Samsung Plasma Internal Crack and Samsung's Response (ongoing) - Page 2

I've seen with my own eyes and heard of this same exact issue with Panasonic. This is actually the 1st I've heard of this issue with Samsung.

Cracked on delivery might be a common problem with all brands but the sudden cracked syndrome seems like something new with the Samsung. Indicates a possible design flaw they seem not willing to stand behind. To me there is just too much glass with too little support on the 59 and 64 inch models.

Wonder how many of these are wall mounted. Would seem to maybe add stress if it is tilted or if it is on a swivel and you grab the pannel to move it.

It is truly unfortunate that plasma manufacturers are not honoring a cracked panel due to manufacturing defects, but when there are loads of people defrauding the stores and manufacturers with panels that they themselves cracked, you have to expect the bad response from the manufacturers.

Not to mention the people who rent tv's for the superbowl...

but I don't really buy what you're saying. Based on their reaction, they seem more intent on claiming things are damage no matter what. If they wanted a good idea, they'd send a tech out with a half-ways decent camera instead of some dinky cell phone cam where they only want to show that there's a crack so the can claim damage. They don't really seem interested in what caused the OP's crack... only that there is a crack and that they can make it look like he caused it.

This follows logically though based on the fact that a large portion of Samsung's "innovation" in the past has just been intellectual theft of other companies' patents. So yeah, they're sort of crooks and they're much more interested in finding loopholes that work to their benefit than actually researching innovation themselves or providing real customer service.

Hopefully I can help you here. I just went through a month long struggle which I am going to create a thread on but the only way I was able to get anywhere else was to email this address
officeofpresident@sea.samsung.com
Within an hour, my month long of denied claims turned to a new ticket opened and approved immediately. Just be polite and detailed when you state your case because these are new to your case. Hopefully this solves your woes as it did mine

How in the heck do people get these kinda contact cards? I've been trying to figure out the big boss of a best buy store for like a year now.

google best buy president?

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you...y_Inc_Directly

It's a rather big accusation without a whole lot to back up your claim that Samsung stole IPRs from the other companies. Based on their past history of patent disputes and cross-licensing agreements (including those with HTC, Microsoft, Kodak, etc.), I don't believe this is a fair statement.

Venting about a denied warranty claim is one thing (and I do sympathize with the OP), but making a baseless accusation is a completely different ballgame, IMHO.

What else do you got to lose. Again, be detailed and nice, hopefully you get my results in the same timeframe

After fighting with a rep about corporates constant ticket denial i demanded to speak to them. They told me the only way was by email and this is the address they had.

Jury: Samsung violated Pioneer's plasma TV patents, has to pay $59 million:
http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/11/04...ay-59-million/

Apple to Samsung: Stop Stealing Our Ideas:
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/...e-patent-suit/

The apple suit is crap and holds no water which is why sammy countersued in regards to phones atleast because they had a ui that resembled ios before ios existed. As far as

For instance, Apple says the Galaxy Tab slavishly copies Apple's product design, using a rectangular body with rounded corners, a black border and an array of app icons similar to the iPad's.

Goes, their suing for a common shaped product. Kellogs might as well sue for the ipads rectangular shape resembling a cereal box. The pioneer thing may be accurate though so i won't comment.

http://www.businessinsider.com/samsung-designs-2011-4

http://www.fastcompany.com/1686739/t...-it-adequately

That's just a couple links. They've got a bit of a history of just copying other companies and trying to beat them in volume instead of innovation or quality.

BTW, Samsung means "three stars" in Korean. Just saying.

I was referring to the techs, not you (i.e. that they sent out to dv10 and others if they sent out a tech at all). But it just reinforces what I said that they don't want to even send out a tech if they're worried that the tech might agree with you rather than them.

That's all you got to present as evidence that Samsung is a perpetual copycat, it's a weak argument. Every technology company gets sued over for patent infringements or for copying generic shapes. Please name ONE S&P500 technology company that has never been sued for patent infringements?

By the same argument, you can say that Motorola copied RIM's Blackberry in the first place (landscape screen + QWERTY keypad). WM6 (non-professional version), per MS's mandated form factor, can't be too creative in terms of creating an original design.

Does it also mean that Apple has been ripping off others' ideas? The Apple Lisa (precursor to MacIntosh) copied the Xerox Star. One can also argue that the iPhone was a copy of LG's Prada Phone if Apple wants to argue that Samsung copied its physical and icon shapes. How about the countersuit filed by Samsung against Apple (which some consider a lot more substantial than Apple's suit)?

I don't even know what "three stars" got anything to do with your argument.

BTW, I am not a Samsung fanboi or have any vested interest in protecting Samsung. The only Samsung products I have are my Samsung Captivate (Galaxy S) and Samsung Focus phones.

Those were just other examples where they knocked off other companies designs rather than coming out with anything truly innovative (like their rabid fanboys are always claiming).

At one point, they were actually banned from selling a number of their LCDs in Europe and the US due to their patent infringements.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/18877...ent_cases.html

And looks like you completely glossed over the other Pioneer violation:

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscente...msung_sdi.html

It's their standard practice - make a knockoff, if they can't do it without violating IP then just commit patent theft, then ramp up production and sell a lot while focusing on denying warranty claims whenever possible rather if there's any leeway for them to do so. Use that money "saved" by screwing the customer to make more sets etc.. to sell to people who don't bother checking if their warranty will actually be honored.

People who've had their plasmas spontaneously crack are NOT the only people who've had trouble with Samsung warranty service... even on things that were supposedly covered. Look through threads on avs if you don't believe me.

Regarding more patent violations, feel free to do some searching on your own either here or google. I'm pretty sure I remember there being more IP violations but I just don't have time to look it up (like most things) everytime someone asks a question.


