5 ms·

So essentially apple's confidential patent agreements with Nokia, Sharp, Philips, and Ericsson are now compromised and known to Samsung through their external a

by iamshs 13y ago

So essentially apple's confidential patent agreements with Nokia, Sharp, Philips, and Ericsson are now compromised and known to Samsung through their external attorney. And allegedly, they were using them as a leverage against Nokia. Fantastic company right there. Fine the violators incredibly heavily, and stem this unethical behavior. http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/10/sanctions-loom-large-samsung-execs-were.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/10/sanctions-loom-large-sams...

corresation 13y ago
I'm not sure which is worse -- FOSS Patents or Philip Elmer-DeWitt. Both add such narrative noise and partisan detritus to the commentary that neither are worthwhile sources of information on this. Apple sent confidential information to an outside attorney, marking it as confidential. The attorney then used that confidential material in making other material, not rightly redacting or not including the material only they were to see, then sending it to many people at Samsung. Beyond that, such is the whole reason for discovery in things like this.
- iamshs 13y ago
  Which is what FOSS patents website is actually saying. I added that link, because it is more detailed than the CNN one. It is written as such on FOSS patents. Apple supplied the documents, David Teece (Samsung's witness and a UCB prof) compiled main clauses of the documents into a report, the report was then sent to Samsung's external attorneys (Quinn Emmanuel), who uploaded them on to an internal Samsung FTP server, then around 50 executives were notified one by one to access that report.
- gibwell 13y ago
  Are you trying to minimize the seriousness of what had been done here? Samsung illegally distributed information that was only disclosed under court protection for the purpose of a trial to it's executives, who used it to gain an advantage in negotiation. They did precisely what the court did not permit them to do. > Beyond that, such is the whole reason for discovery in things like this. Either you don't understand what Samsung have done, or you don't understand what discovery is, because obtaining trade secrets is clearly not the reason for it.
  - corresation 13y ago
    Discovery for this issue, gibwell (a 3-day old account that already has pages upon pages of attacks on Samsung, Google, and Amazon. Such a mystery who you imagine your team is). Samsung, it seems (again, this is why the judge is demanding discovery) didn't actually leak the information -- an outside law firm did. It is entirely possible Samsung (meaning specific executives) was simply ignorant about their right to have that information when it dropped in their FTP folder, as openly stating it and flaunting it in the face of a competitor virtually guaranteed that what is happening now would happen.
    - cube13 13y ago
      Uh, the "outside law firm" is Samsung's council. They're the ones representing Samsung in court. If you seriously think that Samsung is an innocent third party in this, you're completely mistaken. The lawyers going to face sanctions, as will Samsung. EDIT: clarification.
      - corresation 13y ago
        How you came to the conclusions that led you to write your comment absolutely baffles me. EDIT: Okay, you edited your bizarre comment to something that can be replied to. You understand the concept of an outside council, right? The outside council works for a client but they are beholden to the law and restrictions of the court, with their entire firm lying in the balance. If you think Samsung just whispered kindly do them and they broke the law and professional credibility (again, if it was them), you don't understand law firms.
        jfb 13y ago
        It could have easily been a simple error in redaction. Knowing how information is disseminated in large companies, it's also easily possible that the actual source of the information to the Samsung execs had been obscured. Quinn Emmanuel is a reputable firm. I find it hard to believe that this was an intentional error. EDIT: In the interest of full disclosure, I'm a card-carrying salary-drawing member of Team AAPL.
jobu 13y ago
Based on the quote from Judge Grewal in that article, he takes this issue very seriously, and will likely issue some heavy sanctions. Samsung is already on the hook for a Billion dollars, so it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
- bsullivan01 13y ago
  Chicken feed is my guess. Now if he punishes the lawyers (as in hurt their careers) in any way he can that might serve as a deterrent. Samsung is super-rich and can take a hit. I doubt the judge can fine them into the $ hundreds of millions to billions.

by iamshs 13y ago

corresation 13y ago

I'm not sure which is worse -- FOSS Patents or Philip Elmer-DeWitt. Both add such narrative noise and partisan detritus to the commentary that neither are worthwhile sources of information on this. Apple sent confidential information to an outside attorney, marking it as confidential. The attorney then used that confidential material in making other material, not rightly redacting or not including the material only they were to see, then sending it to many people at Samsung. Beyond that, such is the whole reason for discovery in things like this.

iamshs 13y ago
Which is what FOSS patents website is actually saying. I added that link, because it is more detailed than the CNN one. It is written as such on FOSS patents. Apple supplied the documents, David Teece (Samsung's witness and a UCB prof) compiled main clauses of the documents into a report, the report was then sent to Samsung's external attorneys (Quinn Emmanuel), who uploaded them on to an internal Samsung FTP server, then around 50 executives were notified one by one to access that report.
gibwell 13y ago
Are you trying to minimize the seriousness of what had been done here? Samsung illegally distributed information that was only disclosed under court protection for the purpose of a trial to it's executives, who used it to gain an advantage in negotiation. They did precisely what the court did not permit them to do. > Beyond that, such is the whole reason for discovery in things like this. Either you don't understand what Samsung have done, or you don't understand what discovery is, because obtaining trade secrets is clearly not the reason for it.
- corresation 13y ago
  Discovery for this issue, gibwell (a 3-day old account that already has pages upon pages of attacks on Samsung, Google, and Amazon. Such a mystery who you imagine your team is). Samsung, it seems (again, this is why the judge is demanding discovery) didn't actually leak the information -- an outside law firm did. It is entirely possible Samsung (meaning specific executives) was simply ignorant about their right to have that information when it dropped in their FTP folder, as openly stating it and flaunting it in the face of a competitor virtually guaranteed that what is happening now would happen.
  - cube13 13y ago
    Uh, the "outside law firm" is Samsung's council. They're the ones representing Samsung in court. If you seriously think that Samsung is an innocent third party in this, you're completely mistaken. The lawyers going to face sanctions, as will Samsung. EDIT: clarification.
    - corresation 13y ago
      How you came to the conclusions that led you to write your comment absolutely baffles me. EDIT: Okay, you edited your bizarre comment to something that can be replied to. You understand the concept of an outside council, right? The outside council works for a client but they are beholden to the law and restrictions of the court, with their entire firm lying in the balance. If you think Samsung just whispered kindly do them and they broke the law and professional credibility (again, if it was them), you don't understand law firms.
      - jfb 13y ago
        It could have easily been a simple error in redaction. Knowing how information is disseminated in large companies, it's also easily possible that the actual source of the information to the Samsung execs had been obscured. Quinn Emmanuel is a reputable firm. I find it hard to believe that this was an intentional error. EDIT: In the interest of full disclosure, I'm a card-carrying salary-drawing member of Team AAPL.

jobu 13y ago

Based on the quote from Judge Grewal in that article, he takes this issue very seriously, and will likely issue some heavy sanctions. Samsung is already on the hook for a Billion dollars, so it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

bsullivan01 13y ago
Chicken feed is my guess. Now if he punishes the lawyers (as in hurt their careers) in any way he can that might serve as a deterrent. Samsung is super-rich and can take a hit. I doubt the judge can fine them into the $ hundreds of millions to billions.