Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple and Nokia Outraged That Samsung Lawyers Leaked Patent License Terms

Posted by timothy on from the at-least-make-him-stop-bragging dept.

An anonymous reader writes "U.S. courts have strict rules in place governing the treatment of confidential business information. The most sensitive information is labeled 'highly confidential — attorneys' eyes only', meaning that only a company's outside lawyers are allowed to see it. The Apple-Nokia patent settlement contract and deals Apple struck with others (Ericsson, Sharp, Philips) were such highly confidential business information. But a Samsung executive allegedly boasted in a patent licensing negotiation with Nokia a few months ago about knowing all the terms of the Apple-Nokia deal because the Korean company's lawyers had provided it to their client, against the rules. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California now wants to find out more before deciding on sanctions against Samsung and its law firm, Quinn Emanuel."

37 of 201 comments (clear)

  1. Where's the Samsung fanboys now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't really care who wins the smart phone war, but it's pretty clear that Samsung is just as evil and corrupt as every other large corporation. Let the smack down begin.

    1. Re:Where's the Samsung fanboys now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Slashdot--the only place where everyone celebrates Manning and Snowden because "all information should be free", but condem teh evil corporations for leaking information about teh other evil corporations.

    2. Re: Where's the Samsung fanboys now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Samsung are one of the least ethical companies around. Do your research. Bribery, corruption.. They should not be painted as saints, nor should their breach of law be overlooked.
      Fanboys of any denomination should be ignored.

    3. Re:Where's the Samsung fanboys now? by zieroh · · Score: 2

      The privileged nature of those documents is precisely to allow parties like Apple to prey on others.

      That doesn't even make sense.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    4. Re:Where's the Samsung fanboys now? by drakaan · · Score: 2

      Snowden, yes. Manning, no. (For me personally, of course)

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    5. Re:Where's the Samsung fanboys now? by NatasRevol · · Score: 4, Informative

      Via http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/10/03/apple-samsung-sanctions-grewal/

                July 7, 2004: Jury advised of adverse interference when Samsung allowed emails to be automatically deleted even after it was told to retain relevant emails. After Samsung's appeal, Judge William Martini found "Samsung's actions go far beyond mere negligence, demonstrating knowing and intentional conduct."
              October 17, 2005: The U.S. Department of Justice fined Samsung nearly $300M for memory price fixing within the U.S.
              Feb. 7, 2007: U.S. government fined Samsung for $90M for memory chip price fixing for violations in 2006.
              Jan.15, 2008: Samsung's offices in Korea were raided after evidence showed that a slush fund was used to bribe government officials and other business leaders.
              July 16 2008, Samsung chairman, Lee Kun-He was found guilty in Seoul of financial wrongdoing and tax evasion. Despite prosecutor request of seven years in prison, sentence was reduced to three years followed by a pardon by the South Korean Government in 2009 to allow him to help with its successful bid to host the 2018 Winter Olympics. He is now a member of the International Olympic Committee and this 'pardoned criminal' returned as Samsung's Chairman in March 2010.
              May 19, 2010: The EU Commission fined Samsung for being part of a cartel that shared confidential information and fixed memory chip prices (along with eight other firms).
              Nov. 1, 2011: The Korean Fair Trade Commission fined Samsung for being part of a cartel that fixed prices and reduced output for TFT-LCD screens between 2001 and 2006.
              March 15, 2012: The Korean Fair Trade Commission fined Samsung for a mobile phone price fixing scheme and consumer fraud whereby consumers would be paying more than what the discounted prices advertised.
                July 25, 2012: Magistrate Grewal informs the jury that they could take into account that "spoliation" of evidence occurred when Samsung destroyed evidence that could have been used in the Apple lawsuit; Samsung had a policy of automatically deleting emails that were two weeks old and should have suspended that policy between August 2010 (when Apple informed Samsung of patent infringement) and April 2011 (when Apple initiated the lawsuit).
              August 24, 2012 a jury returned a verdict finding Samsung had willfully infringed on Apple's design and utility patents and had also diluted Apple's trade dresses related to the iPhone. But Samsung continues to fight the ruling, and continues in their copying behavior.
              Dec 2012: EU issued a Statement of Objections (SO) against Samsung for abusing its Standard-Essential Patents in not providing FRAND rates. Samsung withdrew all SEP-based injunction requests against Apple in Europe days before the SO was issued, but to no avail.
              April. 2013, Samsung is accused of and admits hiring people in several countries to falsify reports of HTC phones "constantly crashing" and posting fake benchmark reviews.
              October 2013 Samsung in confirmed reports from independent and objective testing, found to be intentionally falsifying performance benchmarks of its flagship products: the Galaxy S4 and Note 3.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    6. Re: Where's the Samsung fanboys now? by NatasRevol · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Samsung is a great example of unregulated capitalism.

