2 ms·
"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 Nok
by 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.