Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

LG Exec Indicted Over Broken Samsung Washing Machine

Posted by samzenpus on from the breaking-the-law-and-machines dept.

itwbennett writes Jo Seong-jin, the head of LG's home appliance division, was indicted Sunday by prosecutors in Seoul for allegedly damaging Samsung Electronics' washing machines before the IFA electronics show in Berlin last September. The company says it was his regular practice to test the rival company's machines, something he has done while working for LG for the past 38 years, and has released closed-circuit television footage in his defense showing him testing Samsung products including washing machines, dish washers and refrigerators. Jo and two other employees are charged with vandalism, defamation and obstruction of business.

132 comments

  1. Taken to the cleaners... by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you break your opponents washing machine, they'll have you "taken the the cleaners"....

    1. Re:Taken to the cleaners... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I don't see any problem with *buying* your competitors product and doing some testing on it.
      Sounds like a good business practice, to see what the competition is up to.

      On the flip side, damaging your competitors products - that you didn't pay for - right before a trade show where they're going to show them off... yup, I'd consider that vandalism and a criminal act.

    2. Re:Taken to the cleaners... by burtosis · · Score: 5, Funny
      Yep, after coming clean he's all washed up. No spin needed, just left out to dry.

      da da dum. I'll be here all day folks

    3. Re:Taken to the cleaners... by Fear+the+Clam · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Agreed. Touching a competitor's setup at a trade fair is bush league.

      I don't buy that "testing" defense for a second. If you're a company that large you test by buying a machine anonymously at retail, take it to your labs, complete a test plan, then take it apart the see the build and components. Just randomly poking at stuff before a trade show isn't even going to give you much data.

    4. Re: Taken to the cleaners... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Given my prior experiences with Samsung appliances, LG guy was just giving prospective customers a taste of the future to come.

    5. Re:Taken to the cleaners... by bobbied · · Score: 4, Funny

      At least these days you don't go though the wringer for this...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    6. Re:Taken to the cleaners... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      . Just randomly poking at stuff before a trade show isn't even going to give you much data.

      While it shouldn't be done before the show... isn't the whole point of bringing units to a trade show so that people can poke and prod and look at them? I've been to trade shows where we had displays we didn't want people to mess with, but they were just hollow shells since there was no sense bringing that much deadweight with us if it was only going to sit there and risk getting lost.

    7. Re:Taken to the cleaners... by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 2

      I have to wonder how the Bill O'Reilly family handle this... he operates a "No Spin Zone".

    8. Re:Taken to the cleaners... by Carewolf · · Score: 5, Funny

      Agreed. Touching a competitor's setup at a trade fair is bush league.

      I don't buy that "testing" defense for a second. If you're a company that large you test by buying a machine anonymously at retail, take it to your labs, complete a test plan, then take it apart the see the build and components. Just randomly poking at stuff before a trade show isn't even going to give you much data.

      Doing this always breaks our machines. I wonder if our competitor has found a way to avoid it breaking?.... Oh, it appears not. How interesting.

    9. Re:Taken to the cleaners... by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      You want hug?....I break washing machine...fuck you!!

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    10. Re:Taken to the cleaners... by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      If you break your opponents washing machine, they'll have you "taken the the cleaners"....

      Don't make light of washergate when you know it should be heavy.

    11. Re:Taken to the cleaners... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Because somebody sent him a set of Samsung's?

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    12. Re:Taken to the cleaners... by kelemvor4 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Agreed. Touching a competitor's setup at a trade fair is bush league.

      I don't buy that "testing" defense for a second. If you're a company that large you test by buying a machine anonymously at retail, take it to your labs, complete a test plan, then take it apart the see the build and components. Just randomly poking at stuff before a trade show isn't even going to give you much data.

      While I wouldn't be surprised if he broke the machines on purpose, I'm assuming these weren't available for purchase yet. That seems to be how companies work (including Samsung and LG) in other spaces such as televisions. In fact, many of those other products that they bring to shows are just concept devices that never make it to market without significant changes.

      While there probably is detailed testing like you describe going on, I think it's reasonable for an exec to check out the competition at a show.

    13. Re:Taken to the cleaners... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      If you can destroy a competitors device in this fashion then it's clearly broken. All of this whining about vandalism and "bush league" sabotage is really just glossing over the sad fact that such "sabotage" is even possible to begin with.

      It seems that this guy only did what anyone else at the expo was able to do.

      It should not be that easy to destroy a washer... even a prototype.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    14. Re:Taken to the cleaners... by mysidia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While there probably is detailed testing like you describe going on, I think it's reasonable for an exec to check out the competition at a show.

      However, if the show has not yet started, then probably nothing gives the competitor the right to do so.

      Frankly, I think the show venue should not allow such testing of machines that are being setup on display, without permission.

      No entering another vendor's booth without their permission and supervision.

      So the charge should be trespassing.

      There's nothing that says the products on display necessarily have to be done yet and 'fit' for normal use. The competitor has no permission to 'operate' the equipment, no manuals, etc, so touching it at all could be deemed as potential abuse.

      Being curious and testing shouldn't be considered as malicious vandalism, as long as its supervised and being tested only to the extent intended by the vendor.

    15. Re:Taken to the cleaners... by mysidia · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It should not be that easy to destroy a washer... even a prototype.

      Subjecting an unfinished product to abuses not intended to be done during the show can expose design defects, but that can be deemed as vandalism.

      The vandalism could be as simple as a scratch on the finish, making the model less attractive, even if still functional

    16. Re:Taken to the cleaners... by vux984 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Did you watch the video?

      He opened the door, and applied his weight to it. Apparently this damaged the hinges.