      And it's not a good example.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    7. Re:Where's the Samsung fanboys now? by morgauxo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't intend to defend Samsung as being good or evil (all I really know about them in terms of cellphones is that my Samsung Stratosphere really sucks!)

      But.. how does THIS event make them corrupt or evil? Because they broke a law? Because they broke the terms of someone else's contract? How is it morally wrong to know what someone else paid for the same 'product'? Isn't that how we all shop for anything which doesn't already have a price tag on it? Do you buy a house without looking at comps? If you go to an open market and you hear someone else haggling for one of something you want is it wrong to then offer the vendor the same deal? Or are you supposed to pretend you heard nothing and start the haggling from scratch?

      Why should our legal system be helping to enforce these secrecy clauses on contracts? How is it in the people's intrest to enforce them? All I can see it being used for is to jack up the price of goods as well as to keep new and smaller players out of markets.

    8. Re: Where's the Samsung fanboys now? by Solandri · · Score: 3, Informative

      Samsung are one of the least ethical companies around. Do your research. Bribery, corruption..

      Unfortunately, those are required to survive in business in Asia. Many other places too (e.g. Mexico, Chicago), but it's particularly bad in Asia. If you take a "I will never give nor accept bribes" stance and try to run a business in Asia, you will be bankrupt within a week.

    9. Re:Where's the Samsung fanboys now? by GumphMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Makes perfect sense. If the details of the terms and conditions obtained from Apple by one party become known to other parties then Apple's ability to extract "better" terms from those other parties is diminished. All royalty seeking behaviour is cloaked in non-disclosure conditions to avoid the situation where the consumers could possibly bargain from a position of knowledge. This is not unique to patent licensing or Apple.

      --
      Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
    10. Re:Where's the Samsung fanboys now? by pla · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Slashdot--the only place where everyone celebrates Manning and Snowden because "all information should be free", but condem teh evil corporations for leaking information about teh other evil corporations.

      If Samsung had released this information out of some desire to force more open negotiations on the whole industry, I would applaud them.

      Instead, we have some weaselly Samsung exec bragging about cheating and getting away with it, solely for their own benefit in a specific contract negotiation.

      If you don't see the difference between that and Snowden or Manning... You just won't.

    11. Re: Where's the Samsung fanboys now? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 4, Informative

      False, false, false, wrong, wrong, wrong. I have been doing business in Asia for ten years now and have never paid a single bribe. You're a damn fool if you do because whoever you bribe will always either retire or go to jail, leaving you high and dry. The following quote is informative:

      "One of the things I have always found troubling about Westerners doing business in emerging market countries is that they sometimes take an almost perverse pride in discussing payoffs to government officials. It is as though their having paid a bribe is a symbol of their international sophistication and insider knowledge. Yet, countless times when I am told of the bribe, I know the very same thing could almost certainly have been accomplished without a bribe."
      --Dan Harris, chinalawblog.com

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    12. Re:Where's the Samsung fanboys now? by mrxak · · Score: 4, Informative

      The legal system cannot work without officers of the court acting with honesty in the interests of justice. In this case, officers of the court (Samsung's lawyers) disobeyed a lawful order from the court in order to give their client an unjust advantage in that client's negotiations with a third party. This is called contempt of court, and it violates their obligation to act in good faith as officers of the court. It's similar to suborning perjury, or helping your client flee the jurisdiction to escape justice, or hiding evidence they have full knowledge of. On the prosecution side, it would be like destroying evidence that clears a suspect of charges. There will be severe penalties for the lawyers in question. They will likely not be officers of the court for much longer.

