Samsung Tried to Bribe Chinese Man To Keep Exploding Phone Video Private (gizmodo.com)

An anonymous reader writes: When a Galaxy Note 7 caught fire in China, its owner started filming the damage. That's to be expected. What was less expected was how Samsung reacted to news that one of its phones caught on fire. According to The New York Times, Samsung didn't rush out to try to find out why this user's phone exploded, it tried to bribe him to keep the video private. From the New York Times report; "Two employees from Samsung Electronics showed up at his house later that day, he said, offering a new Note 7 and about $900 in compensation on the condition that he keep the video private. Mr. Zhang angrily refused. Only weeks before, even as Samsung recalled more than two million Note 7s in the United States and elsewhere, the company had reassured him and other Chinese customers that the phone was safe. 'They said there was no problem with the phones in China. That's why I bought a Samsung,' said Mr. Zhang, a 23-year-old former firefighter. 'This is an issue of deception. They are cheating Chinese consumers.'"

Comments

I call shenanigans

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm telling you those were stooges hired by Apple to make Samsung and Android look bad just like Apple and their mindless hipster horde is behind these explosions.

Re:I call shenanigans

[Anonymous Coward]

And you're not a Samsung stooge, with your constant defending of Samsung's illegal actions?

Re:I call shenanigans

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoosh.

That one passed right through the hollow space between your ears.

Re:I call shenanigans

[aicrules]

fairly certain these three posts are all the same person.

Re:I call shenanigans

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? Did you post them?

Re: I call shenanigans

[johnsmithperson123]

No, they were hired by Google to impersonate Apple agents disguised as Samsung agents to embarrass Apple.

Re:I call shenanigans

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, we did.

Re:I call shenanigans

[Anonymous Coward]

This smartphone contest rigged, rigged, I tell you, folks. People tell me, and I have the best people, that the corrupt elites are planning to steal this beautiful smartphone from our movement.

Re:I call shenanigans

[ausekilis]

What do you call a bunch of blonde's standing shoulder-to-shoulder?

Wind tunnel.

Frosty

[Anonymous Coward]

My post explodes first, and I don't take bribes.

Plot twist incoming!

[Narcocide]

Its gonna turn out to be a virus.

Bribe?

[jandersen]

Let's try to use words with some integrity; bribery is a criminal offence, whereas what Samsung allegedly did was to try to buy the guy's silence, which is merely odious, but not a crime.

Re:Bribe?

[Ol Olsoc]

Let's try to use words with some integrity; bribery is a criminal offence, whereas what Samsung allegedly did was to try to buy the guy's silence, which is merely odious, but not a crime.

Oh geesh, Do you think that anyone equated bribing an elected official with giving a private citizen money in exchange for keep ing their yap shut?

Give us some credit for a little intelligence.

Re:Bribe?

[jandersen]

Give us some credit for a little intelligence.

Give me a good reason.

Re:Bribe?

[omnichad]

Some words have a dictionary definition and a legal definition (or scientific, etc). This not being a law blog, I assume they're using the dictionary definition here. Still a horrible thing to do - and not an inaccurate use of the word at all.

Re:Bribe?

[Alomex]

I assume they're using the dictionary definition here.

I just looked it up in the dictionary and no, it isn't a bribe according to it either.

Re: Bribe?

[thundercattt]

I'd say pfffffft at $900 bucks too. Up it to a million and we'd talk.

Re:Bribe?

[Anonymous Coward]

"persuade (someone) to act in one's favor, typically illegally or dishonestly, by a gift of money or other inducement."

seems like the right word to me.

Re:Bribe?

[Anonymous Coward]

why didnt you post the definition then?

Here's what I get, and it looks fine to me...
"persuade (someone) to act in one's favor, typically illegally or dishonestly, by a gift of money or other inducement."

Re:Bribe?

[The Grim Reefer]

So if an actor/celebrity gets paid to endorse a product they don't use, is it a bribe or a paycheck?

Re:Bribe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bribery isn't necessarily a crime.

Oxford says:

bribe
verb
Dishonestly persuade (someone) to act in one's favour by a gift of money or other inducement.

noun
A sum of money or other inducement offered or given to bribe someone.

Collins says:

bribe

verb
1. to promise, offer, or give something, usually money, to (a person) to procure services or gain influence, esp illegally

noun
2. a reward, such as money or favour, given or offered for this purpose
3. any persuasion or lure
4. a length of flawed or damaged cloth removed from the main piece

Merriam-Webster says:

bribe

Something valuable (such as money) that is given in order to get someone to do something

1: money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust
2: something that serves to induce or influence

Wiktionary says:

bribe

verb
1. To give a bribe to; specifically, to ask a person to do something, usually against his/her will, in exchange for some type of reward or relief from potential trouble.
2. To gain by a bribe; to induce as by a bribe.

noun
1. Something (usually money) given in exchange for influence or as an inducement to dishonesty.
2. That which seduces; seduction; allurement.

