Prosecutors Raid LG Offices Over Alleged Vandalism of Samsung Dishwashers

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Prosecutors Raid LG Offices Over Alleged Vandalism of Samsung Dishwashers

Posted by timothy on Friday December 26, 2014 @03:19PM from the aren't-you-glad-those-are-machines dept.

As reported by Reuters, Korean manufacturing giant LG's Seoul headquarters have been raided over allegations that LG employees sabotaged dishwashers made by rival Samsung. The Samsung machines were "on display at two stores in September ahead of the IFA electronics show in Berlin." From the article: On Friday, investigators searched the Seoul offices of LG Elec's home appliance head, Jo Seong-jin, and others and secured documents and computer hard disks related to the IFA fair, Yonhap News Agency said. They also combed through LG Electronics' home appliance factory in the southeastern city of Changwon, the report said. ... Samsung sued LG Electronics employees after the incident in Germany, and LG said the company has counter-sued Samsung employees on Dec. 12. Media reports have earlier said prosecutors banned LG's Seong-jin from leaving the country ahead of the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) to be held January 6-9.

87 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

This means war! by ColdWetDog · 2014-12-26 15:24 · Score: 5, Funny

And you guys thought the reason for adding Internet connectivity to appliances was to help the NSA.
Come see the Battle of the Appliances! Coming to a home near you!
GE toaster takes out Amana microwave. LG dryer attacks the Hoover vacuum. People run to the streets in terror!
Micheal Bay to direct the movie!

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
1. Re:This means war! by msauve · 2014-12-26 16:02 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Dysons suck.
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
2. Re:This means war! by TWX · 2014-12-26 16:55 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  No, they don't.
  
  I'll leave the interpretation this statement of perception of quality of this particular vacuum as an exercise to the reader.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
3. Re:This means war! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 17:43 · Score: 0
  
  And you guys thought the reason for adding Internet connectivity to appliances was to help the NSA.
  Come see the Battle of the Appliances! Coming to a home near you!
  GE toaster takes out Amana microwave. LG dryer attacks the Hoover vacuum. People run to the streets in terror!
  Micheal Bay to direct the movie!
  Hardware wars
4. Re:This means war! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 17:44 · Score: 1
  
  Or atleast the unfortunate purchaser. PSA: Don't buy their overpriced cordless vacuums. The corded ones are fine.
5. Re:This means war! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 18:07 · Score: 0
  
  This is obviously a false flag. The NSA decided to make it look like North Koreans wanted to embarrass their rivals to the south, so NK supposedly tricked Anonymous into using Russian malware to hack Sony's network and plant "confidential" executive emails to make it look like the Samsung had been hacked by LG. Nice.
6. Re: This means war! by gwjgwj · 2014-12-26 22:03 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.newyorker.com/magaz...
7. Re:This means war! by TobiX · 2014-12-27 00:12 · Score: 1
  
  Besides, anybody who thinks a cordless vacuum can have the same power of a corded one, deserves the raw deal he is going to get.
8. Re:This means war! by LordLucless · 2014-12-27 00:24 · Score: 2
  
  Except this doesn't sound like it has anything to do with the internet, or computer technology at all. It was physical vandalism, performed on the premises, in the flesh, by LG workers.
  
  --
  Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
9. Re:This means war! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-27 00:42 · Score: 0
  
  The post was a joke, Admiral Aspergers.
10. Re:This means war! by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2014-12-27 00:52 · Score: 1
  
  There are many vacuum-cleaner use cases and maximum power is not necessarily a requirement in all of them. I have a 2-in-1 floor/handheld Electrolux cordless that I'm rather partial to. No it's as powerful as the corded one, but I don't need something that big to nab a few stray bits of whatever from my desk top.
  
  --
  Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
11. Re:This means war! by TheRealHocusLocus · 2014-12-27 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  Come see the Battle of the Appliances! Coming to a home near you!
  Been there, done that. In 1971. Push em over! Here's where Robot's Rules of Order don't apply... at Hideo Nut's Bolt-A-Drome! ... as seen on "Who Asked For It" ... strap on your servo-mitts and pit your nettle against common household appliances ... step right up ... think you can go three rounds with this water heater sailor, looks easy! But sealed in the back of this metal Mother is a Radar Activated Stamping and Siezing Module that will keep a man punchin' ... until he's drunk with power ... a man like YOU ... all up inside for Hideo Nut's Bolt-A-Drome...!
  Kid, I dreamt I went there once, but fightin' is out of style now.
  
  --
  <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
12. Re:This means war! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 05:56 · Score: 0
  
  Kid, I dreamt I went there once, but fightin' is out of style now.
  Enjoyed the Bozos quote. Not enough Firesign gets quoted here...
it wasn't vandalism by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 15:28 · Score: 0

They just put the plastic cups in the bottom.
1. Re: it wasn't vandalism by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-27 07:51 · Score: 0
  
  So this might be the funniest thing I've read all day. Thank you!
I Always Liked the Cardasian Justice System by wisnoskij · 2014-12-26 15:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

Say all you want about innocent until proven guilty, but when when the government has the right to detain, raid, and otherwise completely interrupt/ruin your life on a whim or allegation, how is that fair? Sure they cannot send you to prison without a trial, but they can detain you in a prison until a trial. They cannot fine or punish you without a trial, but they can raid and seize evidence on almost 0 grounds.

