Samsung faces sanctions over leak of confidential Apple documents(tech.fortune.cnn.com)
tech.fortune.cnn.com
Samsung faces sanctions over leak of confidential Apple documents
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/10/03/apple-samsung-sanctions-grewal/
56 comments
The issue is compromise of confidential documents. Forget for a second that the documents were patent agreements.
This issue has nothing to do with whether patent law is correct or not. It's about Samsung obtaining documents illegally.
It's about Samsung obtaining documents illegally.
Perhaps the parent poster should note that and clarify the fact they're speaking about patent law broadly. Maybe by prefacing the post with something along the lines of "Samsung shouldn't violate court orders. Still, "
Perhaps the parent poster should note that and clarify the fact they're speaking about patent law broadly. Maybe by prefacing the post with something along the lines of "Samsung shouldn't violate court orders. Still, "
[deleted]
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-sams...
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/10/sanctions-loom-large-sams...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
EDIT: clarification.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You 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.
It's why we can't have sensible conversations; people make asinine comment like that.
This 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.
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.
You 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?
You are trying to suggest that Samsung have done no wrong.
The fact that you think that says much about you.
The fact that you think that says much about you.
Why? 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.
"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]
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]
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.
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.
Samsung 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.
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.
Samsung has always come across as a company really willing to cheat without hesitation. Even then I am surprised with this.
Explain to me like I'm 5 years old. What happened here?
I understand data was leaked, but I don't know why the author is "shocked" or "disappointed"(in who?). Why is this such a big deal and "extremely" illegal? How does this impact the companies involved?
as part of the apple-samsung lawsuit, apple produced apparently incredibly business sensitive licensing agreements, some of which where with Nokia. In order to avoid samsung using this to their advantage/letting samsung go on a fishing expedition, the agreement was apple's documents would only go to apple's lawyers and samsung's external legal firm. Samsung's external lawyers had a duty to avoid giving this knowledge to their employers.
Since lying and cheating are pervasive ethics at Samsung (see: recent benchmarking results), Samsung of course got their hands on a copy of this agreements in order to help negotiate negotiate their own deals with Nokia. Nokia told the court.
Samsung and their firm and busy lying to the court and hiding. However, the court has subpoena powers. At minimum Samsung's external legal firm stands to be censured.
Since lying and cheating are pervasive ethics at Samsung (see: recent benchmarking results), Samsung of course got their hands on a copy of this agreements in order to help negotiate negotiate their own deals with Nokia. Nokia told the court.
Samsung and their firm and busy lying to the court and hiding. However, the court has subpoena powers. At minimum Samsung's external legal firm stands to be censured.
> Since lying and cheating are pervasive ethics at Samsung (see: recent benchmarking results)
Oh come on, this is silly.
You don't think Apple manipulate benchmarks and statistics?
Or deny product faults and quietly settle years later e.g. iPhone 4 Antenna?
Or how about e-book price fixing?!!
It's ridiculous that people always assume foreign companies lie, cheat and steal, whereas homegrown companies are more kosher than a rabbi. The same thing happens in sport and politics of course. I guess humans just can't lose that tribal mentality.
Oh come on, this is silly.
You don't think Apple manipulate benchmarks and statistics?
Or deny product faults and quietly settle years later e.g. iPhone 4 Antenna?
Or how about e-book price fixing?!!
It's ridiculous that people always assume foreign companies lie, cheat and steal, whereas homegrown companies are more kosher than a rabbi. The same thing happens in sport and politics of course. I guess humans just can't lose that tribal mentality.
With the exception of Apple and Motorola, literally every single OEM we’ve
worked with ships (or has shipped) at least one device that runs this silly
CPU optimization.
> deny product faults and quietly settle years later e.g. iPhone 4 Antenna
Didn't they hold an entire press conference, invite everyone and say (essentially) "we don't think there's a problem; most phones have similar issues; to anyone complaining, we're offering free iPhone cases" ?
That doesn't sound like "quietly settling" to me.
Didn't they hold an entire press conference, invite everyone and say (essentially) "we don't think there's a problem; most phones have similar issues; to anyone complaining, we're offering free iPhone cases" ?
That doesn't sound like "quietly settling" to me.
The very same iPhone 4 has been sold for 28 months, up until two weeks ago.
I'm sure there are dozens of millions of users that can't make a phone call because of the antenna problem. I wonder why they don't complain.
I'm sure there are dozens of millions of users that can't make a phone call because of the antenna problem. I wonder why they don't complain.
Not at all, atleast about Samsung. I would go ahead say that Samsung is the most unethical[1] company. Wikipedia list is only tip of the iceberg, that company's history is littered with unethical[2] behavior.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung#Controversies 2. http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/30/3709688/samsung-25-years-...
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung#Controversies 2. http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/30/3709688/samsung-25-years-...
At least you are in full agreement that lying and cheating are pervasive ethics at Samsung.
+Apple sued Samsung for violating Apple's patents.
+Samsung said it needed some confidential documents from Apple for its legal defense.