Dictionary.com says:

bribe

noun
1. money or any other valuable consideration given or promised with a view to corrupting the behavior of a person, especially in that person's performance as an athlete, public official, etc.
2. anything given or serving to persuade or induce

verb
3. to give or promise a bribe to
4. to influence or corrupt by a bribe

Re:Bribe?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they claim to use it themselves but don't, then it's a bribe. If they merely "endorse" (ie. YOU should use this product because I say so) but make no claim that they use it, then it's a paycheck.

Dishonesty is the distinction.

Re:Bribe?

[Space cowboy]

Why not both ?

As an aside, can you imagine the unholy shitstorm that would be making the rounds if any of this were happening to Apple ?

Exploding iPhones... The internet might not cope with that, and then Apple bribing people to keep quiet about the whole thing ? We might have a singularity event...

Re:Bribe?

[jandersen]

Here's what I get, and it looks fine to me...
"persuade (someone) to act in one's favor, typically illegally or dishonestly, by a gift of money or other inducement."

Since we are mincing words, give us the whole dictionary entry + the reference to which dictionary. Your definition here seems to match paying a defence lawyer as well - after all, they will often end up defending somebody, knowing they deserve the full weight of the law, so I think this definition is far too wide.

Re:Bribe?

[macs4all]

Let's try to use words with some integrity; bribery is a criminal offence, whereas what Samsung allegedly did was to try to buy the guy's silence, which is merely odious, but not a crime.

Here's the problem with your argument: If there had actually BEEN a word that described this "buying of silence" other than what you are describing is a "term of art" for the "influencing a public official", you would have INCLUDED that word in your pedantic diatribe.

The fact that there is NOT a separate word for "bribe as a tort" (essentially), means that the word "bribe" is used to describe BOTH the CRIMINAL and NON-CRIMINAL acts.

Re:Bribe?

[omnichad]

Dishonestly persuade (someone) to act in one's favour by a gift of money or other inducement.

Oxford English Dictionary

the act of giving someone money or something else of value, often illegally, to persuade that person to do something you want

Cambridge Dictionary

to promise, offer, or give something, usually money, to (a person) to procure services or gain influence, esp illegally

Collins English Dictionary

money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust

Merriam-Webster Dictionary - note that "position of trust" could easily apply to anyone who would report to the media or post on the Internet since they have video evidence. However, they also offer a second definition that fits this usage wholly:

something that serves to induce or influence

Re:Bribe?

[omnichad]

I'll add that you changed the word to "bribery" in your initial post, which the headline and summary do not use. The word "bribery" is used more commonly in the legal context.

Re:Bribe?

[TheCastro1689]

Didn't Apple have some ipods that caught fire a ways back? And there was a nano recall because I sent in my first gen and got a brand new one before.

Re:Bribe?

[AmiMoJo]

Also, when they say "Samsung", so they mean the boss of Samsung (or rather his son who is actually running things at the moment) heard about it and made a phone call authorising the offer, or do they mean some provincial branch office in China somewhere decided to do it on their own and were subsequently fired?

If it has been an Apple "genius" advising people not to hold their iPhone 4 that way, it wouldn't have become a meme. It was only noteworthy because it was Steve Jobs saying it.

Re:Bribe?

[Ol Olsoc]

Give us some credit for a little intelligence.

Give me a good reason.

Because we are not all English majors. Because we are not all worried about some universal never changing definition of a word. Because we are not all pedants. Because people do understand what bribe means.

And should we decide to go full pedant, here is what Mirriam Webster has to sat about the matter:

Full Definition of bribe

1: money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust

2: something that serves to induce or influence

Okay, it seems like it has 100 percent to do swith this incident.

Examples of bribe in a sentence

I offered the children a bribe for finishing their homework.

that judge refused a huge bribe to dismiss the charges against the wealthy defendant

So take it up with them if you have a problem, because the word bribe fits, we all know exactly why it fits, it is an excellet word to use in this matter, and you performed a fine act of wasting our time while being completely wrong in your rigid pedantry.

And some of us are smart enough ot figure that out.

Re: Bribe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep moving the goalposts you fucking shill.

Re:Bribe?

[Ol Olsoc]

Didn't Apple have some ipods that caught fire a ways back? And there was a nano recall because I sent in my first gen and got a brand new one before.

Any Li based battery system can catch fire. The Samsungs are just a whole lot better at it.

Re:Bribe?

[Kirby-meister]

Everybody's favorite type of argument: semantics

Re:Bribe?

[Ol Olsoc]

Why not both ?

As an aside, can you imagine the unholy shitstorm that would be making the rounds if any of this were happening to Apple ?

Exploding iPhones... The internet might not cope with that, and then Apple bribing people to keep quiet about the whole thing ? We might have a singularity event...