Compare this to the Cardassian system that will not detain you, will not question you, will not release to the public any allegations, you lose 0 rights and are not even inconvenienced until your guilt is proven. They are given the burden of proving your guilt before they can do any of these things.

--
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
1. Re:I Always Liked the Cardasian Justice System by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 15:42 · Score: 0
  
  Is that the Kim Cardassian justice system?
2. Re:I Always Liked the Cardasian Justice System by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 15:46 · Score: 0
  
  Compare this to the Cardassian system that will not detain you, will not question you, will not release to the public any allegations, you lose 0 rights and are not even inconvenienced until your guilt is proven. They are given the burden of proving your guilt before they can do any of these things.
  I'm not sure if you misspelled Kardashian, or if you intentionally cited a fictional race in a spin-off of a canceled TV show, but in either case I need more Chex Mix.
3. Re:I Always Liked the Cardasian Justice System by Opportunist · 2014-12-26 15:58 · Score: 2
  
  I'm more partial to a polar justice system. It gives you a perfectly clear direction and says exactly just how far you may go. But don't you think that kinda goes off on a tangent now?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
4. Re:I Always Liked the Cardasian Justice System by Rizgar · 2014-12-26 15:59 · Score: 2
  
  It wasn't cancelled, it ran a good course and the cardassians appeared in many spin-offs.
5. Re:I Always Liked the Cardasian Justice System by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 16:02 · Score: 0
  
  O'Brien and Picard would like to have a word with you.
6. Re:I Always Liked the Cardasian Justice System by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 16:18 · Score: 0
  
  Those Kardashians are a weird race
7. Re:I Always Liked the Cardasian Justice System by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 16:22 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  If you had ever watched Star Trek you would know the Cardassians had little interest in truth of justice, and were notorious for executing or incarcerating innocent people. For some proof please watch these episodes:
  Deep Space 9 - Season 2 Episode 25 - Tribunal
  Deep Space 9 - Season 5 Episode 8 - Things Past
8. Re:I Always Liked the Cardasian Justice System by thegarbz · 2014-12-26 16:35 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Really? The government shouldn't have a right to detain people who are a potential flight risk? They shouldn't have the right to raid an office in search of evidence which may be potentially destroyed? This all seems to be part of a basic allegation.
  On the flip side we can look at issues like the "terrorist" attack in Sydney last week, you know the one committed by a guy who was out on bail awaiting trial for 50 counts of sexual assault and accessory to murder?
  Or just look at the countless cases of destroyed evidence which appear in the news every day.
  I think the opposite to you. On an allegation any reasonable steps need to be taken to ensure they are investigated. People shouldn't be allowed to leave the country, offices should be raided. Otherwise it is simply too easy to avoid prosecution.
9. Re:I Always Liked the Cardasian Justice System by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 16:41 · Score: 0
  
  Say all you want about innocent until proven guilty, but when when the government has the right to detain, raid, and otherwise completely interrupt/ruin your life on a whim or allegation, how is that fair?
  I don't care just so long as the corporate order is maintained. If corporations aren't running things, then who will?
10. Re:I Always Liked the Cardasian Justice System by wisnoskij · 2014-12-26 16:53 · Score: 2
  
  So their government can be overbearing and tyrannical, they can fabricate evidence and try innocent people. News flash, American does that all the time. At least on Cardassia you are truly innocent until proven guilty. At least on Cardassia you cannot be impassioned without a trial, you cannot be held up in courts for decades and have your resources witted away by a richer opponent. At least on Cardassia the amount of justice you get is not equal to how much you can buy.
  
  --
  Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
11. Re:I Always Liked the Cardasian Justice System by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 17:32 · Score: 0
  
  > The government shouldn't have a right to detain people who are a potential flight risk?
  I don't think so. Potential flight risk means a judge is facing a black and white decision. It's not that the thought of an inconvenience is unthinkable, but it is usually a blanket to the alternative of "nothing at all". The solution is to tag and release, like anyone else we want to track and/or you have an escort. Someone gets out of the country, that's the border patrol's problem...in an ideal world. Go track em down and execute them. CIA might get you because you opted out of the US justice system. We aren't even working toward a balance of ideology and practice anymore*. The concept of "innocent until proven guilty" has been so far impuned in the interest of "convenience of the court" that I am satisfied we can dispense with the whole thing, for now (and maybe forever). Someone just needs to say "we aren't going to teach that anymore".
  *I do believe this is the sort of job that robots will have one day, if we're lucky (eg scifi tracking drones).
12. Re:I Always Liked the Cardasian Justice System by Lehk228 · 2014-12-26 17:49 · Score: 1
  
  under the Cardassian system guilt and execution date are determined before the trial starts.
  
  --
  Snowden and Manning are heroes.
13. Re:I Always Liked the Cardasian Justice System by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 17:57 · Score: 0
  
  ... At least on Cardassia you cannot be impassioned without a trial, ...
  How's that work?
  And does it involve a Cardassian sex tape?
14. Re:I Always Liked the Cardasian Justice System by Joe_Dragon · 2014-12-26 18:10 · Score: 0
  
  what about the klingon one where you can just kill your command officer and take over.
15. Re:I Always Liked the Cardasian Justice System by wisnoskij · 2014-12-26 18:10 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly, it is neither fair nor just to put an innocent man on trial. To make an innocent man prove his innocence. Unless the justice system can prove that you are guilty, you should not be put through that. Look at Julian Assange, stuck in an embassy for years now, because he is wanted for questioning. The officials do not have to prove anything, they do not need anything to call you down to the police station to talk, and then you never leave.
  