+The judge ordered that Apple must give the confidential documents to Samsung's lawyers, but that the lawyers couldn't share them
+Samsung's lawyers shared the documents with the company
+Now Samsung has illegally obtained knowledge of secret information that Apple and its partners had
+Samsung said it needed some confidential documents from Apple for its legal defense.
+The judge ordered that Apple must give the confidential documents to Samsung's lawyers, but that the lawyers couldn't share them
+Samsung's lawyers shared the documents with the company
+Now Samsung has illegally obtained knowledge of secret information that Apple and its partners had
>+Now Samsung has illegally obtained knowledge of secret information that Apple and its partners had
It sounds like it's their legal team who are at fault. Did Samsung break into the law offices and steal this information?
It sounds like it's their legal team who are at fault. Did Samsung break into the law offices and steal this information?
Unless you're suggesting that the law firm forced Samsung to read the documents by setting them a trap, both are legally responsible.
Technically what you said is true, BUT still Samsung has Apple's confidential info, something that cannot be undone. Maybe Samsung and their lawyers exchanged a wink and a nod, maybe not.
If I were king, I would revoke the right to practice law for at least 5 years for the attorneys involved, a $1 Billion or 50% of that yearly earnings fine for Samsung and a order not to use the info illegally obtained. The last one is maybe useless, but still, you never know, let them wonder if Apple might sue them.
Samsung has to pay for what their legal team did, right or wrong. After all they hired and trust them with everything.
If I were king, I would revoke the right to practice law for at least 5 years for the attorneys involved, a $1 Billion or 50% of that yearly earnings fine for Samsung and a order not to use the info illegally obtained. The last one is maybe useless, but still, you never know, let them wonder if Apple might sue them.
Samsung has to pay for what their legal team did, right or wrong. After all they hired and trust them with everything.
> If I were king, I would revoke the right to practice law for at least 5 years for the attorneys involved
That's reasonable, I guess, I mean the law firm representing Samsung did screw up, I can understand punishing them.
> a $1 Billion or 50% of that yearly earnings fine for Samsung
Those pants...why are you putting them on your head?
> Samsung has to pay for what their legal team did, right or wrong. After all they hired and trust them with everything.
Yes, they hired a law firm. They have to pay the law firm the amount that the two parties agreed on. Now, the law firm screwed up. However, unless you have evidence of wrongdoing on Samsung's part, this is just foaming at the mouth crazy talk. If anything, Samsung was also wronged by their law firm by being put in this position.
That's reasonable, I guess, I mean the law firm representing Samsung did screw up, I can understand punishing them.
> a $1 Billion or 50% of that yearly earnings fine for Samsung
Those pants...why are you putting them on your head?
> Samsung has to pay for what their legal team did, right or wrong. After all they hired and trust them with everything.
Yes, they hired a law firm. They have to pay the law firm the amount that the two parties agreed on. Now, the law firm screwed up. However, unless you have evidence of wrongdoing on Samsung's part, this is just foaming at the mouth crazy talk. If anything, Samsung was also wronged by their law firm by being put in this position.
Um, OK. Poor innocent Samsung: 'According to a declaration from Nokia’s Chief Intellectual Property Officer, Paul Melin, on June 4, 2013, in a meeting between Samsung and Nokia licensing executives, Dr. Seungho Ahn informed Nokia that the terms of the Apple-Nokia license were known to him. Specifically, according to Mr. Melin, Dr. Ahn stated that Apple had produced the Apple-Nokia license in its litigation with Samsung, and that Samsung’s outside counsel had provided his team with the terms of the Apple-Nokia license.
Mr. Melin recounts that 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.” Mr. Melin also reports that Dr. Ahn and Samsung then proceeded to use his knowledge of the terms of the Apple- Nokia license to gain an unfair advantage in their negotiations with Nokia, by asserting that the Apple-Nokia terms should dictate terms of a Samsung-Nokia license.' http://allthingsd.com/20131003/apple-accuses-samsung-of-shar...
Even among liars and cheaters, Samsung stands out.
Mr. Melin recounts that 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.” Mr. Melin also reports that Dr. Ahn and Samsung then proceeded to use his knowledge of the terms of the Apple- Nokia license to gain an unfair advantage in their negotiations with Nokia, by asserting that the Apple-Nokia terms should dictate terms of a Samsung-Nokia license.' http://allthingsd.com/20131003/apple-accuses-samsung-of-shar...
Even among liars and cheaters, Samsung stands out.
If this information fell into Samsung's lap, they'd be fools not to leverage it whether they got it by accident or by design. Nothing so far (that I've seen) shows evidence that they obtained this information illegally. If anyone would be sanctioned for this, wouldn't it be their law firm?
When will Samsung already invalidate those patents for good? They have prior art.
How is that relevant to the linked article?
It would simply make such articles irrelevant :) Since in essence those patents were never valid to begin with. Samsung is of course wrong with sneaky tactics. But so is Apple with using fake patents.
How is samsung learning of patent agreements that apple has with other vendors, and then using that against one of those vendors for their own purposes at all relevant to any of apples patents?
Your comments are not only useless here but outright pointless. Apple's tactics with patents have zero bearing to this article. I think its time to remove hacker news from my daily reading list like reddit a few years ago. The partisan/biased comments lately about things like patents are starting to get beyond ludicrous.
