4 ms·
Are you trying to minimize the seriousness of what had been done here? Samsung illegally distributed information that was only disclosed under court protection
by 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 agoDiscovery 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 agoUh, 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 agoHow 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 agoIt 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 agoApparently 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.
- gibwell 13y agoSamsung has been sanctioned for intentional destruction of evidence, found guilty of being part of a price fixing cartel, and repeatedly guilty of other price fixing crimes, as well as of bribing officials. They have also been discovered to be astroturfing forums, and falsifying benchmarks. Whilst you're right that the judge has yet to rule, in light of their past behavior, I find your willingness to construct a scenario in which they are innocent, despite it being in contradiction of the evidence we do currently have, to be bizarrely generous.
- sbuk 13y agoYou are out of line. This isn't about some childish sense of taking sides. It about Samsung persistantly flouting international trade laws. It doesn't matter whether you agree with it or not. It's why we can't have sensible conversations; people make asinine comment like that.
- corresation 13y agoThis isn't about some childish sense of taking sides. Oh how I wish it wasn't. However as we've seen on HN for years, there are people who have a bizarre predisposition to wave a flag and claim a team. It turns the conversation into a partisan mockery of overly aggrieved victims.
- sbuk 13y agoYou seem not to be able to see the wood for the trees. You are trying to suggest that Samsung have done no wrong. You then essentially say "heh, fanboys", when people disagree. Are you not doing exactly the same?
- corresation 13y agoYou are trying to suggest that Samsung have done no wrong. The fact that you think that says much about you.
- sbuk 13y agoWhy? It seems blatantly obvious that Samsung are guilty of breaking laws in this case. This is incontrovertible fact. Yet you seem to be trying to switch focus to it being "us vs them". Are other parties guilty of similar? Possibly, likely in fact. Is there any tangible evidence? Not at the moment.