  --
  Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
16. Re:I Always Liked the Cardasian Justice System by wisnoskij · 2014-12-26 18:11 · Score: 1
  
  That is not a justice system, that is a military command structure.
  
  --
  Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
17. Re:I Always Liked the Cardasian Justice System by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 18:34 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Say all you want about innocent until proven guilty, but when when the government has the right to detain, raid, and otherwise completely interrupt/ruin your life on a whim or allegation, how is that fair?
  It's not. Life's not fair. The whole point of granting government a right to detain, raid (with a warrant), or otherwise interrupt your life is to grant them sufficient power to attempt to carry out justice. Ie, it's a compromise against either anarchy or a police state.
  
  Sure they cannot send you to prison without a trial, but they can detain you in a prison until a trial. They cannot fine or punish you without a trial, but they can raid and seize evidence on almost 0 grounds.
  Yea, uh, that last part requires a warrant and it's not "almost 0 grounds". Courts (well, all except FISA) don't just rubber stamp things.
  
  Compare this to the Cardassian system that will not detain you, will not question you, will not release to the public any allegations, you lose 0 rights and are not even inconvenienced until your guilt is proven. They are given the burden of proving your guilt before they can do any of these things.
  And how do they prove your guilt? Oh, by constantly monitoring you 24/7. You live your entire life in a prison and it's up to the Obsidian Order to decide if you're being loyal enough or patriotic enough or whether their whim fancies to call you guilty of any number of crimes you're almost certainly guilty of. And best of all, the verdict is known from the start and the trial is but a show to test the people's loyalties, to make sure they're cheerleading loud enough. It's all straight out of 1984.
  Honestly, if you think the Cardassian system is based on any sort of justice, you have to look no further than the way in which all other police states have functioned. Those in power execute their adversaries and those low enough in the political space (the vast peons) try not to stand out or otherwise offend anyone with any sort of government connect, lest they be charged with 99 counts of jaywalking and left to die in prison.
  You see, there's more to a justice system than dishing out punishment on legitimate crimes committed. A large part of the very first complaint you make is a strength, as it prevents pervasive punishment of all crimes but instead focusing on suspicious, large, or habitual offenders who themselves are much more of a burden on society than the inconvenience of short-term detainment by law enforcement. You can argue that our current system in the US grants too much power to LEOs to search (which I agree with) or that warrants at the highest levels are being very abused (again, I'd agree). But a step towards radical authoritarianism is to merely grant the relatively light abuses by LEOs into fully sanctioned abuses without any useful line to protect us because the jury, the trial, and the sentence all get thrown out when the government decides you're guilty and there's nothing to stop them.
  But, yea, keep believing that a monoculture of power is a solution to a degradation in the multiculture of power we have now.
18. Re:I Always Liked the Cardasian Justice System by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 23:29 · Score: 0
  
  Sure they cannot send you to prison without a trial, but they can detain you in a prison until a trial. They cannot fine or punish you without a trial, but they can raid and seize evidence on almost 0 grounds.
  Yea, uh, that last part requires a warrant and it's not "almost 0 grounds". Courts (well, all except FISA) don't just rubber stamp things.
  Are we still talking about the U.S.A. here? Look up "civil forfeiture". If police officers can get on your grounds on any pretense, they can seize and auction off your house without an actual conviction, trial, or even warrant.
  You might get part of the money back if you invest enough money in lawyers but it really depends on how cozy the judges are with your local law enforcement.
19. Re:I Always Liked the Cardasian Justice System by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-27 02:15 · Score: 0
  
  On an allegation any reasonable steps need to be taken to ensure they are investigated. People shouldn't be allowed to leave the country, offices should be raided.
  Well, I allege that you assaulted me this past summer. Better cancel any holiday plans you might have.
20. Re:I Always Liked the Cardasian Justice System by wisnoskij · 2014-12-27 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  A common misunderstanding. Yes, the your guilt is decided before the "trial", but that is the whole point. The "trial" is an integral step where the government is required to show the populace, how it is metering out justice. To prove to them, and the accused, that justice is being done. This does not prevent a "trial" in the same sense as the West knows. They can still have a jury of your peers, if you are into that (though I do not think we were given any reason to believe that that happens on Cardassia), they still must gather evidence and have a judge judge its validity and if guilty come up with a sentence. The only thing it prevents is allowing the accused to defend/speak himself; Which really does not happen in real life anyways (Your Lawyer speaks for you, you do not run around solving your own crime, proving your innocence).
  
  As for the surveillance state, that reminds me a whole lot more of America or the UK than any thing else, and is a separate issue. Yes, the Obsidian Order has too much power, yes they go around assassinating their own people, yes Cardassia is pretty tyrannical; But those are separable parts of its governing process.
  
