5 ms·

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 worth

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.
  - gibwell 13y ago
    "to prove to Nokia that he knew the confidential terms of the Apple-Nokia license, Dr. Ahn recited the terms of the license, and even went so far as to tell Nokia that 'all information leaks.'" So no, since they acknowledged it as a leak it's not possible that Samsung thought it was entitled to the information. [edit: response to ad-hominem removed now that the ad-hominem has been silently deleted]
    - corresation 13y ago
      Apparently discovery simply isn't needed, as gibwell believes that he is certain of all of the facts (the judge isn't, but gibwell sure is. Get the nooses ready). Samsung (meaning executives, not their legal team) may very well have thought that the information "leaked" to them, in a completely legal, matter of business fashion. Again, the outside party is apparently (crazy to wait for due process, but thus far this is the belief of the judge) the one who broached confidentiality requirements, such that Samsung executives may not have even known what they were getting. The fact that an executive so brazenly gloated about this information makes it more likely this was not an intentional breach of the law. Maybe it was, but it would be a very stupid breach.

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.
- gibwell 13y ago
  "to prove to Nokia that he knew the confidential terms of the Apple-Nokia license, Dr. Ahn recited the terms of the license, and even went so far as to tell Nokia that 'all information leaks.'" So no, since they acknowledged it as a leak it's not possible that Samsung thought it was entitled to the information. [edit: response to ad-hominem removed now that the ad-hominem has been silently deleted]
  - corresation 13y ago
    Apparently discovery simply isn't needed, as gibwell believes that he is certain of all of the facts (the judge isn't, but gibwell sure is. Get the nooses ready). Samsung (meaning executives, not their legal team) may very well have thought that the information "leaked" to them, in a completely legal, matter of business fashion. Again, the outside party is apparently (crazy to wait for due process, but thus far this is the belief of the judge) the one who broached confidentiality requirements, such that Samsung executives may not have even known what they were getting. The fact that an executive so brazenly gloated about this information makes it more likely this was not an intentional breach of the law. Maybe it was, but it would be a very stupid breach.