Look at what those fuckers from Apple have done. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... A man's new iphone 7, caught on fire, and burnt this Jeep up. Rumors it was caused by the lack of a headphone jack.

Oh silly me, I was wrong, it was a Galaxy Note 7.

Re:Bribe?

[Frank Burly]

Using the word "bribe" to describe the behavior does equate "bribing" a public official with giving a private citizen money to keep their mouth shut. The headline used the word "bribe" to make it sound nefarious and get clicks. Samsung's preferred headline "Company supercompensates customer for minor glitch" would be equally misleading.

Regardless, the owner of the BBQed phone had no obligation to anyone to disclose or hide the video, so nobody could "bribe" him to violate such obligation.

Re: Bribe?

[Anonymous Coward]

That isn't even close to what "bribe" means.
Bribe is offering money in exchange for doing something illegal.

Quote or name the law that states it's illegal to ask a Chinese man to not post a video.

If that action isn't illegal already, then offering money in exchange for that action can't be a bribe.

Re:Bribe?

[Frank Burly]

I suppose that words mean what we mean them to, and the dictionary is correct to include the imprecise definition number two. But that doesn't make the usage correct.

I did not bribe 7-11 $1 to give me a Big Gulp. My boss does not bribe me to come in to work. One does not bribe a horse to gallop faster with a whip. Magnetic fields do not bribe a compass needle. And Samsung did not attempt to bribe an unfortunate phone owner.

It isn't a matter of being smart enough to figure out the meaning; I think the intelligence that the GP petulantly called for was to recognize that words have shades of meaning and that "bribe" was not chosen for accuracy.

Re: Bribe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. A bribe is offering money in exchange for doing something dishonest.

From Oxford dictionary, the highest authority on the English language:

bribe

verb
Dishonestly persuade (someone) to act in one's favour by a gift of money or other inducement.

noun
A sum of money or other inducement offered or given to bribe someone.

Perhaps if you had paid attention in school, you wouldn't be illiterate now.

Re:Bribe?

[YukariHirai]

The pedantry is strong with this one...

I did not bribe 7-11 $1 to give me a Big Gulp. My boss does not bribe me to come in to work.

Of course not. That is the normal, expected exchange of money for goods or services.

One does not bribe a horse to gallop faster with a whip.

No, one uses pain/the fear of pain to motivate it to move faster. A more apt animal example would be using treats to encourage behavior while training a dog, and that does qualify as bribery.

Magnetic fields do not bribe a compass needle.

Of course not. That's the effect of a natural phenomenon, which has no will or intelligence, much less reason to influence a piece of metal to act in a way it otherwise would not have.

And Samsung did not attempt to bribe an unfortunate phone owner.

Yes, they bloody well did.

Re:Bribe?

[Ol Olsoc]

The pedantry is strong with this one...

Almost as strong as the lack of logic.

A person who goes to work exchanges work for money.

A bribed person exchanges something that the person doing the bribing either wants out, or wants to remain secret.

I do however suspect that our not quite accurate pedants, really, really, really love Android phones, Samsung in particular, hate Apple, and are trying to obscure the argument and the truth that the Galaxy Note 7 is a rather dangerous device.

So they do what every person backed into a corner does. They deflect by trying to change the subject.

More of the happy Samsungs and their side effects here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... The fire starting~ 7:03 is interesting, being caught burning. Lot's of popping smoke and flames.

Some folks have taken the time honored tactic of denying the problem exists, as happened in here early on. Problem is, with security cams all over creation, its a little difficult to play the deny, deny, deny game any more. Even the replacement phones catch fire.

Re:Bribe?

[Ol Olsoc]

I think the intelligence that the GP petulantly called for was to recognize that words have shades of meaning and that "bribe" was not chosen for accuracy.

They just offered him money to keep his mouoth shut. Call it a fuckengruven if you want. It was money to keep his mouth shut, and it was a bribe.

Now lets look at this from the Article

"Two employees from Samsung Electronics showed up at his house later that day, he said, offering a new Note 7 and about $900 in compensation on the condition that he keep the video private.

You can call it what you like. I call it a bribe. Whatever particular word we use does not change that Samsung offered him money to not say anything about his fiery Phone.

Re:Bribe?

[Ol Olsoc]

I suppose that words mean what we mean them to, and the dictionary is correct to include the imprecise definition number two. But that doesn't make the usage correct.

Good gawd man, you really should make certain to tell them they are wrong. Otherwise I have no idea how to reply to you!

Re:Bribe?

[jandersen]

Dishonestly persuade (someone) to act in one's favour by a gift of money or other inducement.

