Judge could sanction Samsung for leaking confidential Apple information
0. phoneArena 09 Nov 2013, 16:11 posted on
Judge Paul Grewal, no stranger to this site, is considering placing sanctions on Samsung and its attorneys for leaking confidential Apple information; the judge has issued an order to Samsung to show cause why sanctions should not be issued in this situation. In the order, Grewal writes "sanctions against Samsung and its attorneys are warranted"...
This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here
1. Finalflash (Posts: 1797; Member since: 23 Jul 2013)
Sanction their face off I'd say, there is no reason for this to pass unpunished. There is a standard based on trust here that the entire legal system would fail to function without. There is no excuse for this kind of behavior and therefore, this should have serious repercussions.
2. _Bone_ (Posts: 2132; Member since: 29 Oct 2012)
Only Samsung employees and lawyers have seen it, so Apple should stop itching with a giant B.
6. amats69 (Posts: 1078; Member since: 12 Nov 2012)
"Only samsung employees and lawyers have seen it" -thats why it is confidential, and as the article says that information was to be seen ONLY by Samsung's legal team.
11. _Bone_ (Posts: 2132; Member since: 29 Oct 2012)
Had it leaked? No. Cause only Samsung employees and lawyers have seen it, hence no unwanted party (competition, media) got their hands on it, it's really that simple. Apple won't get much dough off of Sammy this time, mark my words.
16. amats69 (Posts: 1078; Member since: 12 Nov 2012)
The time that samsung shows the documents to those unauthorized employees and attorney's, YES it already leaked.why? Because the agreement is only between apple's legal team and samsung's legal team. The fact that those employees and those other attorneys are not part of samsung's legal team then samsung already break the rules...well lets just wait ang see.
19. amats69 (Posts: 1078; Member since: 12 Nov 2012)
If you know the meaning of the word "confidential" maybe you understand my point here....
22. _Bone_ (Posts: 2132; Member since: 29 Oct 2012)
It's simple logic really. Despite Sammy employes got information when they should've have, which is why we have a lawsuit, said information didn't leak beyond Samsung which was entitled to (limited) access, hence my visionary prediction to expect no substantial fine.
Point of the lawsuit: headlines, "Apple sues Samsung for blah blah", "Samsung fined for blah blah". No actual damage was done, just a little flexing of muscle.
30. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5838; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
The burden will be on Sammy to show that no harm to Apple occurred from the 'leak'. If they can show that there was no harm sustained by Apple, AND that they have put in place protections to guarantee that a leak will not occur in the future, they probably will get away with minor sanctions at most. Otherwise, it could cost them. One thing that pisses judges off is litigants ignoring a judicial order.
46. ardent1 (Posts: 1997; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
It already harmed Nokia.
By the way, "the no harm, no foul" rule does not apply in this situation. This is about the sanctity of the courts. The Samsung attorneys clearly f*cked up or were incompetent or both.
All Samsung does is to p*ss on the American way.
51. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5838; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
How did the leaking actually hurt Nokia? Nokia wasn't hurt too bad since they signed a license. You can't make unsubstantiated claims in court. No harm no foul is a well-established principle in litigation.
Sammy has the burden of proof to show no harm, but if it can make the showing, there is ample precedent for the no foul part.
47. amats69 (Posts: 1078; Member since: 12 Nov 2012)
Yeah it is a simple logic yet you didnt get it...sorry.
25. stealthd (Posts: 968; Member since: 12 Jun 2011)
Samsung was the "unwanted party" here. It was "leaked" to them by their lawyers. When a document says "For Attorneys Only", it's not just a suggestion.
60. pvaraich (Posts: 15; Member since: 30 Apr 2013)
When it goes to the employees, that means it was leaked as that gives Samsung a ground to copy, which has been their path for success. Everytime a company is about to launch a new product, it leaks because the employees pass on that information to outsider for money.
31. PAPINYC (Posts: 2301; Member since: 30 Jul 2011)
Yes, please sanction the hell out of Samsung so that the President can turn around and veto. My bad, he's the iPresident and thence sanctions will stick.
48. medicci37 (Posts: 640; Member since: 19 Nov 2011)
I don't think this type of info should be confidential
5. Mozarrt (Posts: 295; Member since: 08 Oct 2011)
If the rules have been breached then Samsung should be punished accordingly.