      I couldn't tell whether he put a reasonable or unreasonable stress on it. A reasonable amount of test would be completely acceptable; and a perfectly valid 'test'. When I shop for cars, its something I look at ... how solid the doors are, do they have any play in them, etc.

      Further the video follows the CCTV footage with commercials demonstrating the door, ... " Look how solid it is!" while they push down on it; showing a child sitting on it... etc. Its a selling point that the door isn't flimsy.

      So... was the guy attempting to damage it? Or was he just curious how solid it was? Did he push harder than reasonable?

      I don't think its cut and dry either way. Let the courts decide.

    17. Re:Taken to the cleaners... by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      You obviously havn't heard that washing machine destruction is the next new Olympic sport :- Here

    18. Re:Taken to the cleaners... by sribe · · Score: 0

      No entering another vendor's booth without their permission...

      Bull. Fucking. Shit. 1) Trade shows are as much about vendors seeing each others' products as the public seeing them. 2) Trade shows are about showing things in public, and in public includes anyone.

      The rest of your post aside from this specious trespassing claim, I agree with.

    19. Re:Taken to the cleaners... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You want them to buy them before they are on sale?

    20. Re:Taken to the cleaners... by Nemyst · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The claim is done in the context that the show hadn't started yet. Just like how a random member of the public wouldn't be expected to be allowed in, I don't think it's spurious to claim that a competitor also has no reason to be able to come over to your booth and start messing with your stuff. Once the show's started, all of that changes, of course.

    21. Re:Taken to the cleaners... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Years ago I was visiting a GE Healthcare booth, and with a few keystrokes crashed their system and the rep could not get it back up and running. Did this mean their system was no good? Not really. It was a pre-production presentation system.

      In this case, it looks like the LG exec wanted to disable a competitors product before the show. Hardly something I would wan to defend.

    22. Re:Taken to the cleaners... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Very few things in our civilization can long resist a deliberate attempt to break them.

      Throw a brick at your window this evening and see what happens. Open your dishwasher and stand on the door. Let us know how that works out.

    23. Re:Taken to the cleaners... by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      putting your full weight on the door is NOT normal treatment. That was action clearly intended to push the components past their designed stress capacity. In fact, I would be concerned if the hinge DIDN'T give way with someone's full weight on it - what if it was your neck across it? Would you want the hinge to hold turning the door into a garotte? Or would you want it to give way, potentially saving your life?

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    24. Re:Taken to the cleaners... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      IIRC, they didn't break the units at the trade show. They were at some local store where they broke them. Still stupid and bizarre, but not that cheesy.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    25. Re:Taken to the cleaners... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not his job to do destructive tests on his competitor's gear, let alone damage it before a trade show starts. In the best of cases they were lying about the ruggedness of their doors (and why would they?) and even then, he was not invited to break it by applying whatever reasonable or unreasonable force. I would be very pissed myself, especially if this renders the model useless to perform any other demonstrations. No court decision necessary, say away from others' stuff.

    26. Re:Taken to the cleaners... by sribe · · Score: 2

      The claim is done in the context that the show hadn't started yet.... Once the show's started, all of that changes, of course.

      OK. I'll agree with that restriction.

      Aside: back in the 1980s when electronic publishing was new, and still very expensive and very much not for the desktop, Seybold was the big show for that industry. Kodak personnel would hide their name badges when they'd visit other booths, in an attempt to not be noticed. (Yeah, that worked really well, NOT.) And they were notorious for grabbing personnel from other vendors by the elbow and strong-arming them out their booth. Somebody would complain to show management, show management would pay them a visit, and they'd stop. For a while. Then they'd start doing it all over again. Unless you were in a company where you competed with Kodak, you'd never have a clue how unethically that company was run--Polariod was just the tip of the iceberg with regards to their IP theft and dirty dealing. I've been out of that industry for over 25 years, but I still felt a little glimmer of glee when they went under...

    27. Re:Taken to the cleaners... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you want the hinge to hold turning the door into a garotte?

      As opposed to all the other edges around a typical laundry location, like the edge of the top of the same machine? And there is a big gap between a door coming clean off and being rock solid. It is easy enough to have cheap hinges that bend or flex to the point of being unusable, but the door not moving much. That is not going to absorb much of an impact.

    28. Re:Taken to the cleaners... by vux984 · · Score: 2

      putting your full weight on the door is NOT normal treatment

      I watched the video. I didn't see him put his full weight on it. I couldn't say how much weight he did put on it .. 10kg, 20kg? Maybe 40kg? Even that seems pretty reasonable for it to endure without being ruined.

      I would be concerned if the hinge DIDN'T give way with someone's full weight on it

      You mean like nearly every other surface in your home? I mean what if you fell neck first on your tub? Does it give way? What if you fell neck first onto your toilet? Does it give way? What about your coffee table? Filing cabinet? Kitchen table? The railing along your decks, balconies, and stairs? Do all those give way when you do a neck-first-dive on their edges?

      Are you In fact, concerned that they don't? Because I could easily crush your throat on all of them if I were so inclined.

      I probably wouldn't even think to use the washing machine door.... there's a toilet just a few feet further away, and that lets me combine drowning and humiliation with throat crushing.

    29. Re:Taken to the cleaners... by Aereus · · Score: 2

      The problem here is they probably had the units setup and working for the start of the show, and come time for the reveal -- suddenly they are broken because this competitor was messing with them prior to opening. Yeah they might have broken during others testing during the show -- but at least that is with Samsung staff around to guide the demonstration or watch over the testing.

    30. Re:Taken to the cleaners... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      While I wouldn't be surprised if he broke the machines on purpose, I'm assuming these weren't available for purchase yet. That seems to be how companies work (including Samsung and LG) in other spaces such as televisions. In fact, many of those other products that they bring to shows are just concept devices that never make it to market without significant changes. Devices have been availble to review, test at trade shows for just about ever.