  --
  Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
21. Re: I Always Liked the Cardasian Justice System by C0R1D4N · 2014-12-27 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  But on Cardassia you don't get to mount your own defense
22. Re: I Always Liked the Cardasian Justice System by wisnoskij · 2014-12-27 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  Do you get that chance in America, or the UK?
  The idea of running around solving your own crime, proving your innocence, is a fiction for films and TV
  And the idea of doing anything other than paying for the best lawyer you can afford, and sitting in a chair in the courtroom as he mounts the best defense possible is not any more realistic than running around solving some murder you have been accused of. In America must buy your justice, and most people cannot afford much. You simply cannot defend yourself, not only is the law incredibly convoluted and set up in such a way that to do anything you pretty much need a team of people who have dedicated their life to knowing it, but it is almost impossible to even get advise. It is literally illegal for a non lawyer to give you advise, I have tried, and no real lawyer will do so unless they are paid.
  
  --
  Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
23. Re:I Always Liked the Cardasian Justice System by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-27 08:13 · Score: 0
  
  Those Kardashians are a weird race
  Perhaps they're a doomed race...
24. Re:I Always Liked the Cardasian Justice System by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-27 10:55 · Score: 0
  
  Agreed. Better a thousand innocent people get locked up and stolen from rather than a single guilty person roam free!
25. Re:I Always Liked the Cardasian Justice System by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  A common misunderstanding. Yes, the your guilt is decided before the "trial", but that is the whole point. The "trial" is an integral step where the government is required to show the populace, how it is metering out justice. To prove to them, and the accused, that justice is being done. This does not prevent a "trial" in the same sense as the West knows.
  Actually, it does. An integral part of a trial is that the accused has access to the evidence, the means of collection, and a means to defend themselves even if it's as the people's expense. One can definitely argue that such a system still favors the rich and the prosecutor power is still very overwhelming, but that speaks more about refining the judicial process and not abandoning it in favor of a one-sided system where those who wish to "prove" guilty can manufacturer evidence and the person charged has no time or means to defend themselves.
  
  They can still have a jury of your peers, if you are into that (though I do not think we were given any reason to believe that that happens on Cardassia), they still must gather evidence and have a judge judge its validity and if guilty come up with a sentence. The only thing it prevents is allowing the accused to defend/speak himself; Which really does not happen in real life anyways (Your Lawyer speaks for you, you do not run around solving your own crime, proving your innocence).
  Read above. Under the current system, we admittedly have the issue that people put too much faith in police and prosecutors not to lie, the believe that only people who are guilty (or seemingly very much look it) go to trial, and the system is rigged with the idea of proving guilty instead of trying to prove innocence. Yet we have a jury who has the power to question the police, a defense lawyer who can bring up issues of doubt, much greater access to the evidence* than ever presented in the Cardassian system, etc. To pretend that it's merely an ability to speak on the stand or not that's the differentiation really ignores a lot of the procedure that does grant the defense a lot more power than that. If it were as you say, then yes, our current system would already be pretty synonymous with the Cardassian one.
  
  As for the surveillance state, that reminds me a whole lot more of America or the UK than any thing else, and is a separate issue. Yes, the Obsidian Order has too much power, yes they go around assassinating their own people, yes Cardassia is pretty tyrannical; But those are separable parts of its governing process.
  Quite the contrary. Only in a police--ie, what you call a surveillance--state would leave the people to believe those in power have the information to determine a person's guilty without some proceeding to collect evidence. You will note that the NSA/CIA/FBI have consistently striven to not merely use their illegally collected evidence in courts but to try to contrive a means they could have acquired the information otherwise--parallel construction--precisely because it is inadmissible to use such evidence. Yes, the US and UK are moving much more towards a police state and work should be done to move away from it, not embrace it.
  Honestly, the whole point is that the government wants to project the appearance of omniscience and infallibility to control the people under the guise of a benevolent dictator. Yet all the evidence is that absolute power**--a byproduct of absolute information--inherently leads to tyranny given sufficient time. This is, btw, the largest reason systems like Communism fail. It isn't that the ideology is per se faulty but that its inherent philosophy is against trust but verify or a system of checks and balances. It's little wonder Leninism quickly made way to Stanilnism and such would be the same under a Cardassian-like system adopted in the US or any other Democracy.
  *This is one reason why "National Security" is clearly a link in the chain to ty
26. Re:I Always Liked the Cardasian Justice System by wisnoskij · 2014-12-28 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, it does. An integral part of a trial is that the accused has access to the evidence, the means of collection, and a means to defend themselves even if it's as the people's expense. One can definitely argue that such a system still favors the rich and the prosecutor power is still very overwhelming, but that speaks more about refining the judicial process and not abandoning it in favor of a one-sided system where those who wish to "prove" guilty can manufacturer evidence and the person charged has no time or means to defend themselves.
  Most of this is handled in the Cardassian version of a trial. They go over all the evidence with you, and the public, show how they got it and everything. At this point, yes your guilt has been proven, but if you actually have any information that could exonerate you (if you have the ability to defend yourself better than a lawyer) then their is nothign stopping that from happening. People get proven innocent after being found guilty all the time, there is no reason this would change if we used a different system. You are just not forced to defend yourself until very credible and damning claims have been brought against you. Instead of a system that says: "We kindof think that maybe you did something wrong, we do not have a lot of evidence but we are going to need you to prove you did not do it or you are going to jail", the Cardassian system is: "We have all this evidence that you did something wrong, actually more than enough to prove you did it, beyond a reasonable doubt. So we are going to lock you away now (but no one is stopping you (or someone else) from speaking and proving your innocence)."
  