      Samsung, to be fair, didn't violate any such obligation. We don't know if they encouraged lawyers to do this or not, but we do know that they took unfair advantage of it. A company acting in good faith as part of a legal process would have put a stop to it immediately, fired said lawyers, and informed the judge and made whatever efforts they could on their end to limit the damage. We know Samsung didn't do this, and in fact bragged about their corporate espionage. It's a murkier issue as to Samsung's actual liability or criminality in this, but if it is determined they induced this contempt of court by their lawyers, I imagine the consequences will be severe for them as well. Certainly Nokia has cause to sue Samsung's lawyers, if not Samsung directly. Apple will no doubt use Samsung and their lawyers' actions in this matter as argument for further limiting of their confidential information in current and future cases, and I imagine courts will agree. The fact is Samsung persuaded a judge that Apple should give up certain confidential information, that judge gave an order that only Samsung's lawyers would be allowed to see this information and no one else, but Samsung's executive team got the information anyway after their lawyers took this confidential information and sent it to Samsung in violation of court order.

      At a minimum, Samsung got caught not reporting unethical behavior by their legal counsel, and taking advantage of it for their own gain, likely in the many tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. Considering Samsung's history of destroying evidence and other legal shenanigans, I don't think it's such a stretch that they somehow induced their lawyers to commit contempt of court. Logically, the lawyers would need such inducement, as why would they risk being disbarred if they weren't being pressured or incentivized in some way by their client?

      The nature of the court order that was violated is not the issue here. The issue is a serious breach of obligations by Samsung's lawyers, and Samsung subsequently having an unfair advantage in their negotiations with Nokia, and an unfair competitive advantage in the marketplace with Apple.

      --
      -mrxak
      Onions Will Kill You
  2. Re:Dear Leftwing People by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

    How exactly do you enforce that?

  3. because the company's LAWYERS had provided it by themushroom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not Samsung. The legal firm, the only ones privvy to the terms. Samsung itself only received the information, and stupidly let on knowing the information, but ultimately it's the legal firm that screwed up. Not Samsung.

    --
    Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
    1. Re: because the company's LAWYERS had provided it by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      but ultimately it's the legal firm that screwed up. Not Samsung

      If they accepted it with the knowledge that the judge had forbidden them from having it, and didn't tell anybody about it, then Samsung may well have crossed a line.

      The reason these things are intended to be kept only by the lawyers is so that neither party can gain an advantage by using information they're not legally allowed to have.

      To then take the information you're not legally allowed to have and then use that to gain leverage in a contract negotiation would be illegal. And it sounds like Samsung went into negotiations with someone and said "well, I know the terms of this deal with these people, and I want better".

      It's like SEC regulations on insider trading -- they're designed to keep people from profiting from information which isn't public. And there are cases where you could be told something as part of your job, and warned sternly that, for that issue you are now an insider and can't act on that. (Which is why many of us try very hard to not actually know the specifics of some of the systems we work with. It's just easier to keep some information at arms length.)

      Having that information may be illegal. Using the information may certainly be illegal. I'm not so sure that Samsung would be blameless here.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  4. Re:Sounds like lawyers playing lawyer by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Lawyers are supposed to work for their client, not hide information from them.

    Except, as TFS says, there are strict rules in place for some things.

    Sometimes, a lawyer is needed to be a buffer between you and something else you're not legally allowed to know. If this was the case, then the lawyer has either broken the law, or the standards of the Bar. Those are the kinds of things that can get you in trouble.

    Whether or not this is true is a different story, but if it is true, there could be some serious consequences.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  5. Public knowledge by fredprado · · Score: 5, Interesting

    All legal settlements should be public knowledge. It is a reversal on the basic ethic principles of our society when public entities, like the NSA, can spy upon private affairs with impunity, and individuals and private entities are denied what should be public knowledge.