      And there you have the exact reason that Tesla instruments their vehicles to find out how the testers/reviewers intentionally screw them up. I suspect future Samsung devices will be instrumented and under surveillance at these shows.

      For simple transfer of money, people will kill you. Bitching up your hardware is probably considered sound business ethics because of plausibility.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    31. Re:Taken to the cleaners... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      It should not be that easy to destroy a washer... even a prototype.

      But it is. Amazing what you can to with a pair of diagonal cutters on a power cord. Or even a pin through it. The latter makes for some nasty entertainment. Sparks fly, circuit breakers blow. And it only takes a few seconds to do.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    32. Re:Taken to the cleaners... by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      new tubs are made of laminated composite, which is designed to SHATTER if you drop something heavy like a deadweight human body on it. This is primarily to prevent drowning. I won't even go there with the rest of it because frankly I think you're being a twat for the sake of being a twat.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    33. Re:Taken to the cleaners... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, so that's why I find the feel of the newer tubs annoying. I didn't realize it was a safety feature. Thanks.

    34. Re:Taken to the cleaners... by belmolis · · Score: 1

      As best I could tell from the video, he didn't deliberately damage the machine. He was checking it out in the same way a consumer who had had experience of shoddy construction would. Also, I wonder about the idea that those machines were to be used at the trade show. According to the article, the machines were located in retail stores, in the same city as the trade show, but not at the trade show location. So it isn't the case that he got onto the trade show floor in advanced and messed with the machines that they had set up for the show.

    35. Re:Taken to the cleaners... by dave420 · · Score: 1

      He was standing next to two Samsung employees (wearing their Samsung shirts and everything) while he tested the hinges. They were supervising him, and allowed him to do what he did.

      Trespassing? In a trade show? Really?

    36. Re:Taken to the cleaners... by dave420 · · Score: 1

      This is pathetic. People use the doors to balance their washing baskets full of clothes. People with reduced mobility use them to get up and down to use the machine. Leaning on them is expected. You also seem to be missing the fact he was being supervised by at least two uniformed Samsung employees at the time...

      Get a grip, please. You are embarrassing yourself somewhat.

    37. Re:Taken to the cleaners... by ihtoit · · Score: 0

      so if he was being supervised how the FUCK did he manage to fuck the hinge?

      He wasn't being supervised that closely, now was he?

      Any more holes you'd like poking in your expert opinion?

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    38. Re:Taken to the cleaners... by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      there's a toilet just a few feet further away, and that lets me combine drowning and humiliation with throat crushing.

      I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    39. Re:Taken to the cleaners... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Trespassing? In a trade show? Really?

      Why not? You ever been to a concert, where the public is invited into the building, but you may be prosecuted if you sneak in back behind the stage without permission to be there, Or may be prosecuted if you use a pass to get into one area, then sneak into the show next door?

      It would be like an actor going into the theatre before a talent show and messing with the props or lighting behind the stage, when they're supposed to be in the dressing room getting ready.

      They have a right to be in the building, but not a right to be in their competitor's roped out prep area, or the lighting room, or other places.

      The area is not open to the public until the curtain is lifted, and the show starts. The people allowed in generally have a conditional permission to go to certain areas and do certain things to prepare for unveiling.

      Even after the show starts, not all participants are necessarily given a pass with access to all areas. In some cases, vendors rent exhibition space and get discounted passes, but they are restricted to remain in their area.

  2. Tests that are known to fail... by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 1

    Let's see how well a modern laundry machine tests against cleaning an iPhone and a rock at the same time....

  3. Hey well... by Kethinov · · Score: 2

    At least his washing machines will sing you a song when they're done! That's gotta count for something, right? Right?

    --
    You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
    1. Re:Hey well... by Drakonblayde · · Score: 1

      The Samsung's will do the same thing. I speak from direct experience

    2. Re:Hey well... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      when I was shopping for a clothes washer, I went to sears outlet for some discounted units. what I found is that the salesmen guided me away from samsung models. that was the ONLY model that did not come with a warranty (at all!) - and these were refurbs or reconditioned units. not just customer returns, but checked out and cleaned by the store. all other brands came with the regular warranty even though they were not brand new.

      plus, checking out utube videos on sammy washer repairs and the customer service horror stories convinced me that samsung was NOT the brand to buy.

      I keep hearing about bad things and samsung. I wonder what's up with that company? their lcd screens almost always use bad caps that will die very shortly (JUST after warranty period!). their smart tv's spy on you (2 articles in 1 week about sammy tv's). the sammy printer I have insists you accept an EULA that says 'we have the right to SEE everything you print on your printer, and if you disagree, you don't get our printer driver installed!'.

      sammy is really evil. totally fucking evil. wish people would stop buying that brand. I know, they are everywhere, but they are really fucking evil!

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    3. Re:Hey well... by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 1

      I'm not too impressed with their over the range microwaves either. Check out the dreaded 5E error where the keypad just stops working and the unit doesn't respond to keypresses anymore.

      While I'm not too impressed with LG appliances either, they still work at least. Sure, they make weird noises and emit bizarre smells, but they turn on.

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    4. Re: Hey well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Apple considers them their main competitor. So of course there are going to be 'grassroots' people on slashdot astroturfing about how horrible a company they are.

      This is being typed on an LG phone, for full disclosure. I own two Asus tablets and only one Samsung Galaxy Tab.

