LG Exec Indicted Over Broken Samsung Washing Machine 132
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.
Taken to the cleaners... (Score:5, Funny)
If you break your opponents washing machine, they'll have you "taken the the cleaners"....
Re:Taken to the cleaners... (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.
Re:Taken to the cleaners... (Score:5, 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.
Re:Taken to the cleaners... (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.
Re:Taken to the cleaners... (Score:5, 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.
Re:Taken to the cleaners... (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Taken to the cleaners... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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,
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Taken to the cleaners... (Score:4, 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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Taken to the cleaners... (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
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 yo
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Taken to the cleaners... (Score:5, Funny)
da da dum. I'll be here all day folks
Re:Taken to the cleaners... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
I have to wonder how the Bill O'Reilly family handle this... he operates a "No Spin Zone".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Tests that are known to fail... (Score:2)
Let's see how well a modern laundry machine tests against cleaning an iPhone and a rock at the same time....
Hey well... (Score:3)
At least his washing machines will sing you a song [youtube.com] when they're done! That's gotta count for something, right? Right?
Re: (Score:2)
The Samsung's will do the same thing. I speak from direct experience
Re: (Score:3)
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 se
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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, du
Re: (Score:2)
I like the old Filter Flo General Electric washing machines. I've seen cars built more flimsily.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I absolutely hate my S4 Mini. With a passion.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 [maytag.com] which has a link to Whirlpool [whirlpoolcorp.com] 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
"Obstruction of Business" (Score:2, 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...
Re: (Score:3)
See "Tortious interference".
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
The US already has laws for that.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:3)
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...
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Attempti
Re: (Score:3)
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 concern
Re: (Score:2)
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 crush
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 exist
Re: (Score:2)
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 t
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 y
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
what fines?? They're written off and claimed back on tax as deductibles!
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The entire finance industry. Crash the world economy and ...crickets.
Re: (Score:2)
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 charge
Re: (Score:2)
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 ever
Re: (Score:2)
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 a
Re: (Score:2)
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 t
Re: (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?
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's start with the entire financial meltdown. How many CEOs in jail so far?
Re: (Score:2)
Gee, seems Phillip Morris was found in violation of RICO and held liable...
http://publichealthlawcenter.o... [publicheal...center.org]
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.
Re: (Score:2)
And they paid less than a rounding error on their net domestic profits alone.
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
A punishment that is effectively a non-punishment is no different than not being punished at all.
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 t
Re: (Score:2)
And thank you for proving my point about your obsession with semantics rather than substance.
Heated Competition (Score:2)
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... [bloomberg.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Things I learned about Korean (Score:3)
It turns out "Jo Seong-jin" rhymes with "Tonya Harding".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Reminds me of a clip from Father Ted (Score:2)
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?... [youtube.com]
I'm confused (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.
Here it is (Score:2)
Here [youtube.com] is the actual washing machine.
Re: (Score:3)
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..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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..
Re: (Score:2)
cctv
that is all.