  Read above. Under the current system, we admittedly have the issue that people put too much faith in police and prosecutors not to lie, the believe that only people who are guilty (or seemingly very much look it) go to trial, and the system is rigged with the idea of proving guilty instead of trying to prove innocence. Yet we have a jury who has the power to question the police, a defense lawyer who can bring up issues of doubt, much greater access to the evidence* than ever presented in the Cardassian system, etc. To pretend that it's merely an ability to speak on the stand or not that's the differentiation really ignores a lot of the procedure that does grant the defense a lot more power than that. If it were as you say, then yes, our current system would already be pretty synonymous with the Cardassian one.
  Read what I said again, there is nothing in the Cardassian system that at all prevents a jury or a defense lawyer. I personally am not sure that the adversarial system of defense lawyer verses prosecutor is a good one, but there is nothing in the Cardassian system that prevents that system from being used (it very well might be how they internally deliberate). And the same for a jury. There is no reason that the evidence should not be given to a random group of your peers, but unlike our system these people would not have already judged you based on the news report (As your life has not already been ruined by the media deciding your guilt before the trial).
  
  Quite the contrary. Only in a police--ie, what you call a surveillance--state would leave the people to believe those in power have the information to determine a person's guilty without some proceeding to collect evidence.
  There absolutely is a proceeding to collect evidence, the government is just not granted the power to arbitrarily detain people who are not proven to be guilty (or otherwise significantly impact their lives).
  
  It is simply the difference in how much power you want the government to have. I say that if the government is going to punish one of its charges that it has to first prove beyond a reasonable doubt that that person has done wrong, and show this evidence to both the accused and the public. Anything else is a tyranny.
  
  --
  Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
27. Re:I Always Liked the Cardasian Justice System by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 13:03 · Score: 0
  
  Most of this is handled in the Cardassian version of a trial. They go over all the evidence with you, and the public, show how they got it and everything. At this point, yes your guilt has been proven, but if you actually have any information that could exonerate you (if you have the ability to defend yourself better than a lawyer) then their is nothign stopping that from happening.
  The point you're missing is that "all the evidence" is precisely the evidence they've gather to prove your guilt. The notion that there is information that could exonerate you yet they don't find and present but you do indicates they've failed to collect all the evidence and failed to prove your guilt.
  
  People get proven innocent after being found guilty all the time, there is no reason this would change if we used a different system. You are just not forced to defend yourself until very credible and damning claims have been brought against you. Instead of a system that says: "We kindof think that maybe you did something wrong, we do not have a lot of evidence but we are going to need you to prove you did not do it or you are going to jail", the Cardassian system is: "We have all this evidence that you did something wrong, actually more than enough to prove you did it, beyond a reasonable doubt. So we are going to lock you away now (but no one is stopping you (or someone else) from speaking and proving your innocence)."
  It's called a grand jury. You don't go to trial just because they kind of, sort of have evidence against you. They go to trial because the prosecutor believes there's damned evidence and they can prove your guilt. But instead of it being forgone, where you are only presented the charges and all the evidence and the sentence all in one go, the current system indites you, leaves you with the evidence they've gathered, gives you the time and resources* to find evidence to the contrary, and it leaves it to a jury to decide just how right the prosecutor is. Every bit of that is radically different than a unilateral system conducted in what ends up being a kangaroo court.
  
  Read what I said again, there is nothing in the Cardassian system that at all prevents a jury or a defense lawyer. I personally am not sure that the adversarial system of defense lawyer verses prosecutor is a good one, but there is nothing in the Cardassian system that prevents that system from being used (it very well might be how they internally deliberate). And the same for a jury. There is no reason that the evidence should not be given to a random group of your peers, but unlike our system these people would not have already judged you based on the news report (As your life has not already been ruined by the media deciding your guilt before the trial).
  Sure there is. There's no reason for a jury to judge the evidence if your guilt is certain. To have a jury is to argue that the system could be wrong and the evidence might be insufficient. The point of a trial is, as you state, to present the evidence of guilt. It isn't there to prove guilt or to make a determination. It's why, precisely, the "defense" lawyer is there to help you confess to your crimes and why a sentence can already be reached before the proceedings start. As for the media deciding your guilt and ruining your life, I dare say that having a bad reputation is not nearly as bad as being restricted to an 8'x8'x8' cage for the rest of your life. Having said that, yes, it'd be nice if the media wouldn't jump to conclusions. By the same token, it'd be nice if judiciary proceedings were more open.
  
  There absolutely is a proceeding to collect evidence, the government is just not granted the power to arbitrarily detain people who are not proven to be guilty (or otherwise significantly impact their lives).
  It is simply the difference in how much power you want the government to have. I say that if the government is going to pu
I doubt it. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 15:42 · Score: 0

I'm very skeptical about this story, since LG and Samsung *in the US anyway* actually distribute each others products. Depending on the market and who's name is considered to be more premium for that particular type of consumer good, the company with the best reputation will be sold at retail, and the other will be sold at wholesale clubs *if at all*.
1. Re:I doubt it. by TWX · 2014-12-26 17:03 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  That's because, up until a few years ago, nearly all US-distributed appliances came out of a manufacturing plant in Evansville, Indiana, owned by the Whirlpool Corporation. Didn't matter if it was badged as Amana, Kenmore, Whirlpool, or any of a whole host of brands, they were all effectively the same machines.
  
