Samsung's 30% share amounts to less than $8M versus Samsung's share in ASML which amounted to about $500+M and $277M in additional funding, or $777+M in total. XTAL had fewer than a dozen employees. I think it's fairly clear where Samsung's "economic interest lies in this case, but Samsung is also known for diversifying their suppliers. The company bought display panels from their competitors Sharp, LGD and even BOE who had been "hinted" as having stolen their flexible displays.
As for the CEO's comment, I also posted a link to ASML's official statement denying Samsung's role after the CEO made that statement. And yet you claim that you "didn't mean implicate" the company?
> Korean Chaebol industrial policy has history of IP theft to benefit domestic industries
can you cite sources for Korean Chaebol's "industrial policy"? Or are you still bitter about Samsung implicating Taiwanese display companies, like AUOptics in price-fixing cases, which resulted in $500M fines years back?
>Like what is this even?
Sure, read my earlier comment about Taiwanese's collective insecurity or inferior complex which stems from their fear of Samsung (https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/22/technology/taiwan-tries-t...). See also my comment about Samsung's reporting of price-fixing by Taiwanese companies. I've encountered into others making similar comments about this particular case and they were all predictably of Taiwanese origin.
Samsung's 30% share amounts to less than $8M versus Samsung's share in ASML which amounted to about $500+M and $277M in additional funding, or $777+M in total. XTAL had fewer than a dozen employees. I think it's fairly clear where Samsung's "economic interest lies in this case, but Samsung is also known for diversifying their suppliers. The company bought display panels from their competitors Sharp, LGD and even BOE who had been "hinted" as having stolen their flexible displays.
As for the CEO's comment, I also posted a link to ASML's official statement denying Samsung's role after the CEO made that statement. And yet you claim that you "didn't mean implicate" the company?
> Korean Chaebol industrial policy has history of IP theft to benefit domestic industries
can you cite sources for Korean Chaebol's "industrial policy"? Or are you still bitter about Samsung implicating Taiwanese display companies, like AUOptics in price-fixing cases, which resulted in $500M fines years back?
>Like what is this even?
Sure, read my earlier comment about Taiwanese's collective insecurity or inferior complex which stems from their fear of Samsung (https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/22/technology/taiwan-tries-t...). See also my comment about Samsung's reporting of price-fixing by Taiwanese companies. I've encountered into others making similar comments about this particular case and they were all predictably of Taiwanese origin.