    5. Re:Hey well... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

      Every brand will have their good and bad models. My first combi oven was a Whirlpool and I was rather pleased with it: quiet, reliable and extremely intuitive to use. So when I moved house I got the latest model Whirlpool oven... and found it to be poorly built with an insane user interface.

      The one brand I'd recommend (for dishwashers and washing machines) without hesitation is Miele. Expensive but built like a rock, they ought to last you a good 15-20 years (my parents replaced one after 28 years, during 15 of which it had run a load a day).

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    6. Re:Hey well... by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 1

      I like the old Filter Flo General Electric washing machines. I've seen cars built more flimsily.

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    7. Re:Hey well... by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      I think 30 years of trouble free operation from a washing machine is the benchmark...15 years? I would never buy that brand again.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    8. Re:Hey well... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      Most tests (from manufacturers as well as consumer advocate groups) seem to indicate 10 years of service or about 3000 runs on average, with a few top brands consistently scoring 1.5 - 2x as good (5000 runs). This is for front loaders, mind; perhaps the numbers are different for top loaders (top loaders are virtually nonexistent here).

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    9. Re:Hey well... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Good luck expecting even 15 years of operation from a washing machine. Today, appliances are designed for a 10 year lifespan. Anything over 10 years is essentially borrowed time waiting for it to break so you can replace it. No company wants to make a washing machine that lasts 30 years which would cost much more than the competitors models. After all, they can sell you a cheaper model that lasts 10 years and then sell you another one every 10 years after that.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    10. Re: Hey well... by war4peace · · Score: 1

      I absolutely hate my S4 Mini. With a passion.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    11. Re:Hey well... by rot26 · · Score: 1

      oven was a Whirlpool and I was rather pleased with it: quiet, reliable and extremely intuitive to use

      There's NOTHING I hate worse than a noisy oven.

      --



      To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
    12. Re:Hey well... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Convection ovens have internal fans. They can get noisy after a while.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    13. Re:Hey well... by rot26 · · Score: 1

      Yes, and as I said, I hate them.

      Was there another point I missed?

      --



      To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
    14. Re:Hey well... by BP9 · · Score: 1

      We got one of their top of the line app-connected fancy front loaders ($1400) 2 years ago. The firmware is absolute crap, for example you can only use a 32 character WPA password (I had to set up another SSID, "Samsung Sucks", with a shorter password just for this thing). They value engineered the processor such that response on the touchscreen controls are laughably slow.

      The connected features are 100% marketing fluff, you have to go to the machine and tell it to make a connection to your phone so you can see how long is left in the cycle (but of course you're standing there so you can just look at the machine at that point). As soon as you leave the app (or the phone goes to sleep) you then have to go back and re-authorize the connection on the front panel. 100% worthless as a feature.

      The washing part did well until it broke with a cryptic error code that according to the service company means "main motor is toast". Samsung does not stock replacement parts (they are on "permanent backorder") so after 2 years we had to buy another washer. The factory authorized service tech told me there are no spare parts available because these can't be repaired reliably in the field even with the parts, something about how they are assembled in the factory is a one way process that is not reproducible in the field.

      The matching dryer fails to boot every 2nd or 3rd time we turn it on so I'm guessing there will be a new one of those in our near term future as well.

      Amazingly enough my review of this POS washer on their website was rejected as 'not meeting review guidlines' -- which meant not a 5 star review. That was really just done for a grin, I didn't expect a critical review to make it through their marketing dept interns.

      tldr: Samsung sucks. A 2 year old machine is completely unrepairable and is now scrap metal due to lack of parts and value engineering, firmware is crap.

    15. Re:Hey well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bosch and Siemens are very good too (at least the more expensive models).

    16. Re:Hey well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You deny the existence of Miele?

    17. Re:Hey well... by BP9 · · Score: 1

      My new current model samsung washer lasted 2 years and couldn't be repaired for any cost because parts are on 'permanent backorder'.

    18. Re:Hey well... by russotto · · Score: 1

      There's NOTHING I hate worse than a noisy oven.

      The Frigidaire slide-in oven has a fan to cool the controls; it's noisy. The Kitchen Aid (as of a couple of years ago) has no such fan. It's quiet. Unfortunately the controls tend to overheat and fail. Also the door glass explodes spontaneously. Still want the quiet one?

    19. Re:Hey well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't mind Barbara Hudson, he's a troll.

    20. Re:Hey well... by rot26 · · Score: 1

      Trolls gotta eat, same as the worms and buzzards

      --



      To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
    21. Re:Hey well... by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Why on earth would they need a fan to cool to the controls? They're not doing anything terribly complicated, it's not like you need a Pentium 4 to control an oven.

    22. Re:Hey well... by toddestan · · Score: 1

      My experience with Bosch is that they're not any better than anyone else. So if you want an appliance that'll only last 5-10 years, you can go with something a lot cheaper than a Bosch.

    23. Re:Hey well... by russotto · · Score: 1

      They get hot from being above an oven.

    24. Re:Hey well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have never had a Bosch device last less than twenty years (and I have many). But then I don't buy the cheapest (Asian made) stuff, only the European made products.

  4. this is malarky. by nimbius · · Score: 4, Funny

    As an industry leading executive for the Maytag corporation, shenanigans like this are an outrage. Our washers have performed flawlessly for years on the other hand, with no outside intervention required to ensure your dress shirts are ripped, your trousers are torn, and the laundry left in 3 gallons of cold murky water. We work tirelessly, I assure you without any 'sabotage,' to create a washer capable of squirting tepid water out of the sides, and delivering that warm rolling black and grey smoke that you've come to expect from Maytag. Its why our slogan is more than just a statement, its a promise.