Oxford English Dictionary

I may at some point make the effort to look up the quotes - they seem somewhat abridged (in my experience, entries in OED are longer and more nuanced) , but leave that for now. However, even if they are accurately quoted, this definition still covers situations that most people would agree are not about bribery: a defence lawyer acting for a criminal that he knows is guilty, an advertiser trying to persuade you to buy crap you don't need etc. There are lots of examples like that.

Re:Bribe?

[omnichad]

The entries tend to be longer, but individual definitions are usually brief. And in most cases there were more than one valid definition depending on usage.

Not about bribery != not a bribe

The term bribery is still typically only used to describe the criminal act. An advertiser persuading you to buy crap you don't need doesn't usually offer a gift or incentive. But when they do (in the forms of rewards/discounts) you could probably call it a (weak) bribe and a lot of common usage of the word reflects that.

Only $900?

[Tempest_2084]

If you're going to bribe someone to keep a major, possibly company destroying, event secret then you should probably offer him more than $900. Cheap out on the bribes and it will come back to bite you in the end.

Re:Only $900?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Especially if the guy you are trying to bribe purchased an ~$850 smartphone a short while ago; and had immediate access to at least one other device capable of filming its fiery suicide. He may or may not have been able to sensibly afford it; but if he could scrape up enough cash and/or credit to get the seller to hand it over it is unlikely that he considers $900 to be some amazing amount of money.

Re:Only $900?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a lot of money in China. Remember that a ton of their people make very little. This might be like 30% of his yearly salary, maybe more. It'd be like offering you $20,000-30,000 just not to say anything. If you thought nothing of the event, you might think that's good money.

Re:Only $900?

[Anonymous Coward]

If he was able to afford a 900$ phone, his salary was probably far above the average for China. With that said, I don't really believe this story really happened anyway.

Re:Only $900?

[Joce640k]

His phone cost $20,000-30,000?

Re:Only $900?

[gnupun]

It's a lot of money in China. Remember that a ton of their people make very little. This might be like 30% of his yearly salary, maybe more.

But since he lost his phone in the fire, they are just reimbursing for his loss, which means the bribers are real cheapskates. Customer loss: $800-1000; bribe: $900.

Re:Only $900?

[e432776]

The worst past? They tried to give him another Note 7 (!)

Re:Only $900?

[naughtynaughty]

From the summary:
"offering a new Note 7 and about $900"

They did more than offer to just reimburse him for his loss.

Re:Only $900?

[Anonymous Coward]

And especially when the guy used to be a _firefighter_ and your product spontaneously bursts into flames.

Re:Only $900?

[I4ko]

I think it wasn't the $900. I think it was adding insult to injury by offering him another Note 7. Perhaps if they gave him a different phone and $900 he would have kept quiet.

Re:Only $900?

[I4ko]

Yeah, they insulted him with another Note 7. Had it been any other phone, it would have been fine.

Re:Only $900?

[Anonymous Coward]

Promise him each latest Samsung Note device for 10 years on the day it's released.

Then announce that the Note brand is dead. Burned, in fact.

Re:Only $900?

[sl3xd]

If your product is spontaneously bursting into flames, attempting to bribe a fire fighter isn't going to go well.

The pay is the same whether they are fighting fires or not, and with more fires, it's more work, dangerous, unhealthy, etc.

Re:Only $900?

[Anonymous Coward]

They sell them far cheaper there. They're priced at $900 in America because (idiot) Americans will pay $900 for a freaking phone.

Re:Only $900?

[ausekilis]

"Hey, here's the cost of your phone and a little extra to keep this hush-hush"

Samsung doesn't have the experience that Comcast and Microsoft have in bribing. First, it was only $900, not $50k. Second, it was to a private citizen, not an elected official. Third, it should have been a "campaign contribution" not a "bribe". Though I suppose things do work a little different in China than in the U.S.

Re:Only $900?

[poofmeisterp]

If you're going to bribe someone to keep a major, possibly company destroying, event secret then you should probably offer him more than $900. Cheap out on the bribes and it will come back to bite you in the end.

But that's like 10 billion yen... that's a huge number to the receiver. Oh. wait.

Re:Only $900?

[thegarbz]

If you're going to bribe someone to keep a major, possibly company destroying, event secret then you should probably offer him more than $900. Cheap out on the bribes and it will come back to bite you in the end.

a) it was closer to double that given they were also offered a replacement phone.
b) depending on where in China this was $900 could have been a frigging fortune.
c) you're kidding yourself if you think this is a company destroying event. It may be a company destroying event if you were a tiny little phone manufacturer. Samsung make frigging everything. They have existed long before smartphones. They existed long before feature phones. Shit they exists before computers and consumers electronics. They make everything from electronics to industrial chemicals to, I kid you not, sell life insurance. The diversity of their portfolio is only bested by the likes of GE.

Those 2 employees ...

[Alain Williams]

should have the book thrown at them and end up in jail; they were knowingly attempting to put people at risk just to protect their employer's profits. I doubt that Chinese police/enforcement should have too hard a time finding some legal reason to do this. Their manager should, likewise, spend time in a dungeon.

