming it was all Google's fault. Again, Google may not be required to pay unless it can be shown the IP in question was in fact theirs.