    Maytag: We'll trip a breaker.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:this is malarky. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Are you *sure* you don't work for Whirlpool? I have a kitchen full of their stuff/junk and I've been very impressed with the lack of quality.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:this is malarky. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whirlpool comes in two flavors: crappy shit made in Mexico and fairly good stuff made in Ohio. Check labels before buying.

    3. Re: this is malarky. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whirlpool owns Maytag now.

    4. Re: this is malarky. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      That explains a LOT actually...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    5. Re: this is malarky. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Nortek (formerly Nordyne) owns Maytag and a crap-ton of other appliance brands. I wouldn't be surprised if Whirlpool was in that pile somewhere, but the parent company is most certainly Nortek.

    6. Re: this is malarky. by Dahan · · Score: 1

      The subject is their washing machines, not HVAC systems. While Nortek may use the Maytag brand name on air conditioners, Whirlpool owns Maytag the washing machine/home appliance company. See, for example, their About page which has a link to Whirlpool captioned "Find out more about our parent company."

      It's not uncommon for large companies to split off a division and sell it to another company.

    7. Re:this is malarky. by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      that is word for word the advertising blurb I suggested for Beko not too long ago. I've got a cooker that is completely FUCKED one WEEK out of warranty.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  5. "Obstruction of Business" by Penguinisto · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Damn - there's a few corps I know of here in the US that would love to get that kind of law on the books...

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    1. Re:"Obstruction of Business" by Improv · · Score: 2

      See "Tortious interference".

      --
      For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
    2. Re:"Obstruction of Business" by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      The US already has laws for that.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    3. Re:"Obstruction of Business" by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      The US already has laws for that.

      The US also has laws against fraud and racketeering. Doesn't seem to apply to companies over a certain size.

    4. Re:"Obstruction of Business" by bobbied · · Score: 2

      The US already has laws for that.

      The US also has laws against fraud and racketeering. Doesn't seem to apply to companies over a certain size.

      Citation please?

      Seems to me that if what you *think* is true that there are a pile of DA's out there who would be vying for a chance to seal their re-election by reeling in the "big fish" you seem to think are there... I don't think it's very common, this fraud and racketeering by large companies you suspect...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    5. Re:"Obstruction of Business" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      vying for a chance to seal their re-election

      Might work in a true-blue liberal state, as long as the company isn't a major regional employer and/or a major backer of your competitor's campaigns. It certainly could come back to bite you if you went on to have larger aspirations like governor or senator.

      Your statement reminds me of all the people that post here insisting that there is no wage difference between men and women because if women really were 75% cheaper than men, companies would be hiring more women. Usually these posts show up while we're wading hip deep in articles about companies and governments trying desperately to get more women into tech so they could hire more women.

    6. Re:"Obstruction of Business" by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but in the US, you don't go to jail for that. Tortious interference is a civil violation.

      If I understand correctly, the Obstruction of business charge is criminal, and can contribute to the exec's potential prison sentence.

      The concept might come to the US by way of international treaty, but for now, I think for now the officials are concentrated at getting copyright extended from civil to criminal with felony jail terms added to the most menial of copyright violations for file downloaders / P2P traders, as part of the upcoming "War on downloaders"

    7. Re:"Obstruction of Business" by mysidia · · Score: 2

      Seems to me that if what you *think* is true that there are a pile of DA's out there who would be vying for a chance to seal their re-election by reeling in the "big fish" you seem to think are there

      The big companies have lawyers, and they work the system thoroughly. The "big fish" are not merely "big", but they have intelligence and many smart people working for them as well. They also have folks surrounding them to help take the "fall" or steer the investigation towards designated scapegoats.

      Attempting to go after so-called "big fish" would not seal their re-election, and it would likely be career suicide.

      They don't get where they are without having a large social network and plenty of contacts within government to call in some kinds of favors with.

      Young bright "hot shot" DA won't be such a hot shot, when there are higher execs in his chain of command breathing down his/her neck, and DA needs to leverage the social network to advance.

    8. Re:"Obstruction of Business" by bobbied · · Score: 2

      Again, Citation please?

      I know the common belief is that large corporations are evil in some way, how else do they become so big? But, apart from the current mythology, I don't see any evidence of what you claim.

      There obviously ARE bad people doing bad things, some of whom work for large corporations, but as a whole, these organizations usually operate within the law. They don't "get away" with illegal stuff just because they have an army of lawyers at their disposal. Most corporations are quite concerned about not breaking the law and go out of their way to avoid even the appearance of it.

      As evidence of my view, I point to the many recent examples where large corporations where indeed cited for breaking laws, fined for it and where individuals involved where convicted. Of further, where companies where found liable in civil court class action suits for their actions.

      What you are claiming is mealy a common mythology, foisted on us by the likes of "Occupy Wall street" and the politicians who use class envy as a wedge issue to get votes. It is not reality true. They don't often break the law and don't get away with it when they do. It's bad business...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    9. Re:"Obstruction of Business" by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      Bank of America? It's been under constant investigation under RICO for the last three years or so. If such behaviour didn't exist, why is there a SPECIFIC law concerning it?

      18 U.S.C. ch. 96 1961-1968 for reference

      the Kessler decision seems to have had little effect on the tobacco industry. In fact, it's bigger than ever.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    10. Re:"Obstruction of Business" by sjames · · Score: 1

      The entire finance industry. Crash the world economy and ...crickets.

    11. Re:"Obstruction of Business" by mysidia · · Score: 1

      What you are claiming is mealy a common mythology, foisted on us by the likes of "Occupy Wall street" and the politicians who use class envy as a wedge issue to get votes. It is not reality true.

      It might be a mythology. That does not necessarily mean there is no truth behind it.

      I point to the many recent examples where large corporations where indeed cited for breaking laws, fined for it and where individuals involved where convicted.