Why do I want this ? If more individuals become held responsible for the acts that they do on behalf of their employers, the better off that the public will be in all sorts of ways. This applies all the way from top bankers to care home managers.

Re:Those 2 employees ...

[Calydor]

It is also possible they tried to avoid having a thousand fraudulent claims, inspired by seeing the video, filed against Samsung that would make it more difficult, and by extension take longer, to find out what the actual problem with the phones was.

Re:Those 2 employees ...

[ThatsMyNick]

They were trying to keep the video from being published. Nothing says they were trying to put anyone at risk and not do a recall. I am sure their PR could have spun the recall better if the video was not posted.

Re:Those 2 employees ...

[Alain Williams]

Nothing says they were trying to put anyone at risk and not do a recall.

If people are not aware that there is a problem with these things then they will be at greater risk than those who know to be wary.

Re:Those 2 employees ...

[ThatsMyNick]

Nothing about it says people will not be made aware of the problem. It is advantageous for Samsung to make it public in a way they can control and put a positive spin to the recall.

Re: Those 2 employees ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Too late, look up Samsung note 7 microwave on YouTube

Isn't this default Chinese behaviour?

[Anonymous Coward]

The government heavily limits information access in China and approves everything the people see, why do you think businesses would expect to work differently in that sort of environment? Protecting Chinese consumers? My ass, their government takes them for a ride every day of the week. I have no sympathy for this guy or any others.

Re:Isn't this default Chinese behaviour?

[Anonymous Coward]

Samsung isn't Chinese, it's a Korean corporation.

But they all look the same to you, right?

Re:Isn't this default Chinese behaviour?

[Anonymous Coward]

A chank's a chank, by God!

What's unexpected about Samsung response?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's exactly how I'd expect Samsung to respond. It is their MO. Such an opaque company to begin with so it is easy to expect them to attempt so suppress the bad news. Go ahead and complain about Apple's legendary secrecy but it seems Samsung is up for anything to get an edge.

Re:What's unexpected about Samsung response?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly.

I don't know why anyone is surprised by this. I mean, it's not like Samsung hasn't been caught and convicted of actual bribery, collusion and price fixing multiple times in the past. Oh wait, they have.

This corporation is willing to do anything to get ahead. They make Sony look like saints.

Every single gag order and NDA ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, so U.S. judges are getting "bribed" all the time?

Re:Every single gag order and NDA ever.

[Overzeetop]

Seriously - this is SOP for settlements of all kinds. The press was bad on the Note 7, and they wanted to make the problem go away. They offered to cover the cost of damage/repair, no questions (or few questions) asked in return for not publicizing the event with photos/video. Typical corporate culture.

Re: Every single gag order and NDA ever.

[Midnight Thunder]

The issue is the phone would have been under warranty, so they would have had to replace the phone anyhow. They can't say they wouldn't replace the phone if the person published the video. Doing business again with the person is another matter.

The real thing that here is that apparent no one at Samsung Korea or Samsung China had heard about the Streisand Effect?

BTW does anyone know the percentage of catastrophic Note 7 events there were, related to number of sales?

Re: Every single gag order and NDA ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

No one, really?
You think they asked every Samsung employee in China and Korea if they knew about the Streisand effect.

Not by Samsung's orders

[Anonymous Coward]

these were obviously two local managers or something, acting on their own interests and loyalty to the company. Don't believe for a second that the Samsung board or global management decided on this.

Blaming Samsung for this is like saying all cops are bad, because a few of them shoot civilians, or that all men are bad, because a few of them commit rape. Make your own comparison.

Expensive phone for him to afford

[muyla]

How much does a 23 year old former firefighter make in china? The 'former' would imply that he doesn't have a job. How can he afford this cutting edge phone and also a $900 personal integrity fee?

Re:Expensive phone for him to afford

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps Samsung is just trying to create an increased demand for firefighters?

I'd angirly refuse just 900

[Anonymous Coward]

Put another three zeroes on that and we have a deal.

Re:I'd angirly refuse just 900

[Triklyn]

i think we found the price of your conscience.

ahahah

[fubarrr]

Firing squad for their CEO

Re:ahahah

[Anonymous Coward]

Firing squad for their CEO

Which one? Where? When? I'm confuuuused.

In China, Bribery is perfectly normal

[Anonymous Coward]

It's important to understand some things about Chinese culture. Things like lying, cheating, bribery, and corruption are not considered wrong, per se. These things are accepted as normal and are not frowned upon.

Bribes are to China what fuel is to automobiles

[JoeyRox]

Their entire economy runs on the stuff.

Re:Bribes are to China what fuel is to automobiles

[Anonymous Coward]

Bribes? I think not! How terrible of you to accuse them of such!