  Whirlpool screwed up. That screwup allowed other manufacturers to get a more of a foothold here, ones that could leverage previous badge-engineering and then transition to other sources for the products. It's similar to how GM and Isuzu screwed up and licensed the Isuzu Rodeo (MU) to Honda as the Passport, so Honda could get a jump on the SUV/CUV craze and establish themselves earlier than they would have been able to without having it in the first place.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
2. Re: I doubt it. by bill_mcgonigle · 2014-12-26 19:13 · Score: 1
  
  hey, I had a GE made in Mexico about a decade ago - complete junk. I just gave away a Bosch too - also junk. Before the GE was Whirlpool junk. Replaced the Bosch with a Maytag, a model with a grinder, and it's the first dishwasher I've bought that I haven't hated in two decades. Not sure where it's made.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
3. Re: I doubt it. by whoever57 · 2014-12-26 19:52 · Score: 1
  
  Replaced the Bosch with a Maytag, a model with a grinder, and it's the first dishwasher I've bought that I haven't hated in two decades. Not sure where it's made.
  Good luck with that Maytag. I replaced a 20+ year old Whirlpool washer with a Maytag (the Whirlpool was working, but the tub was rusting out). The Maytag failed about 5 years later, and was not economically repairable.
  
  --
  The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
4. Re: I doubt it. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 23:31 · Score: 0
  
  Out of curiousity: where was the Bosch made? European-made Bosch appliances tend to be excellent, but the Chinese-made stuff they sell is often mediocre at best.
5. Re: I doubt it. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-27 07:20 · Score: 0
  
  Out of curiousity: where was the Bosch made? European-made Bosch appliances tend to be excellent, but the Chinese-made stuff they sell is often mediocre at best.
  Since about 10 years ago Bosch has had several manufacturing facilities in the US including for home appliances. A Bosch dishwasher or clothes washer bought in the U.S. was most likely made in the U.S. and designed to the standards of US-born management. *sigh*
It was only a floor model anyhow by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 16:09 · Score: 0

The LG guys were just tired. And they stopped to rest on the door. And it just happened to snap. On two different washers in the same store. Nothing to see here folks, move along.
Korea by SleepyHappyDoc · 2014-12-26 16:12 · Score: 1

Which department of Samsung do the prosecutors work for? Legal?

--
Stasis is death. Embrace change.
Maytag diddit! by the_skywise · 2014-12-26 16:15 · Score: 2

Obviously Maytag did it and framed LG!
Surely this should be in the idle section..? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 16:58 · Score: 1

I don't see how this is news that matters...
US, UK Bill of rights require bail by raymorris · 2014-12-26 17:49 · Score: 1

> Potential flight risk means a judge is facing a black and white decision. It's not that the thought of an inconvenience is unthinkable, but it is usually a blanket to the alternative of "nothing at all". The solution is to tag and release, like anyone else we want to track and/or you have an escort. Someone gets out of the country, that's the border patrol's problem...in an ideal world. Go track em down and execute them
No escort needed, catch and release is called "bail" and it's been around for thousands of years. No need for an escort either; you (or someone willing to take responsibility for you) just put up 10% of the cost of your fine or of the cost to track you down, or put up collateral. When the 5% flee, the bail money pays the bounty hunter.
I suppose if you opt for paying just the 10%, you end up with something of an "escort" in that your bondsman, who is on the hook for the full amount, will want you stop by or call in once per week.
I worked as a bounty hunter for a short time. Interesting work. Some people took care of their FTA after the bondsman called and reminded them they were subjeft to arrest. Of the people who didn't do that, most would immediately bond out again, at twice the price, and show up the second time.
1. Re:US, UK Bill of rights require bail by Dereck1701 · 2014-12-27 01:37 · Score: 1
  
  Bail is great in theory, but I think it is abused a lot these days. There was a case not long ago where a teen ranted on an internet board about a video game and was arrested for "terrorist threats". He was given a $500,000 "bail" amount and left to rot in a cell (an anonymous donor put up the money after about 4 months when the media got a hold of the story). Your average person has no chance of putting up bails like that, like a lot of things unfortunately in our society these days they put "common sense regulations" in place that don't make something outright illegal/impossible but that your average person has no way of attaining. By the way it looks like they still haven't went to trial or dropped the charges, almost 2 years later and he still has that $500K bail over his head.
Re:Spoiler: Kim Jong Un Dies In "The Interview" by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 18:47 · Score: 0

No idea.
-TrisexualPuppy
Fuck Samsung by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 19:50 · Score: 0

'nuff said. This fucking leeching, copying, litigating, and price-dumping scum of a company deserves to die.
The prosecutors went in ... by Alain+Williams · 2014-12-26 21:52 · Score: 1

Looking for a dish of dirty little secrets, but everything was clean!
Boom! Boom! :-)
Only one explanation for this story by gnasher719 · 2014-12-26 23:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

Let's look at the facts: It is alleged that LG employees destroyed Samsung property in Germany. For starters, the only place where this should possibly go to court is Germany. None of the business of the Korean police at all. The crime happened in Germany. It's like one Korean CEO punching another Korean CEO in the face _in Germany_: We all enjoy it, and the first CEO would be questioned by police and go to court and possibly to jail _in Germany_.

Second, offices of LG in Korea have been raided. What evidence did they expect to find? For a raid (which I assume is just a search with a warrant, and lots of police arriving because it is a big office), the police would have a reasonable expectation to find proof of a crime. Well, in Korea, there is of course another explanation: If Samsung calls the right minister whom they own, any search warrant will come forward immediately.

