Headlined "What People Got for Christmas," the English-language column also poked fun at global technology giant Samsung Electronics, referring to past bribery scandals as well as perceptions that its leaders are arrogant.
The piece was meant as a satirical spoof, the columnist says, but Samsung wasn't laughing.
Breen's column ran as local media reported that President Lee would soon pardon Samsung Chairman Lee Kun-hee on a 2008 conviction for tax evasion. Chairman Lee, 68, had already received a federal pardon in the 1990s on a conviction for bribing two former presidents while he was with the firm.
On Dec. 29, the day of Lee's pardon, Samsung sued the freelance columnist, the newspaper and its top editor for $1 million, claiming damage to its reputation and potential earnings. After the Korea Times ran clarifications, the newspaper and its editor were dropped from the suit.
But Samsung continues to pursue Breen personally for libel, both civilly and on criminal charges that he intentionally libeled the company. If convicted, he faces a hefty fine and even jail time.
@HubofErik also provides links to unflattering coverage on Gizmodo, Techdirt, and The Consumerist. Looks like someone over at Samsung put up their hand at the meeting and said that more "damage to its reputation and potential earnings" would come from international coverage from a big newspaper and countless blogs than from a satirical column in an English-language paper read by very few people.
17 comments:
http://www.rjkoehler.com/2010/05/12/this-just-in-samsung-drops-case-against-mike-breen/#comment-371925
[quote]mbreen May 12, 2010 at 12:34 pm
Thanks for the comments. I turned up (2 mins late) at the court today and it was empty save for two officials who confirmed what the judge told a certain reporter a few minutes earlier – Samsung withdrew their complaint yesterday.
That’s the civil case. I checked with the prosecutor who investigated me for the criminal case and he said it’s gone to the court. A spy told me they’re proposing a fine but not jail time. I assume Samsung has informed them of its withdrawal of the civil complaint, but don’t know yet.
As I think I mentioned somewhere yesterday, a wrote a 4th apology on Friday – one that I consider dignified and which didn’t suggest I was taking my trousers. I was told this piece of paper was good enough.
UN:F [1.8.8_1072]
Rating: +4 (from 4 votes) 17 mbreen May 12, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Sorry about typos. The last para shld read:
As I think I mentioned somewhere yesterday, I wrote a 4th apology on Friday – one that I consider dignified and which didn’t suggest I was taking my trousers down. I was told this piece of paper was good enough.
Talking of which, I always need an editor: when I wrote the apology,the person carrying it called to point out that I had written that “I wrote the column with malicious intent.” I’d omitted the “no.” Phew! I doubt the bunts would have noticed. Ooops, tehre’s another one… and another
[end quote]
it's only half way over
Thanks, Stephannie, I edited the title.
I had the thing on my hard drive after coming across it it when it was published, as I'd had some notion to blog about it back then, but I never got around to it.
I put the entire column onto one of the message boards. You should be able to find it here.
http://www.expatkorea.com/bbs/showthread.php?p=345334#post345334
I'll probably stick it on my own blog in a day or so, when I get around to it.*
[My blog is very much a "whenIgetaroundtoit" affair ... ;-)]
*Unless Mr Breen objects, of course.
Awesome. Of all the things Samsung should not be copying from Apple is its thug-like behavior and readiness to kick down people's doors if they don't genuflect before the CEO.
A victory for the little guy + web 2.0.
Now about that apology Samsung OWES Mr. Breen.
"At Hyundai Motor, where the mood is buoyant thanks to booming sales in America, management gave each labor union leader a bobble head doll of Chairman Chung Mong-koo to put in the rear window of their cars. Union officials are scanning the toys for explosives."
Golly, wonder why Mong-koo didn't also sue claiming Breen claims he's trying to kill union leaders.
Maybe Hyundai is too busy gaining market share in North America to worry about a single satirical quip in a high school newspaper?
Ah wait. Reading Steph's quote, it appears Samsung has met Mr Breen half way. He's had to write, lets say not an apology, but a clarification. Well, maybe some of the online outcry from major tech blogs and some coverage in the LA Times helped Samsung back off from dictating the depth of the "saebae".
Anyway, as long as Mr. Breen is happy(ier) with the outcome and can get on with life, it's all good. I guess he won't be getting much PR biz from Samsung eh?
Yeah, when I thought twice about it, I was thinking there's about a dozen people - starting with Kim Yuna and Rain and going on to 2MB and the leadership of China - who are also going to want to hear apologies.
I think Breen just made a list of every Korean celebrity who'd made some news in the last year ... and then poked a stick at them, for fun.
Samsung just decided to poke back.
Breen no doubt had to pay some lawyers to stand next to him. Will Samsung reimburse that? I doubt it. I think I'll buy a few more copies of his book to help contribute.
He had other choices. He could have caved in immediately, which is when the Korea Times did so,and said, "What do you want me to say, and I'll sign it."
He didn't do that. I thank him.
thanks for sharing that, thebobster.
I'm glad Breen didn't cave to Samsung. Though maybe he could have written an "apology" like "I'm sorry some readers and some editors are too fucking stupid to get satire, and I'm sorry that writing about criminals being criminals is off-limits."