Small payments. They are small payments.

Re:Bribes are to China what fuel is to automobiles

[sl3xd]

Perhaps, but bribes don't work when it's blatantly against the taker's self-interest.

Attempting to bribe a firefighter to cover up a product that spontaneously combusts is a losing move.

Firefighters get paid the same whether there's a fire burning or not. It's a lot easier & safer to sit at the firehouse than fight an active fire.

Re:Bribes are to China what fuel is to automobiles

[stoatwblr]

And you think the USA is any better? It's just less obvious most of the time.

Re:Bribes are to China what fuel is to automobiles

[JoeyRox]

Yes, I think the USA is better. The Federal bribery laws in this country are some of the most stringently enforced laws on the books and carry enormous penalties.

Re:Bribes are to China what fuel is to automobiles

[stoatwblr]

The why has AT&T managed to reassemble itself and regain legislated local monopolies in virtually all states?

Oh yes. FEDERAL bribery laws. They don't apply at state level.

Re:Bribes are to China what fuel is to automobiles

[JoeyRox]

The federal bribery laws apply at all levels, including international. If you can produce evidence that AT&T bribed state and local municipalities then I'm sure the feds would be all ears.

yes, and?

[grasshoppa]

So they tried to avoid bad PR. Maybe I've become jaded, but where's the problem with that?

The implication, I think, is that samsung had intended to cover it up in the hopes of preserving the Note line, but I think that'd be quite a stretch given everything else.

Re: yes, and?

[Anonymous Coward]

So by extension you are saying that it would be ok for Samsung to keep producing and selling the Note 7 as if nothing happened had they been able to stop release of all the evidence of a problem?

Re: yes, and?

[grasshoppa]

English your second language? Try reading my post again, see if you can figure it out.

Ask for help if there are any words you don't understand.

Re:yes, and?

[poofmeisterp]

So they tried to avoid bad PR. Maybe I've become jaded, but where's the problem with that?

The implication, I think, is that samsung had intended to cover it up in the hopes of preserving the Note line, but I think that'd be quite a stretch given everything else.

What the heck? Talk about a gamble. It's already public news. Bribing or anything like a bribe to keep peoples' media/opinions/etc to themselves and getting caught doing it makes your "wrongness" look MANY times worse than just admitting fault and compensating those harmed. Not trying to argue with you, but come on..... If I have a mail server with tons of stuff and try to make it disappear after the public knows about it... Yeah.

Re:yes, and?

[grasshoppa]

Everyone has their price.

Let's play a game. Would you eat a dog turd for 20 bucks? If you're like most people, you just had a "are you fucking kidding me? That'd be disgusting!" moment. You saw the amount I threw out there, but it was so low that you didn't give it a second thought.

Now, what if I asked you if you'd eat a dog turd for 20,000? Bet you're considering it. 200,000? Even more so. 2,000,000...20,000,000... well, you get the idea.

Let's bring this back around to the samsung situation; they hoped to control the dialog, and in order to do that they need to control the news reports. If they could have gotten this guy on the payroll, it would have lessened the PR damage. They were already on the hook for the recall, they had to have known it, but perhaps they were looking to salvage the brand name.

The only fault I have with this behavior is that they misread the situation and lowballed the guy. Some dumbass manager probably pulled the "penny wise pound foolish" card.

Re:yes, and?

[poofmeisterp]

Everyone has their price.

Let's play a game. Would you eat a dog turd for 20 bucks? If you're like most people, you just had a "are you fucking kidding me? That'd be disgusting!" moment. You saw the amount I threw out there, but it was so low that you didn't give it a second thought.

Now, what if I asked you if you'd eat a dog turd for 20,000? Bet you're considering it. 200,000? Even more so. 2,000,000...20,000,000... well, you get the idea.

Let's bring this back around to the samsung situation; they hoped to control the dialog, and in order to do that they need to control the news reports. If they could have gotten this guy on the payroll, it would have lessened the PR damage. They were already on the hook for the recall, they had to have known it, but perhaps they were looking to salvage the brand name.

The only fault I have with this behavior is that they misread the situation and lowballed the guy. Some dumbass manager probably pulled the "penny wise pound foolish" card.

Agreed. You have a good point.

Side note... after you said "pound foolish", my brain jumped to creating some twitter thingie or something.. hash tag? As you can see, the end result is that I don't use Twitter. LOL.

Question

[Anonymous Coward]

When a Galaxy Note 7 caught fire in China, its owner started filming the damage.

How? :P

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe he had a real digital camera. There are plenty of photog hobbyists who own DSLRs.

Yes Bribe

[sjbe]

Let's try to use words with some integrity; bribery is a criminal offence, whereas what Samsung allegedly did was to try to buy the guy's silence, which is merely odious, but not a crime.

