PDA

View Full Version : Apple Required to Reveal Australian iPhone Carrier Contracts to Samsung




MacRumors
Nov 9, 2011, 12:29 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/11/09/apple-required-to-reveal-australian-iphone-carrier-contracts-to-samsung/)


Last week, we noted (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/11/02/samsung-to-depose-jony-ive-and-other-apple-designers-seeks-iphone-4s-source-code/) that as part of its case seeking to have sales of the iPhone 4S banned in Australia, Samsung had requested access to both the iPhone 4S source code and Apple's agreements with the country's wireless carriers. Samsung's interest in the carrier contracts related to device subsidies, with the company curious about whether the amount of subsidies paid to Apple by the carriers might be resulting in anti-competitive behavior.

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/11/apple_samsung_logos.jpg


Bloomberg now reports (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-09/apple-must-reveal-australia-mobile-phone-contracts-to-samsung-judge-rules.html) that the judge in the case has sided with Samsung on the carrier contract issue, ordering Apple to turn over copies of its agreements to Samsung. Apple had objected to Samsung's request, calling it a "fishing expedition" by Samsung without a specific target relevant to the case.[Australia Federal Court Justice Annabelle] Bennett ruled the contracts with the phone operators are relevant to Samsung's case. Apple said it would oppose the disclosure and suggested it was a speculative effort to find damaging information.

"We will resist any attempts by our friends to push us into a corner" on the subsidies, Apple's lawyer Andrew Fox told the judge. "This is quite clearly a fishing expedition."Bennett declined to rule on Samsung's source code request at this time, noting that she will address the issue on November 11th unless Apple and Samsung reach an agreement on their own before then.

Article Link: Apple Required to Reveal Australian iPhone Carrier Contracts to Samsung (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/11/09/apple-required-to-reveal-australian-iphone-carrier-contracts-to-samsung/)



Mitchryan
Nov 9, 2011, 12:47 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

Smells a little fishy. Apple sounds better in an Australian accent anyway.

Menopause
Nov 9, 2011, 12:49 PM
This judge be crazy ! :eek:

ComputersaysNo
Nov 9, 2011, 12:56 PM
Crikey!

iRobby
Nov 9, 2011, 12:58 PM
This SUCKS!! Today news is horrendous:

1. Apple Required to Reveal Australian Carrier Cintracts to Samsung
2. iPhone 4S orders cut in Q4
3. Kindle Fire Seen Slowing Some Previously Planned iPad Purchases

tray3
Nov 9, 2011, 01:09 PM
This SUCKS!! Today news is horrendous:

1. Apple Required to Reveal Australian Carrier Cintracts to Samsung
2. iPhone 4S orders cut in Q4
3. Kindle Fire Seen Slowing Some Previously Planned iPad Purchases

Not quite....

1. Adobe Discontinues Development of Flash Player on Mobile Devices (vindication for Jobs)
2. Apple Jumps to Fourth in Greenpeace's Environmental Rankings of Electronics Companies
:) :D

BC2009
Nov 9, 2011, 01:10 PM
This SUCKS!! Today news is horrendous:

1. Apple Required to Reveal Australian Carrier Cintracts to Samsung
2. iPhone 4S orders cut in Q4
3. Kindle Fire Seen Slowing Some Previously Planned iPad Purchases

1. But not having to reveal source code

2. iPhone 4S orders not really cut (see update -- all sell-through tracking is showing this is not the case and Apple may be trying to manipulate the price of components)

3. Kindle Fire killing "planned purchases" of iPad (i.e.: folks who were planning to buy an iPad, but had not because it was too expensive, opted for a $200 Kindle Fire -- imagine that)

4. Did you notice that Adobe stopped making Mobile Flash?

aeaglex07
Nov 9, 2011, 01:12 PM
I'm no legal expert but still not sure how these contracts are relevant to Samsung's case.

Also wouldn't the carriers be able to object to this, seeing how this could affect contracts they have with other companies?

Tailpike1153
Nov 9, 2011, 02:46 PM
I'm no legal expert but still not sure how these contracts are relevant to Samsung's case.

Also wouldn't the carriers be able to object to this, seeing how this could affect contracts they have with other companies?

I'm not sure of Samsung's legal maneuvers either. But is looking like it will be will trying to use the Chewbacca defense in court. It doesn't make sense!

FakeWozniak
Nov 9, 2011, 03:03 PM
Not sure I see the point. So Apple is probably getting a higher subsidy from the mobile operators in Australia. This is more incentive for them to push Samsung phones. See the plans are the same regardless of Apple or Samsung and they ship less of the profits to Samsung, keeping more in their own pocket.