      The analogy I would use, is the lawyers and courts found and crushed a roach that got a bit too careless and gorged themself, so was laying on the kitchen counter and got accidentally discovered.

      The fact that a few roaches have been killed, does not necessarily mean that the walls and attic aren't infested with more.

      There are also bound to be more careless roaches or injured roaches than others.

      They don't "get away" with illegal stuff just because they have an army of lawyers at their disposal.

      They don't often break the law and don't get away with it when they do. It's bad business...

      How would it be bad for business? These roaches cannot easily be detected. They are hiding in the wall. You just think they are savvy businessmen, or perhaps not so savvy. Probably most of them cheat a little bit, and only a few of them cheat a whole lot. Some people can make very slight transgressions from the law over a very long period of time quite covertly and not get caught, especially if they have the resources and persuasiveness to hide their transgressions.

      They might earn $1 billion legitimately and steal $50 million by neglecting to pay some taxes, for example, by exploiting the tax laws of different countries and creative accounting.

      Citation, please?

      Most corporations are quite concerned about not breaking the law and go out of their way to avoid even the appearance of it.

      Correct. Corporations are quite concerned about the appearance of having broken the law, and they wish to avoid liability that could lower profits, but have you already forgotten about how vehicle manufacturers have been concealing hazards from NHTSA and hiding product defects, deeming the risk of lawsuit as cost of doing business? (More expensive to recall than the perceived loss from lawsuits). Companies will even construct policy manuals and other paper trail in order to show 'by the book' policies respecting the law. But do you have a cite showing most larger corporations concerned about adhering to the law, even laws that lose them big $$$, for their own sake, And not solely as a form of risk management?

    12. Re:"Obstruction of Business" by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      The US already has laws for that.

      The US also has laws against fraud and racketeering. Doesn't seem to apply to companies over a certain size.

      Citation please?

      Proof that it doesn't happen? How would that work?

      How about you show me cases where marketing boses or CEOs of a large company is indicted for fraud when they do fraudulent marketing?

    13. Re:"Obstruction of Business" by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Your logic is 100% backwards. You are the one making the claim that the laws against fraud and racketeering don't seem to apply to companies over a certain size. In order to make that claim, you must have at least one example in mind. What is it? On the other hand, expecting a citation for someone being indicted implies that you know there is at least one case where someone should have been indicted, bringing us back to square one.

    14. Re:"Obstruction of Business" by bobbied · · Score: 1

      So, you are saying B of A is definitely guilty of violating the law and don't face consequences for it? Um, they ARE under investigation by your admission. Seems that they *will* be found liable if they broke the law.

      The Kessler decision had plenty of impact on the tobacco industry, They lost their appeal and where found liable for RICO violations. They've paid a LOT of money and endured other sanctions as a result of this decision.

      I fail to see how this proves the point that "The US also has laws against fraud and racketeering. Doesn't seem to apply to companies over a certain size." B of A is pretty darn large as was Phillip Morris. Seems that your data supports MY position that large corporations do indeed get held to account, and that the laws DO apply to even large companies..

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    15. Re:"Obstruction of Business" by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Gee, seems Phillip Morris was found in violation of RICO and held liable...

      http://publichealthlawcenter.o...

      So I have at least one instance which proves your assertion is not exactly true... Where's your proof that "It doesn't happen" because I just proved it does.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    16. Re:"Obstruction of Business" by bobbied · · Score: 1

      The original argument was that Large corporations are not ever called into account for violating the law. I'm asking for citations that prove that.

      What you have provided is a grand example of conjecture with zero proof that companies of a certain size just "get away with it". Sure, there are some bad actors, and bad companies out there, but they DON'T get a pass. When they are discovered, they are punished like any other company.

      I'm not claiming they don't ever do something wrong, I'm just saying that being a huge corporation does not exempt you from being found criminally liable and the perception otherwise is nothing more than mythology born of class envy and politics.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    17. Re:"Obstruction of Business" by bobbied · · Score: 1

      How's that an example of large corporations just getting a pass on having to follow the law? Seems to me that B of A is in a fight with regulators over some of their activities here and has been assessed some pretty big fines so far...

      Not to mention, I'm under the impression that a number of people have been charged in connection to the events you point to, some have faced trial and where convicted. Also, an number of companies involved lost everything in this (i.e. no longer exist), and some face charges, much like Emron did.

      So, which companies violated the law here that are not being held to account?

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    18. Re:"Obstruction of Business" by sjames · · Score: 1

      You seem to be mistaken. Nobody went on trial. A few paid what amounted to a traffic ticket. Many billions in fraud have been ignored.

      There were a few more fines for continuing wrongdoing after the crash (for example, B of A), but even there most of the activity went un-punished. So again, the entire financial sector. Each and every last one of them.

      Imagine if an individual helped terrorists launder money. What do you suppose the odds are that they would be around to open their shop the next day?

      Losing everything was a natural consequence of their actions. It had nothing to do with law enforcement efforts. Plenty of others were saved from their own malfeasance by a huge bailout check.

      Even where fines were issued, ten cents on the dollar for a very profitable crime isn't so much a punishment as it is a fine. Imagine if counterfeiting carried the same penalty. Everyone would try it.

    19. Re:"Obstruction of Business" by mysidia · · Score: 1

      The original argument was that Large corporations are not ever called into account for violating the law. I'm asking for citations that prove that.

      That's not true. You are essentially changing the original argument in order to weaken it. Noone stated large corporations are never called into account, until yourself.

      What you have provided is a grand example of conjecture with zero proof that companies of a certain size just "get away with it"

      The argument has more basis than mere conjecture. The existence of some companies being called into account is proof that it is true that some companies do break the law, and it also shows, that sometimes companies do get called to account.