    1. Re:Public knowledge by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All legal settlements should be public knowledge

      Except many settlements are essentially a contract between two private parties, enforced and accepted by the court. Often time, the settlement is made to allow anybody admitting any legal responsibility while making the issue go away -- like Michael Jackson't settlement with the kids he allegedly molested.

      There's lots of occasions where some of this stuff remains private information, because it's an agreement between the two entities, and spares them having it discussed in court and going on the record.

      This isn't something where the court has ruled, this is a case where the two parties agreed to stop the court proceedings and come up with a settlement. Since this can involve information which can affect stock prices and the like, it sometimes needs to be confidential.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Public knowledge by fredprado · · Score: 2

      Sorry but no. If it reached the courts it should not be private anymore.

      If you want to set them privately don't use public institutions to arbitrate your problems in the first place.

      And even if you do not involve any public entity in your dispute keeping your secrets should be your problem, not mine, the government's or societys.

    3. Re:Public knowledge by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2

      That's an interesting topic of conversation, but how could you possibly enforce it? Suppose I sue you. We go to lunch, sit down, and hash out our differences: "Tell you what, fredprado. Let's just end this. If you promise not to build that fence and quit yelling at my kid for walking down the sidewalk, I'll drop the suit. Can we make a gentleman's agreement?" We shake hands, go our separate ways, and both follow through on the agreement.

      First, how would you craft a law enforcing that our private negotiations have to be part of the permanent record? Second, how would you square that with our 1st amendment right to publish (or not publish) the terms of our agreements?

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    4. Re:Public knowledge by bws111 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You do know that using the public institutions is not something the parties agree to, right? ONE party can take it to court, which according to you seems to me that the OTHER party loses all it's right to privacy. That is a pretty stupid idea.

      Finally, the reasons the secrets were not kept secret is because the court ordered them to be shared with the other party. I fail to see why any of my secrets should be made public just because I was ordered to provide them to another party that happened to file suit against me.

    5. Re:Public knowledge by fredprado · · Score: 2

      Easy, you "enforce" it by not enforcing at all. Secrets are the keeper responsibility to keep. If it leaked, bad luck to you.

      Even if you decide to lie in court about the contents of your settlement I see no problem, as long as you do not come crying when someone discovers the truth.

    6. Re:Public knowledge by fredprado · · Score: 2

      As soon as you go to court you should lose the ability to settle in secret. If you want to do it do it before going to court.

      Furthermore any private content should be your responsibility to keep secret about if you so want, not the government's. If someone else found about your dirty secrets it is your problem and nobody else's. If you can prove your lawyer or anyone that has signed your contract broke it and leaked information he should not by all means go after him for any punishment contained in the contract, but you have no business going after someone who didn't sign any contract with you.

      And no, I don't recognize your reason to keep settlements private as a good one.

    7. Re:Public knowledge by bws111 · · Score: 2

      I didn't say settlements were unilateral, I said going to court was a unilateral action.

      What you seem to want to do is create a kind of legal extortion. If someone claims you have wronged them your choice is either agree to their terms, or lose your right to privacy. The plaintiff can demand absolutely anything, and there is nothing you can do about it. Plaintiff can claim he injured himself and demand $1000. What are you going to do, just pay it? If you refuse, and the plaintiff sues, it is now 'in court'. Now the plaintiff can offer to settle for only $100. If that fact will be kept secret it is probably better for you to just pay the $100 rather than pay legal fees, etc. However, if the terms of the settlement will NOT be kept secret then it is a lousy deal for you, as everyone knows you are an easy target for $100. How is that fair to the defendant, whose only options would be pay the initially requested amount, or let the whole world know what you are willing to pay?

  6. The real story by ysth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ignoring all the florian-spew and articles based on it, it seems an expert report was accidentally insufficiently redacted, and Samsung has not been fast enough in their investigation of where all the information went, so the magistrate judge is setting a deadline and ordering some depositions. Yawn.

  7. Re:Dear Leftwing People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    With regulations, of course.

    Libertarians live in rainbow-and-pony-filled imaginary worlds of wishful and magical thinking

    As opposed to being filled with hope and change?

