“Three months ago I saw a filing by Nokia that related to some discussions with Samsung considered so secretive that it wanted even the very title of a document to be sealed,” Florian Müller reports for FOSS Patents. “It was clear that Nokia and Samsung were talking about something that also related somehow to the 2011 Nokia-Apple settlement, about the terms of which nothing was known except that Apple described it, at a very high level, as ‘merely a ‘provisional license’ for a limited ‘standstill’ period.’ One could figure that Nokia and Samsung wouldn’t talk about some other patent agreement without talking about some sort of patent deal between them — a license or an outright purchase.”
“On Wednesday evening local time, Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, whose writing style is well-liked by various patent litigation watchers including me, entered an order that finally sheds light on this,” Müller reports. “he order came down after a hearing held yesterday on a request by Apple (and possibly also one by Nokia) for sanctions against Samsung (and/or its outside counsel) for violation of a protective order, i.e., for illegal disclosure of (in this case, extremely) confidential business information.”
Müller writes, “I must say that I’m shocked.”
“How did Samsung’s executives get access to contracts that were meant to be used only by its outside counsel (marked as ‘Highly Confidential — Attorneys’ Eyes Only’) for the purposes of litigation with Apple and absolutely positively not for the pupose of gaining unfair advantages in licensing negotiations with anyone (not with Apple, and much less with third parties like Nokia), when such disclosure would constitute an unbelievably serious violation of court rules?” Müller asks.
“At yesterday’s hearing, “Samsung’s counsel repeatedly denied even one violation of the protective order, asserting that ‘such a violation can only occur willfully’ and denied the need for formal discovery. After three months, Samsung still doesn’t answer some very basic questions. And Samsung’s counsel at this point says it’s not directed to answer questions about Samsung’s disclosure of the terms of Apple’s license agreements with Ericsson, Philips, and Sharp,” Müller reports. “Samsung appears likely to be sanctioned, and (which the order does not say but which certain headlines on an ITC docket recently indicated) faces a similar risk at the ITC, which is even stricter in its protection of confidential business information than federal courts.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Samsung is an evil, unethical company. Do not support evil, unethical companies. (This goes for you, too, Tim Cook.)
I don’t know which is worse: Samsung’s slavish copying or that there are tens of millions of dullards and/or morally-crippled consumers who would buy such obvious knockoffs. What kind of person rewards thieves, especially such obvious ones? What kind of person hands over their money to make sure that crime pays? What’s wrong with you people, exactly?
It makes me sad that there are outfits like Samsung Electronics on the planet, as I was with Microsoft before them. People who work for Samsung Electronics should be ashamed. It makes me even sadder to see people supporting blatant criminals, whether it be blindly or, worse, knowingly. To those people I say: Get some morals, will you, or how about at least acquiring a modicum of taste?
What you’re doing is supporting criminal activity. It’s like you’re buying knockoff Coach handbags, but you’re paying pretty much the Coach price! Not too smart, eh? Oh, sure, you might have “saved” a bit upfront on your fake iPhone (maybe you got one of those Buy One Get One or More Free deals), but you’re paying the same data rates – after a couple years, you’ve pretty much paid the same anyway! So, in the end, you’re saving little or nothing while:
a) depriving the company who basically inspired your inferior, fragmented product;
b) depriving yourself of the real deal and the real experience, and;
c) rewarding the criminal, encouraging them to steal even more.
Not a lot of sense being made in any aspect of your toting around that Android phone, is there? Oh, right it’s “open.” Smirk. And, yes, every one of us with the real thing knows that you’re carrying around a half-assed fake, you tasteless wonder.
Didn’t you people have parents? If so, what did they teach you, if anything? Sheesh.
Apple slams Samsung’s serial benchmark deceptions – October 2, 2013
Samsung to stamp out 30-40% of Apple’s next-gen ‘A8′ chips, South Korean report claims – October 1, 2013
Samsung announces plastic Galaxy S4 ‘Gold Edition’ phone – September 25, 2013
Samsung spies on iPhone launch lines in attempt to understand Apple mystique – September 21, 2013
Samsung: Uh, someday our phones will have 64-bit processors, too – September 12, 2013
The Galaxy Gear stupidwatch: Without Apple to copy, Samsung is clueless – September 4, 2013
CIRP: Apple iPhone users are younger, richer, and better educated than those who settle for Samsung knockoff phones – August 19, 2013
Apple iPhones retain their value. Samsung Android phones don’t. – August 7, 2013