      There is no evidence to support the contention that all (or most) companies who do break the law get called on it successfully. There is no evidence you provided to support the contention that all companies who get discovered get punished.

      I'm just saying that being a huge corporation does not exempt you from being found criminally liable and the perception otherwise is nothing more than mythology born of class envy and politics.

      The argument is that the larger companies have more resources available at their disposal in order to conceal their wrongdoing, therefore, the larger company is very likely to get away with much larger amounts of wrongdoing.

      It's not a myth, unless you can prove it is a myth.

      There are very good inherent reasons to believe this would be true.

      Conjecture is not necessary. You have only to look at human nature and basic logical deduction and statistics to figure out that this is more likely to be true than what you contend.

    20. Re:"Obstruction of Business" by bobbied · · Score: 1

      You are still trying to advance an argument with nothing but conjecture. You offer no evidence but your assumptions.

      Sorry, I'm not swayed.

      So, your argument amounts to "blind faith" which in this case ignores the clear facts that many large corporations have been called into account in the past. You offer no evidence that many more have been overlooked and have been able to violate the law with impunity.

      The government can and often has brought criminal charges on both companies and the people that run them for violating law. Having lots of money and high paid attorneys may be a buffer that slows down the process, but I can assure you that prosecutors are up to the task and can gain convictions in these cases. They've done it in the past with some very large companies, and they will do it in the future because having money may get you a good lawyer, but being guilty will still get you convicted regardless of who represents you.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    21. Re:"Obstruction of Business" by bobbied · · Score: 1

      I'm going to suggest that you might be wrong here.

      The sub-prime mortgage crisis was largely due to LEGAL trading in a highly unregulated portion of the market. Yea, there where some bad actors, but for the most part the problem was the unregulated house of cards that various traders and firms built up with default swaps and a whole host of things that where traded "on paper" that most people could never understand, and I dare say you likely don't either.

      Yes a few folks did illegal things and got caught as the house of cards fell and the whole scheme unwound. During the unwinding, B of A did some less than ethical things with their foreclosure proceedings and a number of people have been punished for their parts in it. B of A still is unwinding that issue with regulators and their former mortgagees and will likely face civil suits for years to go along with the investigations and possible criminal charges.

      So I would contend they ARE being held accountable. Maybe not as fast as *you* would like to see, but it's happening. AND B of A has put a lot more transparency into their processes to avoid the problems in the future. They are getting their hands slapped.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    22. Re:"Obstruction of Business" by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      what proportion of annual turnover have Morris et al paid over the Kessler decision?

      I daresay not nearly enough to HURT THEM or even cause them to change their behaviour for the better.

      (according to Beachler, Morris, which holds fully 1/7 of the global tobacco industry under its corporate flag, paid 1.1 billion Dollars in 2004 and 550 million in 2010, out of the total global annual revenue for the entire industry in legitimate trade of US$400billion (2008) (Morris makes $28billion in DOMESTIC revenues per year). In six years Philip Morris paid a grand total of 0.5% portion of its annual turnover in RICO penalty, which given the variability of the stock market can be written off as a rounding error! In fact, Morris writes off the fines (or any civil settlement, for that matter) as "goodwill expenses" and claims it back on its tax returns!)

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    23. Re:"Obstruction of Business" by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      Let's start with the entire financial meltdown. How many CEOs in jail so far?

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    24. Re:"Obstruction of Business" by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      And they paid less than a rounding error on their net domestic profits alone.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    25. Re:"Obstruction of Business" by sjames · · Score: 1

      Rating any of those CDOs as AAA was surely over the line. Especially near the end where they were being called 'toxic' internally. Who got punished for that? Arguably, that was a major enabler for the crap that went on.

      Who got punished for pushing sub-prime loans that anyone in the industry could easily have predicted a default? They're supposed to at least put together a loan that has a chance of being paid off.

      BofA did get fined for some of their POST-CRASH foreclosures, but the fines were so small that they treated them as a business expense and continued their bad behavior.

      Yes, they are getting their hands slapped, but that's all they're getting and it's mostly for things they have continued doing after the crash. Bad bad Charley (tap tap on the wrist) no more serial killing! Now take this million dollars and go reform yourself.

    26. Re:"Obstruction of Business" by bobbied · · Score: 1

      So what is your objection? That they don't get caught and punished or that you think they should be punished more? Look, If you don't like how much these companies get fined, that's NOT the same as saying the law doesn't apply to them, because obviously you now admit that it does. Your objection is to the cost of the fines which is established IN LAW.

      The law applies to them, you just don't like the law... But that's not where this tread started...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    27. Re:"Obstruction of Business" by bobbied · · Score: 1

      So, you now admit that these companies ARE pursued and convicted but you don't like the amount of the fines applied? So be it, but the initial contention that these companies do not get the law applied to them has been shown as false.

      The companies pay the fines which are defined in law, so your real objection is to the LAW, not that companies skirt the law and are never caught. They ARE caught and fined in accordance with law as I contended from the start. You need to work on getting the law changed...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    28. Re:"Obstruction of Business" by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      what fines?? They're written off and claimed back on tax as deductibles!

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    29. Re:"Obstruction of Business" by bobbied · · Score: 1

      I get it, you don't like the LAW.... Get the law changed if you want, but don't fool yourself, the law applies to big, small and everything in between.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    30. Re:"Obstruction of Business" by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      A punishment that is effectively a non-punishment is no different than not being punished at all.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    31. Re:"Obstruction of Business" by bobbied · · Score: 1

      So we've established that the original "They don't get caught" theory is incorrect and you object to the level of punishment....