Maybe that premise is wrong though. Maybe Apple is taking a smaller subsidy than Samsung. That would be interesting.

paul4339
Nov 9, 2011, 03:18 PM
Not sure I see the point. So Apple is probably getting a higher subsidy from the mobile operators in Australia. This is more incentive for them to push Samsung phones. See the plans are the same regardless of Apple or Samsung and they ship less of the profits to Samsung, keeping more in their own pocket.

Maybe that premise is wrong though. Maybe Apple is taking a smaller subsidy than Samsung. That would be interesting.


but even if they are getting a different subsidy... there's no explanation on what the connection it has with the patent lawsuits.



.

sciwizam
Nov 9, 2011, 03:56 PM
1. But not having to reveal source code

2. iPhone 4S orders not really cut (see update -- all sell-through tracking is showing this is not the case and Apple may be trying to manipulate the price of components)

3. Kindle Fire killing "planned purchases" of iPad (i.e.: folks who were planning to buy an iPad, but had not because it was too expensive, opted for a $200 Kindle Fire -- imagine that)

4. Did you notice that Adobe stopped making Mobile Flash?

Judge Bennett deferred on the additional docs that Samsung wanted.

In the Australian suit, Samsung also sought the source code for the iPhone 4S firmware to support its case that Apple infringes its patents for wireless transmissions. Apple has turned over 220 pages of documents relating to the source code, Fox said.

Samsung said the source-code disclosure wasn’t enough because a file was missing. The company sought an order for Apple to produce the documents.

“Someone out there is attempting to obfuscate,” Samsung’s lawyer Cynthia Cochrane told the judge.

Bennett deferred judgment on Samsung’s request for the additional source-code material and said she would deal with it on Nov. 11, if the two sides can’t reach an agreement in the meantime.

ekdor
Nov 9, 2011, 09:57 PM
-

Colpeas
Nov 10, 2011, 02:43 AM
Samsung just got totally insane... This makes no sense. Maybe they want to copy the whole UI...

KnightWRX
Nov 10, 2011, 04:28 AM
Samsung just got totally insane... This makes no sense. Maybe they want to copy the whole UI...

Uh ? What are you smoking ? The source code they asked for is for the radio driver to access the Broadcom/Qualcomm communication chip Apple is using for cellular voice/data/wifi. Samsung holds patents on some methods of accessing these chips and needs to ascertain if Apple is infringing on those patents or not.

Where did you get "copying the UI" out of that ? :rolleyes:

erzhik
Nov 10, 2011, 09:12 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

Hand over source code. To me that sounds like anti-competitive behavior.

Every day I dislike Samsung more and more.

Did you not read the news 3 months ago when Apple forced the court to ban sales of Galaxy Tabs in Australia?

If Apple thought that suing a giant like Samsung would not cause any kind of repercussions, they were highly mistaken. Samsung is not a small company. If you are going to sue them, you better make sure you are ready to defend, because they will attack you with all guns.

AppleFan1984
Nov 10, 2011, 12:38 PM
If Apple thought that suing a giant like Samsung would not cause any kind of repercussions, they were highly mistaken.
Maybe they thought it would be a slam dunk if they could get the case in a court run by a judge who's married to a partner of the firm they hired to represent them:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=13827537&postcount=151

MacinDoc
Nov 12, 2011, 12:19 AM
Apparently the terms that Samsung was fishing for in the carrier contracts were not there, so Apple does NOT have to disclose the contracts to Samsung, after all.

BC2009
Nov 14, 2011, 11:25 AM
Judge Bennett deferred on the additional docs that Samsung wanted.


In the Australian suit, Samsung also sought the source code for the iPhone 4S firmware to support its case that Apple infringes its patents for wireless transmissions. Apple has turned over 220 pages of documents relating to the source code, Fox said.

Samsung said the source-code disclosure wasn’t enough because a file was missing. The company sought an order for Apple to produce the documents.

“Someone out there is attempting to obfuscate,” Samsung’s lawyer Cynthia Cochrane told the judge.

Bennett deferred judgment on Samsung’s request for the additional source-code material and said she would deal with it on Nov. 11, if the two sides can’t reach an agreement in the meantime.



Can you provide a citation for that quote? Today's news indicates that Apple only had to reveal its 3G base bad source code for 2 hours to a Samsung engineer. I'm trying to resolve the conflicting reports.