7. joey_sfb (Posts: 2973; Member since: 29 Mar 2012)
I do agreed that if Samsung break the US law they should be punished. But in the US, Apple can break the law and get presidential pardon.
Hypocrisy at its finest. To me reason are just excuse outcome is all that matters.
8. Mozarrt (Posts: 295; Member since: 08 Oct 2011)
Apple's activities (how bad they may be, I have no idea) have nothing to do with crimes committed by Samsung. And it's not only Apple, but also other companies including Nokia that think Samsung has committed a punishable offence.
17. 14545 (Posts: 1116; Member since: 22 Nov 2011)
Oh, so their competition says that big bad Samsung did something wrong(how would they know), therefore they must be right? What kind of logical sense does that make.
20. Finalflash (Posts: 1797; Member since: 23 Jul 2013)
Doesn't matter who gets off where, no one deserves special treatment. Apple's products should have also been banned and they should not have been given special treatment. But this isn't a one for one deal, the injustice has to be stopped where ever possible.
24. 14545 (Posts: 1116; Member since: 22 Nov 2011)
I agree. But in this situation it just sounds like sour grapes.
26. stealthd (Posts: 968; Member since: 12 Jun 2011)
You've got your facts pretty heavily mixed up.
Apple didn't "break the US law". The ITC issued an import ban based on FRAND patents, which was pretty much universally frowned upon. So the head of the FTC vetoed the ruling (not Obama, and not a pardon).
27. 14545 (Posts: 1116; Member since: 22 Nov 2011)
So because it is FRAND (and obviously essential) a the company shouldn't be compensated for it? Huh?
53. stealthd (Posts: 968; Member since: 12 Jun 2011)
Did I say that? No, I didn't. ITC isn't about compensation, if they want to get compensated for their patents then they should negotiate or head to court.
28. tedkord (Posts: 4914; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
The ITC found that Apple was engaging in bad faith negotiating, they were never intending to pay for use of those FRAND patents. That's why they took the unusual step of ordering a ban. The veto did not dispute these facts.
55. stealthd (Posts: 968; Member since: 12 Jun 2011)
That's what a lawsuit is for. It's been pretty much universally agreed in multiple jurisdictions in multiple countries that standards essential patents should not be used to get a ban. That doesn't mean Apple is off the hook, that means Samsung has to get damages through court.
35. willard12 (Posts: 813; Member since: 04 Jul 2012)
Did Apple break the law by conspiring to fix ebook prices?
54. stealthd (Posts: 968; Member since: 12 Jun 2011)
Does that have anything to do with Samsung? No, it doesn't. Ever heard of relevancy?
58. joey_sfb (Posts: 2973; Member since: 29 Mar 2012)
Say what you want stealthd but Apple's actions is the result of its declining market share and that's a fact. They may have won in a twisted unjust US legal system but the world is watching and supporting Samsung instead.
I have stop buying Apple products since iPad 3 and Macbook 2011 editions. Instead i have bought Samsung Galaxy Tab 7.7, Note 2, Note 3 /w gear and upcoming would be Note 10.1 2014 LTE edition. Most of my Asian friends are doing the same. We hate Apple ligation strategy.
9. darkkjedii (Posts: 11763; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
Wowww Sammy, you deserve a spanking for this one.
10. crpz32 (Posts: 3; Member since: 07 Oct 2013)
Don't you guys watch Korean dramas? Koreans have NO morals whatsoever. If it's gonna give them an edge, they will cheat, lie, do whatever to get ahead. It's beaten into their heads since kindergarten when the parents start telling their kids they need to be #1 at everything. such a sad society. I'm a Korean-American btw.
15. Sauce (unregistered)
Off topic, have you watched IRIS or Athena? My favorites lol
29. tedkord (Posts: 4914; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
Excellent logic. And have you watched American movies? Apparently Americans will put you in a hole, feed you and make you put on moisturizer so they can skin you and wear it like a suit.
I had no idea that you could judge a people by the characters they portray. I thought fictional characters were, you know, made up.
Unethical behavior to get what they want is a character trait of all big business.
43. VZWuser76 (Posts: 1549; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)
Look at the previous pope, he wanted to wage an all out war on Harry Potter.
52. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5838; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
But in the end, a higher power intervened, forcing the previous Pope into retirement.
36. willard12 (Posts: 813; Member since: 04 Jul 2012)
Yeah. Koreans should have better morals and use good parents as examples......Steve Jobs comes to mind.