      Stop complaining that they don't get caught and go get the law changed...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    32. Re:"Obstruction of Business" by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      No, you've managed to weasel and worm your way into claiming a semantic "victory" while the rest of us make substantive points about regulatory capture and how these "punishments" are essentially nonexistent.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    33. Re:"Obstruction of Business" by bobbied · · Score: 1

      The US also has laws against fraud and racketeering. Doesn't seem to apply to companies over a certain size.

      That was the ORIGINAL position that I was debating as not true... Seems that you are now trying to change positions.

      CAPTCHA: You lost..

      Now if you are debating some OTHER position, fine, but that position really seems to be about the law doing what you think is fair. I've heard no evidence that suggests that the law is not being applied to large companies, and your very own arguments indicate that these "large" companies ARE being prosecuted, you just don't like the level of punishment they receive and think it should be more. THAT is a different issue from where this all started.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    34. Re:"Obstruction of Business" by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      And thank you for proving my point about your obsession with semantics rather than substance.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
  6. Heated Competition by amiga3D · · Score: 1

    Competition is good but if this heats up any more it could come to blows. Maybe a hostile takeover involving assault rifles. It's been done.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/st...

    1. Re:Heated Competition by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      In Russia I can believe it, but things there aren't always what they seem. I remember seeing a picture of a shopkeeper lady surrounded by guys in body armor, ski masks and carrying automatic weapons. Looked like a serious robbery, but the caption below read: "tax inspectors check the books in a shop on famous Arbat street.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  7. Re:appliance? by bobbied · · Score: 2

    Sunday is supposed to be a day of rest; the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. (Exodus 20:10).

    I hate to break it to you, but Sunday is the FRIST day of the week, has been for at least a thousand years and the Sabbath has always been what we know as Saturday now. Just ask your local practicing Jewish person.

    However, I too, wonder why this was handed out on a weekend... Government workers generally don't go to work from Friday evening though Monday morning, at least those involved in the court system. This must have been important in Korea..

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  8. Things I learned about Korean by russotto · · Score: 2

    It turns out "Jo Seong-jin" rhymes with "Tonya Harding".

    1. Re:Things I learned about Korean by HBI · · Score: 1

      Romanization of Asian languages always sucks. Best in the original Hangul. Koreans can also read Chinese characters.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    2. Re:Things I learned about Korean by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Romanization of Asian languages always sucks. Best in the original Hangul. Koreans can also read Chinese characters.

      Yes, but you cant appreciate the true sound of their name until you've read it in the original Klingon.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  9. Reminds me of a clip from Father Ted by caseih · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of this clip from the classic Father Ted where Father Liam is breaking all of Ted's furniture, claiming the quality is poor.

    "These won't last. You could talk them into coming down."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  10. LG's new motto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Show ain't done til Samsung don't run!

  11. I'm confused by ripvlan · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is he accused of damaging these AT the trade show or in a store? Or was LG buying the products and returning them to their secret lab to poke/prod them?

    I guess I'd be mad if my flagship products failed at a trade show - only to find that somebody had put sand in the tank overnight.

    This reminds me of an old Click & Clack episode where a caller had purchased a used VW...and while cleaning the trunk had found paperwork indicating the car was owned by the Chevy (Ford?) proving grounds. Tom & Ray assured the caller that some test driver was comparing the competition had driven the car to within an inch of it's life - and that the caller should either purchase the extended warranty or trade the car in ... now! They also suggested that the test driver had purposely left the evidence behind as a warning to future owners.

  12. you're supposed to buy them first, asshole by swschrad · · Score: 0

    and bust 'em in the privacy of your own company's labs.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  13. Re:appliance? by msauve · · Score: 1

    One need only look at a calendar to see that Sunday is the first day of the week.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  14. Very suspicious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Companies test their competitors' products all the time. By purchasing them.

    These alleged actions by LG seem very suspicious. However, proving wrongdoing by the LG exec in a court seems like it would be nearly impossible in this case. Maybe if Samsung's lawyers can find internal LG documents planning to carry this out. Otherwise, I don't see LG losing this case.

    1. Re:Very suspicious by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      cctv

      that is all.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  15. That unit was made in the 80s and isn't comparable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Things have changed. The design life may well have been 30 years in 1985. That does NOT mean that if you go buy one today, it will also have a 30 year design life. It might, it might not.

  16. Here it is by mbstone · · Score: 1

    Here is the actual washing machine.

  17. Re:appliance? by bobbied · · Score: 1

    There is that... Only I've seen some calendars that started on Monday... Traditional Jewish Sabbath is from sundown on Friday to sundown Saturday, even if we didn't actually call the days of the week by those names. This actually goes back in history some 4,000 years or more depending on when you think the Israelites left slavery Egypt.... Which was long before the Roman calendar we use today.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  18. Re:appliance? by msauve · · Score: 1

    OK, "man crontab," then.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  19. Re:appliance? by bobbied · · Score: 1

    Thanks for the comic relief....Everybody knows that if Unix says something, it HAS to be true....

    Like the time started on January 1, 1970 and will end on January 19, 2038...

    I'm trying to point folks who question which day the Sabbath is to the controlling authority on the matter, which is NOT a Roman calendar, but the religious practice of a specific group of people going back a few thousand years.... but you knew that already...

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  20. Re:appliance? by msauve · · Score: 1

    Fuck the Sabbath. The discussion is about the first day of the week, which has nothing to do with some imaginary guy in the sky.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  21. Re:appliance? by bobbied · · Score: 1

    It always amazes me that Atheists get so bent out of shape about something they say doesn't exist... Not to mention that they *see* this thing that they say doesn't exist in just about everything....

    Have a good and happy life, it's all you got..

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101