  8. Re:PR Spin by Space+cowboy · · Score: 4, Informative

    Show me where Apple have crossed the ethical lines ? You may disagree with their case, but I don't recall anyone claiming their lawyers were unethical in prosecuting that case ...

    As for Samsung, they're just scumbags who don't respect the law of any land...

    (Taken from Fortune ...)

    • July 7, 2004: Jury advised of adverse interference when Samsung allowed emails to be automatically deleted even after it was told to retain relevant emails. After Samsung's appeal, Judge William Martini found "Samsung's actions go far beyond mere negligence, demonstrating knowing and intentional conduct."
    • October 17, 2005: The U.S. Department of Justice fined Samsung nearly $300M for memory price fixing within the U.S.
    • Feb. 7, 2007: U.S. government fined Samsung for $90M for memory chip price fixing for violations in 2006.
    • Jan.15, 2008: Samsung's offices in Korea were raided after evidence showed that a slush fund was used to bribe government officials and other business leaders.
    • July 16 2008, Samsung chairman, Lee Kun-He was found guilty in Seoul of financial wrongdoing and tax evasion. Despite prosecutor request of seven years in prison, sentence was reduced to three years followed by a pardon by the South Korean Government in 2009 to allow him to help with its successful bid to host the 2018 Winter Olympics. He is now a member of the International Olympic Committee and this 'pardoned criminal' returned as Samsung's Chairman in March 2010.
    • May 19, 2010: The EU Commission fined Samsung for being part of a cartel that shared confidential information and fixed memory chip prices (along with eight other firms).
    • Nov. 1, 2011: The Korean Fair Trade Commission fined Samsung for being part of a cartel that fixed prices and reduced output for TFT-LCD screens between 2001 and 2006.
    • March 15, 2012: The Korean Fair Trade Commission fined Samsung for a mobile phone price fixing scheme and consumer fraud whereby consumers would be paying more than what the discounted prices advertised.
    • July 25, 2012: Magistrate Grewal informs the jury that they could take into account that "spoliation" of evidence occurred when Samsung destroyed evidence that could have been used in the Apple lawsuit; Samsung had a policy of automatically deleting emails that were two weeks old and should have suspended that policy between August 2010 (when Apple informed Samsung of patent infringement) and April 2011 (when Apple initiated the lawsuit).
    • August 24, 2012 a jury returned a verdict finding Samsung had willfully infringed on Apple's design and utility patents and had also diluted Apple's trade dresses related to the iPhone. But Samsung continues to fight the ruling, and continues in their copying behavior.
    • Dec 2012: EU issued a Statement of Objections (SO) against Samsung for abusing its Standard-Essential Patents in not providing FRAND rates. Samsung withdrew all SEP-based injunction requests against Apple in Europe days before the SO was issued, but to no avail.
    • April. 2013, Samsung is accused of and admits hiring people in several countries to falsify reports of HTC phones "constantly crashing" and posting fake benchmark reviews.
    • October 2013 Samsung in confirmed reports from independent and objective testing, found to be intentionally falsifying performance benchmarks of its flagship products: the Galaxy S4 and Note 3.

    If Apple tried to pull that shit, all hell would break loose. And rightfully so. For me personally, it's enough that I don't buy anything with a Samsung brand on the outside any more. They're the only company for which that's the case.

    Simon.

    --
    Physicists get Hadrons!
  9. Following government message by gmuslera · · Score: 3, Funny

    If you did nothing wrong, then you have nothing to hide. Why not embrace that culture of transparency giving the example?

  10. Re:PR Spin by sjvn · · Score: 4, Informative

    Why does this read like a PR document written by Apple to sway public opinion? Both parties have come close or outright crossed the ethical lines in their various legal battles. Finger waving or sanctioning a lawyer here or there does not change the core issues. Rather is distracts from the core issues and gains sentiment (or attempts to).

    It reads like PR because it's written by a known Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle patent shill.

    Steven

  11. Re:PR Spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I didn't even click through to TFA.

    Then I did.