The eternal september effect is starting to wear me out on discussion sites. I'm not sure how you fix the problem though, or even if its fixable. Meh, back to work, least that is productive and useful unlike this very comment and the one before.
Your comments are not only useless here but outright pointless. Apple's tactics with patents have zero bearing to this article. I think its time to remove hacker news from my daily reading list like reddit a few years ago. The partisan/biased comments lately about things like patents are starting to get beyond ludicrous.
The eternal september effect is starting to wear me out on discussion sites. I'm not sure how you fix the problem though, or even if its fixable. Meh, back to work, least that is productive and useful unlike this very comment and the one before.
I try to stick to the pure technology sorts of stories, but the particular technologies that appeal to the HN crowd aren't that interesting to me, either. Eh, whaddya gonna do.
No, it wouldn't.
Take the word "patent" out of the picture, and you still have very unethical and possibly illegal behavior. The information shared was confidential contracts between Apple and other companies. This information was marked as confidential for Samsung's lawyers only, not for Samsung. Someone gave them to Samsung.
This would still happen with just about any business suit that could involve trade secrets.
Take the word "patent" out of the picture, and you still have very unethical and possibly illegal behavior. The information shared was confidential contracts between Apple and other companies. This information was marked as confidential for Samsung's lawyers only, not for Samsung. Someone gave them to Samsung.
This would still happen with just about any business suit that could involve trade secrets.
Well as it stands your comments are irrelevant.
Even if Apple's patents were invalidated it would do nothing to excuse what you are calling 'sneaky tactics' by Samsung.
What they are accused of is deeply illegal, and that isn't going to change.
Apple hasn't done anything illegal and their patents aren't 'fake'. If they were fake, why wouldn't Samsung have had them reviewed?
It seems as though you are trying to defend Samsung by smearing Apple.
What they are accused of is deeply illegal, and that isn't going to change.
Apple hasn't done anything illegal and their patents aren't 'fake'. If they were fake, why wouldn't Samsung have had them reviewed?
It seems as though you are trying to defend Samsung by smearing Apple.
In this case, Apple's patents are fake, because there is clear prior art. Samsung tried to use that defense, but the jury was really weird on that one. No idea why they aren't proceeding with invalidating them further.
I'm not defending Samsung. They both are worth each other here. Apple started this idiocy first though - no one asked them to be patent jerks to begin with. When one crook is being bitten by another crook in a crooked fashion, because the first did something crooked to the second first, then the first one should look in a mirror, before pointing fingers to the second.
I'm not defending Samsung. They both are worth each other here. Apple started this idiocy first though - no one asked them to be patent jerks to begin with. When one crook is being bitten by another crook in a crooked fashion, because the first did something crooked to the second first, then the first one should look in a mirror, before pointing fingers to the second.
If the jury didn't agree that the prior art was clear, then the prior art obviously was not clear. So really you're just saying that you don't agree with the jury.
You also seem to be saying that Samsung should be allowed to abuse the court process as a way to steal secrets because Apple sued them, even though Apple won the case.
I'm sorry, but you are defending Samsung.
You also seem to be saying that Samsung should be allowed to abuse the court process as a way to steal secrets because Apple sued them, even though Apple won the case.
I'm sorry, but you are defending Samsung.
The jury was incompetent. Prior art is there. Jury dismissed it with completely invalid arguments which demonstrated that they had no clue what they were dealing with (patent law). And jury didn't even follow guidelines set for them for this case (which were intended to make them understand application of patent law better).
Allowed? I didn't say anything about allowed.
Allowed? I didn't say anything about allowed.
You seem to claim to understand the law better than the judge.
The judge pointed out that jury didn't follow the guidelines. It seems that you didn't really follow the case.
Anyway, Samsung should invalidate these patents for good. Otherwise Apple will use them against someone else next time.
Anyway, Samsung should invalidate these patents for good. Otherwise Apple will use them against someone else next time.
shmerl has been on HN for 2 years and amassed ~2K karma. I assume those other comments were not as gibberish as the ones on this story.
Still, these documents are licensing agreements that implement and define the extent of a state granted monopoly. There is no plausible non-corrupt reason to allow them to be kept secret. Any serious effort at open government would require private companies invested with the power of law to make these documents public as soon as they're written.
The patent office should require all contracts that involve patent assignment, licensing, and revenue sharing to be deposited at the patent office for public access. These companies have been granted a privilege by the state at a cost to the freedom of every citizen and are responsible for how they use that privilege. The public has a right to know whether those privileges are really being used in the public interest as we are so often told.
In every case, the public is better off if competitors know what sort of value and advantage companies are getting from patents. The whole point of the system is supposed to depend on public disclosure of inventions and their use and value compensating the public. Hiding the terms of contracts is an abuse of the very supposed nature of the patent bargain.
The continued sealing of documents in patent cases offends justice and integrity. Even the judge in this case agrees and has tried to make more of these documents in question public. So far the corrupt Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit hasn't been cooperative in reducing secrecy and opening up evidence to the public in patent cases.