Brian, thebobster,
For the record, I didn't have a lawyer because I can'tr eally afford one. At KRW 250,000 an hour, even my briefing meeting (1 hr), journey to and from the court yesterday (2hrs) and coffee with Evan Ramstad in between (1hr) would have cost KRW 1m. I had therefore decided on the bumbling foreigner defense strategy.
I hear S is now pissed that I'm publicly unrepentant and may let the criminal case go ahead...
The Samsung v. Breen issue couldn’t be more apropos. The UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression just happens to be in town.
The last visit was 15 years ago and it is by sheer coincidence that from May 6-17 Mr. Frank La Rue, the current Special Rapporteur is here in Seoul on a "fact-finding mission".
For more info on Special Rapporteur La Rue see here.
The Special Rapporteur recently explained that his fact-finding mission "will be a good opportunity to assess the progress in enhancing the right to freedom of expression in the Republic of Korea fifteen years since my predecessor visited the country, particularly in the current context where the use of the Internet has become widespread . . . During my mission, I will gather first-hand information on the situation of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, freedom of the media, and the related right to freedom of assembly and association."
[Source]
Mr. La Rue will be speaking at Yonsei University this Saturday (May 15, 2010) at 10:30am. More info is available here.
A press conference might also be held at 2:30pm on Monday (May 17, 2010) at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club in Seoul (18F, Korea Press Center Building, Taepyongno-1Ga, Jung-Gu, Seoul) - but it's not confirmed.
The office of the Special Rapporteur can be reached by email at freedex@ohchr.org – more info is available here.
The Republic of Korea addressed the UN Human Rights Council on March 2, 2010 and, in addition to discussing many other important issues, explained that the nation was "looking forward to the official visit this May of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, which has become a very important human rights issue in today’s world of information and communication."
A video of the ROK’s address to the Human Rights Council is available here.
I put it up on my blog, too. I’m not trying to improve my hitcount, honestly. I’m happy with the 12 or 15 people who know about my site. The dozen or so extra I’ve gotten today have been from search engines, so it’s clear that people do want to read this and see what the fuss is over. And that’s why I’m putting it out there.
A couple of weeks ago, the NYTimes published a piece about Kim Yong-chul’s, “Think Samsung,” even though I’m pretty sure the book hasn’t been translated into English yet. The article includes this quote:
“We are seething with anger, but we are not going to sue him and make him a star again,” said Kim Jun-shik, Samsung’s senior vice president for corporate communications. “When you see a pile of excrement, you avoid it not because you fear it but because it’s dirty.” [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/technology/26samsung.html?pagewanted=all]
It’s interesting to see them suing a lone individual over defamation in a local newspaper column with humorous intent when this is the sort of thing they themselves get up to in the international press – and it seems to me that Kim Yong-chul would have a case for a defamation suit as well, since here there’s no need to prove malicious intent. (“We are seething with anger,” would clinch that.)
What I’m most curious about, though, is why they took a different tack in the case of Mr Breen, at least until a couple of mornings ago.
What I’m most curious about, though, is why they took a different tack in the case of Mr Breen, at least until a couple of mornings ago.
A conspiracy type might think the book author left more on the cutting room floor. Or maybe he knew he had an ace in the hole. Some insurance, shall we say. Information he could really leak...
I think too of Oscar Wilde or David "I'm not a holocaust denialist" Irving and their lawsuits and how they fared with their libel suits, only for the judge to rule Wilde was indeed a sodomite and Irving was indeed a holocaust denialist. Samsung might not want to take the author to court and only have it read into court records much of what he said was actually true.
Mr. Breen, on the other hand, has no insurance. Video of Samsung execs having unprotected group sex with Thai prostitutes on what was supposed to be a thai golfing MT, say.
Puffin, I think you are trying to draw some similarity between the Samsung Corporation and Oscar Wilde, and I'm not sure which of them would be more insulted by it, but I suspect the latter. You might also be attempting to assert that Samsung doesn't like Jews ... or something.
I'm really not sure, I confess. Are you trying to be strange? If so,I commend you. It's working.
Bobster, Wilde was accused of being a "sodomite" and he sued. The judge found he was indeed a sodomite and Wilde ended up being arrested and tossed in jail. David Irving was accused by an author of being a holocaust denialist. He sued and the judge found Irving was indeed a denialist which then made him libel for arrest in Austria. (Where he was arrested.)
The point I'm trying to make is why doesn't Samsung sue the author but tries to sue a satirist. Suing the author may well prove his claims true. Samsung may well be aware a lawsuit can backfire big time if the claims are true and read into court records. Similar to what happened to Irving and Wilde (or the McLibel case).
Granted truth is not a defense in Korea but it could have larger implications for how it conducts business with other nations or other large companies. Apple, for example, might have a policy about doing business with a company that has demonstrable ethical problems. Some institutional investors might likewise have ethical clauses that prevent them from investing in such a corporation.
So, no, I'm not trying to be strange. I'm trying to show why Samsung might understand case histories of similar situations and not pull the trigger on what appears to be a classic fit. However, Korean law makes it very easy to sue a satirist who can't read truth into the court record and have it haunt Samsung.
If you haven't already, check out the LA Times follow-up article from May 13, 2010:
Samsung drops civil suit against columnist
Thanks for that update.
Post a Comment