    I fixed the bio:

    Florian Mueller is a douchebag-turned-shill with 25 years of software industry brown-nosing spanning across different market segments (games, education, productivity and infrastructure software), diverse frauds and a variety of technical and commercial areas of ass-hattery, enabling any twisted perspective you're willing to pay for. Florian shills for clients on the patent wars surrounding mobile devices, and on their economic and technical implications and will spread FUD as far and wide as the client's funds will allow. His shilling services are available directly (contact form, LinkedIn profile) as well as through two primary marketing firms.

    Florian has been known to call himself the Ralph Spoilsport of technology and take it seriously.

  12. Re:PR Spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Paid shill, but not paid shill by either Apple or Nokia. He gets paid by Oracle and MS.
    Anyway. Facts are facts. Even if they come from a shill.

  13. Re:PR Spin by sgrover · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That's a pretty one sided summary. Where's the comments that the auto-deleting emails was done by apple as well? Where's the comments that apple was investigated for price fixing wrt ebooks? Or the details that the jury that awarded billions to Apple is under scrutiny for improprieties. This response is so one sided it has to be an Apple fanboi (at best) or an outright shill that wrote that article. BTW, if it is Florian Muller, then yes a known and outright shill for the anti-open source agenda. The truth is not found at the extremes of a topic like this.

  14. Re:PR Spin by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 3, Informative

    Show me where Apple have crossed the ethical lines ?

    - using what practically amounts to slave labor at Foxconn
    - dodging taxes by claiming residence in ireland
    - suing everyone and their moms with bullshit claims and patents
    - false advertising (it should be named the Idiot Bar, not the Genius Bar)
    - overpricing all their stuff
    - suing everyone making compatible hardware into bankruptcy
    - putting in a clause into OSX's license prohibiting using it on anything but official Apple hardware

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  15. Death squads by Overzeetop · · Score: 2

    Summary executions of anyone *suspected* of keeping a corporate secret. We can sell licenses like we do for deer or elk during hunting season. Give 'em a name and a tag and make sure they register the body with the local game warden when they finish.

    Guns, meaningless killing, and anti-corporatism - It's the perfect left-right-libertarian utopia

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  16. Re:PR Spin by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The labour at Foxconn is actually fairly well paid. The suicide rate at the factory is LESS than in the general populace. Many workers were upset when their hours were reduced because they're only working there so they can make some money now then leave in a year or two. A lot of these people are sending money home to their farming families. There are lines outside the company of people wanting to work there. AND Apple is working to improve conditions and clamp down on working violations.

    Dodging taxes is legal, though of dubious ethics. But no other large company is playing by any different rules.

    Everyone is suing everyone. You think Samsung isn't also on the suing end of courtroom as well? In any case, the problem is the patent system that allows those patents in the first place; once the patent is actually accepted, Apple legally has the right to defend it. You're looking at this from the wrong side.

    That 'false advertising' claim is subjective. I've never had a problem at the genius bar.

    By definition, their stuff isn't overpriced because people buy it at that price. If it were overpriced, nobody would buy it. It's what the market will bear, and people are perfectly happy to pay it.

    I don't know who you're talking about on the compatible hardware front, exactly, but Apple isn't under any obligation to make software that allows OS X or iOS to run. That's not unethical, that's just a philosophical discussion. If you don't like it--and I'm sure you'll tell me you don't--don't run it.

  17. Re:PR Spin by Karlt1 · · Score: 2

    "- using what practically amounts to slave labor at Foxconn"

    The same company that a dozen other companies use

    "- dodging taxes by claiming residence in ireland"

    Do you take every tax deduction you are eligible to take?

    "- suing everyone and their moms with bullshit claims and patents"

    Every company is suing everyone. Do you know that Motorola basically blackmailed Google into buying them by threatening to sue other Android manufacturers?

    " false advertising (it should be named the Idiot Bar, not the Genius Bar)"

    Example?

    "- overpricing all their stuff"

    There is no such thing as something being "overpriced" in a capitalist economy -- especially if it not an essential good.

    "- suing everyone making compatible hardware into bankruptcy"

    ????

    "- putting in a clause into OSX's license prohibiting using it on anything but official Apple hardware"

    How is that unethical? Is it unethical that I can't use GPL 3.0 license software in the method I want?