14. JewBakaUCFG (Posts: 173; Member since: 25 Sep 2012)
Didn't Woz just say something about freedom and the sharing of information? Seems a bit hypocritical to punish Samsung when you are trying to have all information made available to everybody. Then again, Woz isn't Cook ...
18. Dunknown (Posts: 81; Member since: 23 Jul 2012)
What an idiot company! Samsung better exit the smartphone market. It is more like trouble maker. Everytime there is lawsuit, it must involve Samsung. Will never by Samsung again.
21. 14545 (Posts: 1116; Member since: 22 Nov 2011)
For some reason, given that comment, I highly doubt you ever bought Samsung to begin with.
32. AfterShock (Posts: 2812; Member since: 02 Nov 2012)
I believe the attorneys have the most to fear for being the cause of said leak.
Samsung will do the cake walk.
33. 1113douglas (Posts: 192; Member since: 04 Jul 2013)
i think somebody's jealous.... (apple)
34. VZWuser76 (Posts: 1549; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)
While Samsung is in the wrong and deserves to be punished, why would the judge ask Nokia & Apple how they should be punished? There have certainly been other cases of this before, and laws on the books telling how to deal with this situation, so.....I guess I don't get why their opinion matters. When any person commits a crime, they don't ask the victim how they should be punished, but simply if they want to press charges or not.
Again I'm not saying Samsung is in the right or anything, just why Nokia and Apple should have any say in HOW they are punished.
40. Napalm_3nema (Posts: 1076; Member since: 14 Jun 2013)
Both parties were harmed. Nokia got a worse deal because Samsung knew the exact details of the Apple-Nokia deal, and Apple because their confidential information was leaked to a competitor illegally.
42. VZWuser76 (Posts: 1549; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)
I get that, but I have never seen a judge ask a victim what they believe the punishment should be. See my previous post, when have they ever asked a murder victims families or the victim of a robbery how the accused should be punished? The job of determining the punishment is on the prosecution or the judge himself, not the victims of the crime.
49. tedkord (Posts: 4914; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
Well, all the time. Families get a chance to make a statement to the judge and ask for the punishment they feel is warranted.
56. VZWuser76 (Posts: 1549; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)
Yes, but they have certain punishments for each crime, like 25 to life or 8 1/3 to 25. Mostly when they ask families, it's whether or not to seek the death penalty, or if they don't have a good enough case for the maximum, if they're OK with pursuing a lesser charge that they have a better shot at winning.
50. 14545 (Posts: 1116; Member since: 22 Nov 2011)
Oh, so because they AGREED to the deal that was less favorable(but obviously as favorable or less than the one they gave apple) that means they were harmed? God people make no sense. If they didn't like the deal they shouldn't have settled. Also, they shouldn't be giving one company (apple) more favorable deals than another (Samsung, HTC, ....). These software patent deals should be public anyway. After all, a patent is a government granted monopoly, so it should be treated as anything else in government. Transparent. (even though that obviously doesn't always happen, it should)
38. rahul.niks (Posts: 66; Member since: 31 Oct 2013)
Samsung must be punished and apple should now know how to manage its confidential information, for me samsung sucks and so is apple,,, and don't know what nokia is doing in here anyway, i think they are out of competition ;)
41. PBXtech (Posts: 980; Member since: 21 Oct 2013)
And yet Apple consistently turns to Samsung for components. If Apple was a person, they'd be taking bi-polar medication the way they sue one moment then order massive components the next.
44. ilia1986 (unregistered)
I am sorry, it appears that everyone missed the keywords "according to apple".
Of course Nokia backs up apple as well, but that's out of some hope getting some desperately needed cash as well.
In short - it's time to stop with the legal bs and start innovating.
57. VZWuser76 (Posts: 1549; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)
Yes the mobile industry is amazing, not only are they one of, if not the fastest growing industries today, but they appear to be jump starting the legal industry as well. There are times when I agree with Bill Shakespeare. I have a cousin who's a lawyer in another field, and he agrees it's ridiculous.
While most say this won't affect the public, what about the models that get software features removed after purchase? Now something that they have used is taken away after they have paid their money. Would make me a little leery when purchasing if there's a possibility that the device will have less functionality after the sale. If the legal battles keep up at this pace and more and more features get removed, the industry could end up imploding on itself.
59. gallitoking (Posts: 4690; Member since: 17 May 2011)
Samsung don't bite the hand that feeds you..