But then a raid on an LG factory? What evidence in connection with a purported case of vandalism are the police expecting to find in an LG factory? Only possible explanation, same as above.

CEO not allowed to leave the country? That's getting bizarre. Do they think he won't come back? Never heard of bail?

I think it's getting time for LG to buy some politicians themselves. Worst case if someone gets convicted, they can then expect a pardon, like Samsung's ex-CEO (convicted for tax evasion).
1. Re:Only one explanation for this story by towermac · 2014-12-26 23:40 · Score: 2
  
  That's a pretty big overreaction for breaking the door hinges on the showroom models. The LG people might have only been 'testing' the Samsung model to LG standards. As in, putting a lot of weight on the door to simulate really heavy dishes.
  There's an implication here: LG's door hinges are far stronger than Samsung's. If that is true, then the LG people have a viable defense, in that they didn't do anything that their own dishwasher couldn't handle. They are setup for demonstration purposes, and allowed to be touched and handled.
  Also, leave it to the Koreans to make a dishwasher show exciting, and now I sort of want to go to one. Maybe next year some kung-fu will break out. That'd be awesome..
2. Re:Only one explanation for this story by TobiX · 2014-12-27 00:22 · Score: 2
  
  There is a reasonable explanation, which you are failing to see. If LG employees were instructed to destroyed Samsung property by their employer, and if at some level LG personnel was dumb enough to write it down in an email or in a memo, police can find the evidence by raiding their Seoul offices, which is exactly what they did.
3. Re:Only one explanation for this story by gnasher719 · 2014-12-27 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  There is a reasonable explanation, which you are failing to see. If LG employees were instructed to destroyed Samsung property by their employer, ...
  But that is just an accusation without any shred of evidence. You shouldn't be able to get a search warrant just for an accusation without any shred of evidence. And you are not answering my first point: What does Korean police to do with damage that was done in Germany? Only German police should be involved with this, since the crime happened in Germany.
4. Re:Only one explanation for this story by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-27 06:38 · Score: 0
  
  For the case in Germany, if they suspect evidence in Korea, they can ask the Korean government to obtain the evidence for trial in Germany. Sometimes such a request is honored; and, other times they keep a straight face long enough to get to the hallway before they burst out in laughter.
  If the CEO condoned the vandalism, then we can expect he's a flight risk, so he will be held. Korea is not interested in certain kinds of anti-competitive actions, so they will comply (perhaps in the process bringing up their own charges). I'll imagine that it really boils down to management assisting (or even planning) in the vandalism, and they need to see how high up the chain it went.
  Under such a scenario, it's not that bizarre. After all, computer backup tapes are probably made in onsite data centers, and then sent to warehouses.
5. Re:Only one explanation for this story by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 13:25 · Score: 0
  
  Sounds like a convenient excuse for the police to help industrial espionage take place. I'm thinking that it is all too convenient for Samsung.
Vandalism unnecessary. by BrokenHalo · 2014-12-27 01:05 · Score: 1

Maybe I'm just showing my age (OK, downhill side of 50), but it seems to me that just about any whitegoods type of appliance these days is made to such shoddy standards, it would be pretty much impossible to attribute failure to vandalism on anyone's part.

A dishwasher or washing machine from just about any reputable manufacturer used to last 20+ years. Nowadays we can count ourselves lucky if they work for 5 years. So much for advances in technology. :(
1. Re:Vandalism unnecessary. by Mashiki · 2014-12-27 01:33 · Score: 2
  
  Hell that holds true with fridges among other things. I've got a 1940's style fridge that was my great-grandparents and it's still working. My parents are still using the fridge they got when they were married in 1977. On the other hand the new fridge that I bought 5 years ago has already died, the 3 year old fridge that I bought for my place in florida is already dead. And the same happened to my sister out in western canada, bought a new fridge 3 years ago...already dead. In all those cases, either the compressor died or the coolant leaked out somewhere.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
2. Re:Vandalism unnecessary. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-27 01:44 · Score: 0
  
  Note that the 1940s and 1970s refrigerators are costly to run:
  http://ccetompkins.org/energy/...
3. Re:Vandalism unnecessary. by Dereck1701 · 2014-12-27 01:44 · Score: 2
  
  There have been great advances in technology, for the manufacturers. Its called "planned obsolescence", now they can cheaply and reliably build an appliance that will last 3-5 years. At point at which it is no longer their problem. And then shortly thereafter it will fail, meaning that you have to purchase a new one. Its a win win for them.
4. Re: Vandalism unnecessary. by charles05663 · 2014-12-27 03:38 · Score: 2
  