Let's consult a dictionary shall we?

bribe
verb: bribe; 3rd person present: bribes; past tense: bribed; past participle: bribed; gerund or present participle: bribing
        1 : money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust
        2 : something that serves to induce or influence

These alleged actions by Samsung were definitely attempts at bribery by definition. Their actions may or may not have been criminal depending on the local laws but they definitely were bribery.

Re:Yes Bribe

[AthanasiusKircher]

These alleged actions by Samsung were definitely attempts at bribery by definition. Their actions may or may not have been criminal depending on the local laws but they definitely were bribery.

And, frankly, this is nothing new in terms of behavior of large companies. The difference is that your average consumer used to lack a mechanism to disseminate videos and such directly to wide audiences. So, if this happened to someone a few decades ago, there would likely be no video of the even to begin with, and then you'd get investigations by consumer safety organizations, local news media, etc.

But meanwhile the big corporation would be trying to do "damage control" too. It would be contacting the news media, the safety orgs, etc. and negotiating time for press releases, time for the company to respond to try to work on a fix, etc. Most of this "backroom" dealing still went on, perhaps even involving bribes, but we just didn't see it.

Now, you have people around the world who can record and post some bad product behavior INSTANTLY, and it can spread like wildfire.

Re:Yes Bribe

[Anonymous Coward]

You're clearly retarded. This random guy isn't in a position of power, and most attempts to influence aren't called bribes unless they're done to authority figures. Do you get a year-end bonus from your company? If so, would you call it a bribe? Are all incentives bribes? My friend recommended a product to me. I guess he bribed me, since he obviously tried to influence my purchasing decision. Should I call the police?

Re:Yes Bribe

[vux984]

Pretty much every settlement ever offered anywhere ever comes with language that you won't talk about it.

Its not 'odious' its not 'illegal'. Its completely mundane.

Let's consult a dictionary shall we?

Sure, let's.

Its not definition one, because this guy ISN'T in a "position of trust". He's just some rando with a broken phone.

That leaves definition #2..."something that serves to induce or influence" which covers everything from offering a child a cookie to clean up their room to, to advertising in all its forms, to wearing perfume... pretty much anything that affects another human being's actions or thoughts is a 'bribe' by #2. ... actually it doesn't even require it be another human being... so attracting ants with sugar is bribe too. It's "by definition" right?

My parents kitchen renovations went slightly sideways and my parents were slightly unhappy (final result was fine, but there were some issues along way) so the contractor offered them some extra discounts to 'make things right'. The contractor only did it so my parents would have a more positive outlook on the work he did; so they'd be more satisfied customers. Wait... Gasp... he was trying to *influence* them! with money! That's the definition of a bribe! So its not just large corporations... now small independent contractors are doing it too! How odious! How corrupt! much anger!

Re:Yes Bribe

[UnknownSoldier]

Indeed.

I guess Fight Club was right ...

Re:Yes Bribe

[Anonymous Coward]

A Note 7 owner who has a video of it going up in flames is very much in a position of power.

Re:Yes Bribe

[cmdr_klarg]

We don't use that word here in Corporatist America. We use the term "campaign contributions".

Re:Yes Bribe

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's try to use words with some integrity; bribery is a criminal offence, whereas what Samsung allegedly did was to try to buy the guy's silence, which is merely odious, but not a crime.

Let's consult a dictionary shall we?

bribe
verb: bribe; 3rd person present: bribes; past tense: bribed; past participle: bribed; gerund or present participle: bribing

        1 : money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust

        2 : something that serves to induce or influence

These alleged actions by Samsung were definitely attempts at bribery by definition. Their actions may or may not have been criminal depending on the local laws but they definitely were bribery.

Well, it doesn't fall under the 1 since the person was not in a position of trust. If you are saying that it is a bribe merely because it is "something that serves to induce or influence" then all newspapers are bribes. Every politician's speech is a bribe. That definition is so broad that it is ridiculous.

Re:Yes Bribe

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty much every settlement ever offered anywhere ever comes with language that you won't talk about it.

This actually is illegal: it violates the right to public oversight over the legal profession, arising under the 9th Amendment.

Of course, since the lawyers don't want that oversight, they ignore this minor inconvenience.

Having a short term provision might be acceptable, but certainly no more than a few years.

US law is riddled with legal ethics problems such as this one, and since the right to ethical practice of law also arises under the 9th Amendment, this means that a lot of stuff that goes on violates the US Bill of Rights. All too often, appeal to precedent is simply a continuation of an unethical status quo: the precedents give the illusion that all is well while hiding massively illegal conduct. Don't the emperor's new clothes look nice? It's a really ugly situation, which costs society an enormous amount of money, massively increased stress levels and the associated health care issues, loss of freedom, loss of jobs, illegal imprisonment, and even destroyed lives.