This may make me sound like a Samsung hater. I'm not. They make good products, but I disagree with their business practices. I have some low-value Samsung products and are happy with them, but I don't have any plans to even consider them for big-ticket items where I stand to lose a lot of money if things go wrong and they decide to screw me over on warranty (like they have so many others).

Sounds like you have an iPhone, the only true fanbois out there...No ones a Samsung fanboy, android possibly but not Samsung.. lol

Then you would be wrong

but that does remind me of this great video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL7yD-0pqZg

classic

The LCD case with Sharp was a suit/countersuit case where both parties settled. Again, it's difficult to design and manufacturer any product of a reasonable complexity without a potential violation of others' IPRs. That's why technology companies keep a tab on the others in case they get sued so that they can countersue. It's a standard practice among technology companies.

I run a large SW group at an S&P500 company, and this is something we get trained on and watch out for everyday.

By the way, jury verdicts in complex technical lawsuits are a crap shoot. It can go either way regardless of actual merits as it's very difficult to explain highly complex concepts to non-technical folks.

I really don't want to drag on this topic as I realize it's distracting from OP's real issue with Samsung; I will agree to disagree on Samsung's standard practice. I still maintain that Samsung is no worse than any other technology company trying to bring the best products they know how and that it's unfair to characterize Samsung as a perpetual violator of others' IPRs. It couldn't have grown to its current status as the largest consumer electronics company with that as the standard practice.

Regardless of our disagreement, I appreciate your point of view.

I think you're a bit naive about the way capitalism works, but yes we'll have to agree to disagree.

The "techs" they sent out were here for maybe 5 minutes. They didn't even turn the TV on. I believe they knew Samsung would deny the warranty of ANY crack and they knew they were wasting their time. They said they stopped by because they were in the area anyway. I told them to examine the outer panel for any impact and they agreed there was not any blemish or mark whatsoever. They told me it doesn't matter what they think, Samsung would judge my warranty coverage by the photos they sent (from their 10 yr old cell phone).

By the way, according to Grace from Samsung's President's office, you would need a microscope to see the impact damage. OK, then why didn't they bring some sort of magnification to verify the impact? This is ridiculous.

They have denied any warranty coverage despite being contacted by the Attorney General's Office in WI. I'm still awaiting the response from the NJAG (the state Samsung's main office is located).

I agree there are probably some dishonest people out there that may have cracked their TV's, but just look at the sheer number of posts across the net of people with similar cracked Samsung plasmas. I see very few complaints about other manufacturers, but a large number with Samsung plasmas. These people are all lying? Samsung's got a real problem here. Think twice before buying!

This is one reason and maybe the biggest reason that I went with Panny over the Sammy. I think I would have rather had the Sammy too I just did not want to take a chance.

I've read of this problem happening once in while with Panasonics, but much less often than Samsung. Panasonic wasn't any better with their customer service, from what I read. So, it's a better chance of no screen cracking problem with Panasonic, but, if it happens there are less people in the same boat to get advice in dealing with the particular manufacturer, Panasonic, in this case.

Might ask Samsung to borrow one of those screen magnifiers that Sharp uses to show off their 4 color pixel on their Quatron sets. Fits in the palm of the hand and does much better a job than a cell phone camera. They can be found at any retailer that carries Sharp.

It is interesting that they find in their favor on these issues despite the statements of no contact to the set by the customer and no evidence of such. Only in US criminal cases do you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Seems that in these mystery crack cases that it is more likely than non that the problem was not caused by action of the customer.

Even if heat related failures are excluded, the heat damage would seem to be caused by a manufacturering or design defect in the product, which Samsung should cover.

Don't know if anyone has mentioned this but if this problem continues to get bigger this won't help depending on how Samsung has written their contract agreement with customers:
The Supreme Court's recent 5-4 decision will prevent consumers from bringing class-action suits against corporations. The case involved Vincent and Liza Concepcion, who purchased a cellphone from AT&T Mobility. The form contract they signed provided for arbitration of all disputes between the parties. Such clauses are now widespread in a vast array of contexts.

AT&T had advertised that the phones were free but charged the Concepcions $30.22 in taxes. The Concepcions' suit was consolidated with other similar claims into a class action alleging that AT&T had engaged in false advertising and fraud by charging sales tax on phones it advertised as free.

AT&T moved to compel arbitration under the terms of its contract. The federal Court of Appeals, however, rejected this because California law is clear that such a provision is not enforceable since arbitration between two parties is no substitute for a class-action remedy.

The Supreme Court, with the five conservative justices constituting the majority, held that the Concepcions could not be part of a class-action suit but instead had to go to arbitration. The practical reality is that no such claim is ever likely to be brought. As Justice Stephen G. Breyer noted in the dissent: "What rational lawyer would have signed on to represent the Concepcions in litigation for the possibility of fees stemming from a $30.22 claim? . . . ' The realistic alternative to a class action is not 17 million individual suits, but zero individual suits, as only a lunatic or a fanatic sues for $30.'"

Class actions exist precisely for this situation, in which a large number of people lose a small amount of money and none is likely to bring an individual claim. The effect of the Supreme Court's decision is to make it far less likely that corporations engaged in even massive fraud will be held accountable when many people lose a little.
Of course plasmas do cost more but I'm assuming the principle of the decision could be used no matter what the amount is that has been lost.

Binding arbitration would not be a bad soluton to these type issues.

It would provide an quick, inexpensive method of dispute resolution.

Class action laswuits only make money for the lawyers involved. If a claimant lives long enough to see a decision, he will be lucky to see pennies on the dollar for his cliam.

Samsung just needs somebody other than their own people deciding that the customer must have done something other than just buying what they thought was a quality made product.