  It is the Wal-Mart effect. Wal-Mart perfected the notion that they can sell insanely cheap crap that will break after a few years and will need replacing instead of repairing. As we can see, people bought into it.
5. Re: Vandalism unnecessary. by Ksevio · 2014-12-27 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  Newer fridges are much more energy-efficient and cheaper compared to those old models. If you bought an expensive one marked as reliable instead of the cheapest one out there then it would last more than 5 years. The stuff that wasn't as over engineered from the past hasn't survived so we only see the stuff that was.
6. Re:Vandalism unnecessary. by Smauler · 2014-12-27 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe I'm just showing my age (OK, downhill side of 50), but it seems to me that just about any whitegoods type of appliance these days is made to such shoddy standards, it would be pretty much impossible to attribute failure to vandalism on anyone's part.
  They're that much cheaper and better at what they do that they're still better value for money, even if they have a quarter the lifespan. However, they don't have worse lifespans - you're looking back with rose tinted spectacles.
  Repairing any kind of white good costs manpower, and is now almost always not worth it if it is anything more than a simple repair. Manpower used to be much cheaper, and white goods used to be much more expensive, so repairing them used to be economically viable.
  It's not that they've got less reliable, it's that the cost of repairing stuff has gone up, and the cost of new stuff has gone down. It's no wonder more get scrapped quicker when this happens.
7. Re:Vandalism unnecessary. by jelizondo · 2014-12-27 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  I happen to have a Samsung fridge which has been working for over 10 years... I plan to replace it because the paint and the seals are starting to look bad; not because it is failing.
  The Samsung replaced a very old Frigidaire unit which basically I threw out because the Samsung had reduced power consumption, not because the Frigidaire was failing.
  Now, recently I replaced an LG air-conditioned which was almost 10 years old and started to fail. I went an bought another LG unit, technically the same model, only to find it is a POS. The air conduit is actually polystyrene; I thought it was part of the packaging material, but no, it is a structural part of the unit. Every part inside looks like is as thin as possible without a risk of it breaking on first use. If it lasts a couple of years I will be surprised.
  I planned to change the fridge before Xmas, but affer the air-conditioned I paused; it needs more investigation before spending a good deal of money.
  Now, I wonder, what brand of fridge could I buy that will not crap-out in a couple of years?
  
  --
  Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. - Cardinal Wolsey
8. Re:Vandalism unnecessary. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-27 07:24 · Score: 0
  
  I have an air conditioner from the year 2000 which uses a polystyrene air plenum. It still works just fine. The use of polystyrene for an air plenum is actually a good idea. It is a poor conductor of heat and a poor conductor of noise and vibration. It is durable enough for application it is used. Using a metal or hard plastic plenum would make the unit run less efficiently as those materials are better conductors of heat.11
9. Re:Vandalism unnecessary. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-27 10:00 · Score: 0
  
  A lot of people think it's deliberate engineered-to-fail but I honestly disagree:
  Before high-speed digital computers, everything was designed by hand. All the models used to design them were of necessity simple and empirical, and therefore generous safety margins were given to a lot of things as a concession to not knowing the exact behavior.
  Contrast that with today where you can put a workstation under your desk that can computationally simulate almost any product imaginable to N digits of precision, so engineers know exactly how thin the crossmembers can be, exactly what gauge piping to use on the compressor, exactly everything... And so the "built like a tank" safety margins go away.
10. Re: Vandalism unnecessary. by Mashiki · 2014-12-27 12:04 · Score: 1
  
  Newer fridges are much more energy-efficient and cheaper compared to those old models. If you bought an expensive one marked as reliable instead of the cheapest one out there then it would last more than 5 years. The stuff that wasn't as over engineered from the past hasn't survived so we only see the stuff that was.
  Sure, energy efficent is about all the newer models boil down to. As for "reliable" and "expensive" yeah...just keep telling yourself that. It's just like at one point there was one company in north america making all fridges, and dishwashers. There's around 5 now. Said "quality" is "buying brand name."
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
11. Re: Vandalism unnecessary. by toddestan · 2014-12-28 15:35 · Score: 1
  
  I've seen supposed high-end fridges die well before their tenth birthday. That's the problem with these kind of things - it's hard to judge whether an expensive fridge is actually built better, or if it's just a cheap fridge that's been marked up.
12. Re:Vandalism unnecessary. by toddestan · 2014-12-28 15:45 · Score: 1
  
  Keep in mind that the "exactly everything" also includes the expected lifetime of the appliance, which is one of the inputs that goes into their models. So if the expected lifetime is 5 years, that's how long the appliance will be engineered to last.
13. Re: Vandalism unnecessary. by Ksevio · 2014-12-28 17:47 · Score: 1
  
  True - in general, the better quality refrigerators will cost more, but the inverse it not true.
Carter should sue 8th amendment "excessive bail" by raymorris · 2014-12-27 01:59 · Score: 1

The Carter case is f_ed up. Remember, though 10,000 cases were handled that day, and Carter's made the news because it was handled so wrongly. The 9,999 cases handled properly aren't newsworthy.
I'd like to see Carter sue Comal county in federal court for violating his Constitutional right right under the 8th amendment, which bars excessive bail.
We should call the conspiracy "Washergate" by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-27 07:07 · Score: 0

Sorry. I couldn't resist the cheesy pun.
Re:Carter should sue 8th amendment "excessive bail by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-27 07:38 · Score: 0

Luckily we know that no white teenage gamer would ever shoot up a school full of kids. It would be a completely unprecedented event in US history. If it were a muslim that made a comment online about flying an airplane into a building for Allah, the groupthink on Slashdot would be that a $500,000 dollar bail is entirely appropriate.
Re:Carter should sue 8th amendment "excessive bail by Dereck1701 · 2014-12-27 09:45 · Score: 1

"If it were a muslim that made a comment online"
Maybe if they had a bunch of extremest literature, a plane ticket, some weapons, etc. But not if they had none of those and and had never been to an airport in their life. Despite his ranting online Carter had no weapons, no hateful literature and no history of violence.
Washing machines by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 02:46 · Score: 0

Not dishwashers. Is this a RTFA test?