All this is facilitated by bribes aka "campaign contributions" aka "lobbying" paid by associations of legal professionals to the politicians that select judges. It's not a conspiracy per se, but everybody involved knows whats going on - a lot like what happened with slavery and - later - Jim Crow. Everybody with a functioning brain figures out what is really going on pretty quickly - probably in law school, but if not certainly soon after, so there's no need for secret meetings in the dead of night. Unfortunately, having a functioning brain does not mean that one will be ethical or moral.

Long term "gag orders" issued by courts (whether secret or otherwise) are equally illegal. Here, multiple 9th Amendment rights are being violated: not just the right to long term oversight over the legal profession, but also the right to long term oversight over government, and the right to ethical practice of law.

Who watches the watchmen?

Re:Yes Bribe

[stoatwblr]

The one time I was offered a settlement to keep my mouth shut, I pencilled 2 extra zeroes on the offer and pushed it back.

Apparently if I'd only added one, they might have paid up, but I didn't want to be gagged anyway.

Should have taken it...

[wardrich86]

Imagine if the replacement also burnt up? He'd have the money from the bribe and then some!

expected

[frovingslosh]

When a Galaxy Note 7 caught fire in China, its owner started filming the damage. That's to be expected .

My thoughts too. If you really believe that your phone is safe and you are not planning for this, why and how do you have another video recording device handy? Of course, the could be a legitimate answer to this, but it also could be that this was a complete set-up and the second camera was so handy because the phone destruction was planned. Maybe the bribe just wasn't in the range that this film maker expected.

Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure the Chinese firefighter (lol) didn't want the Korean company to escape justice...

China

[castus]

In the original NYT article 'china' or 'chinese' is mentioned 29 times. For some reason it's impossible to complete a sentence without mentinoning China.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10...

"They said there was no problem with the phones in China. That's why I bought a Samsung," said Mr. Zhang, a 23-year-old former firefighter. "This is an issue of deception. They are cheating Chinese consumers."

Mr. Zhang, a salesman in the city of Fushun, in northeastern China, was a Samsung loyalist.

After he rejected the offer from Samsung, Mr. Zhang quit his job and hit the road.

Apparently there are two Mr. Zhangs. One 23 year old former firefighter (probably retired) who somehow is able to afford a Note 7, and a salesman who decided to quit his job and hit the road because his phone caught fire (who wouldn't?).

Re:China

[Anonymous Coward]

23 years old and "probably retired"? How'd ya figure that, Sparky?
You fail logic. Go back to school. Learn something.

I assume refund

[Actually, I do RTFA]

My guess is the Note had a sticker price of $900, so it was "refund your money and a new phone." Which, for a rare consumer defect isn't unusual or a bad deal.

Re:I assume refund

[Triklyn]

for a rare consumer defect that couldn't POTENTIALLY SET MY HOUSE ON FIRE... yes

for one that could, i think most people's consciences cost more than a grand. For someone who has fought fires for a living, it's probably significantly more than that.

how much would it cost for you to look the other way as a toddler dies of smoke inhalation?

Re:I assume refund

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Oh, I see how what I wrote was vague. I meant it would be a reasonable response if it were a rare defect. Even if it could possibly set your house on fire. Obviously, if it did set your house on fire, they should offer more.

As to if I would look away if a toddler had died, that seems crazy. A main reason I said it was reasonable, if it were rare, would be that there's little reason to think that public scrutiny would not help save lives.

Re:I assume refund

[Triklyn]

i'd say refund your money and a new replacement... would not be adequate for a potentially fatal product, even if it's truly a rarity.

i don't think it would be for a lot of people.

If I bought a TV and two months in it starts spitting smoke and fire after normal use. And this is the first "samsung tv fire" i'd heard of...
i'd probably see if it was something I did, nope nothing spilled, nothing chewed, nothing but a plugged in TV.
i'd see if there was mention online
i'd make mention online and post photos
i'd contact the manufacturer and report it, and ask for them to pay damages etc.
i'd buy a different TV.

the point being, my main concern would be to warn other potential buyers and users that this product might set itself on fire spontaneously.

if they're trying to pay me hush-money... then i'm almost certainly not going to keep quiet.

Former Firefighter

[Bratch]

At least he had the training and skills to extinguish the fire caused by the phone explosion.

Actually it was a knockoff

[Anonymous Coward]

Turns out it was a knockoff and he was duped.

What doesn't kill you

[Mondor]

So, when he filmed one Note 7 burning, they brought him another one and enough money to get a decent camera. Apparently they wanted to film sequel, but perhaps "sequel" in Korean sounds like "bribe" in Chinese.

And now they are throttling other devices

[Anonymous Coward]

My S5 has a feature called "Download Booster". The idea is that when you are connected to Wi-Fi and 4G, the phone will use both paths to download software in an attempt to increase the download speed. When I tried downloading an audiobook yesterday, I saw a message that said my download boost was being disabled in order to not overheat the battery.