PDA

View Full Version : Apple Avoids Sharing Australian Carrier Contracts with Samsung




MacRumors
Nov 11, 2011, 09:06 AM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/11/11/apple-avoids-sharing-australian-carrier-contracts-with-samsung/)


Earlier this week, it was reported (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/11/09/apple-required-to-reveal-australian-iphone-carrier-contracts-to-samsung/) that Apple had been ordered to share with Samsung terms of the contracts it held with Australian carriers. As part of its lawsuit attempting to have sales of the iPhone 4S halted in the country, Samsung sought information about subsidies being paid to Apple by carriers and whether the amounts of those subsidies might somehow result in anti-competitive behavior.

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


Those early reports on the judge's ruling may, however, have been somewhat incomplete, as ZDNet Australia now reports (http://www.zdnet.com.au/apple-keeps-carrier-contracts-confidential-339326002.htm) that Apple was instructed to share only certain parts of those terms should they exist in the carrier contracts. According to the report, Apple claims that the terms Samsung had been looking for do not exist in the contracts, and with that claim Apple has avoided full disclosure of the terms.The NSW branch of the Federal Court made an order yesterday that Apple had until noon on 10 November 2011 to produce certain contract terms or face disclosing full, non-redacted contracts to Samsung's barristers.

Despite dismissing the notice to produce as being a Samsung-led "fishing expedition" yesterday in court, Apple complied with the notice to produce, informing representatives from Samsung that the clauses that it was seeking to confirm as being present within the contracts were in fact nowhere to be found.A Samsung lawyer apparently pressed the judge on whether Apple's claim could be believed, but abandoned that pursuit after justice Annabelle Bennett indicated that there was no reason to mistrust Apple on the issue.

Article Link: Apple Avoids Sharing Australian Carrier Contracts with Samsung (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/11/11/apple-avoids-sharing-australian-carrier-contracts-with-samsung/)



Jerome Morrow
Nov 11, 2011, 09:20 AM
Nicely done.

*LTD*
Nov 11, 2011, 09:26 AM
Samsung: Born To Lose.™

perealb
Nov 11, 2011, 09:30 AM
Lol

qtx43
Nov 11, 2011, 10:11 AM
I don't believe in the existence of morality for non-people entities, like businesses. But you never know what might happen in future litigation, so lying about something like that would be really stupid for Apple. Judges don't like to be lied to. It's surprising to me that Samsung would even bring up the possibility; it ruins the potential for saying "I'm shocked!" if it ever does happen.

darbus69
Nov 11, 2011, 10:16 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

reading this dribble is such a waste of time and not very entertaining or satisfying...makes me dislike both sides (well, Samsung more ;)...

Henriok
Nov 11, 2011, 10:17 AM
There's a way to determine if Apple's lying. Show the documents to the court, not Samsung's lawyers. If the records are present, Apple is lying and shame on them. If they are missing, Samsung's fishing expedition was a bust. Tough.

Glideslope
Nov 11, 2011, 10:23 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)

Nice week for Samsung and Adobe. 🙏

gnasher729
Nov 11, 2011, 10:25 AM
I don't believe in the existence of morality for non-people entities, like businesses. But you never know what might happen in future litigation, so lying about something like that would be really stupid for Apple. Judges don't like to be lied to. It's surprising to me that Samsung would even bring up the possibility; it ruins the potential for saying "I'm shocked!" if it ever does happen.

Lying would be a really really bad idea, because obviously the carriers involved know what's in the contracts since they signed them as well. You shouldn't lie to a judge anyway, but doing it when there is someone who can prove it anytime they want, that would be an awfully stupid thing to do.

starbird
Nov 11, 2011, 10:25 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

So in other words, it was a fishing expedition?

Jerome Morrow
Nov 11, 2011, 10:25 AM
Show the documents to the court, not Samsung's lawyers. If the records are present, Apple is lying and shame on them. If they are missing, Samsung's fishing expedition was a bust. Tough.

They can't be, because they are missing. Don't you believe them? :)

AppleFan1984
Nov 11, 2011, 10:31 AM
...justice Annabelle Bennett indicated that there was no reason to mistrust Apple on the issue.
Could this be the basis of her feeling?:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=13827537&postcount=151

Yamcha
Nov 11, 2011, 10:33 AM
This is stupid, first of all not every Samsung Tablet or Phone has the same UI and Design as Apple..

I can understand the banning of certain models though.. Samsung is clearly just trying to annoy Apple at this point..

M-O
Nov 11, 2011, 10:48 AM
Samsung keeps requesting to see items that don't exist... (iPhone 5).
i hope they keep trying. this is just entertaining. next, they should ask to see iCar.

Consultant
Nov 11, 2011, 10:55 AM
Samsung is running of ideas. Enjoy your injunction!

SockRolid
Nov 11, 2011, 01:32 PM
Two words: "clueless flailing."

Samsung will go ballistic if and when Apple rolls out their TV set.
We'll need to get lots of popcorn for that.

Rodimus Prime
Nov 11, 2011, 01:45 PM
Lying would be a really really bad idea, because obviously the carriers involved know what's in the contracts since they signed them as well. You shouldn't lie to a judge anyway, but doing it when there is someone who can prove it anytime they want, that would be an awfully stupid thing to do.

I could easily see Apple trying this card hoping that carriers would be to chicken to go against them.

It would be a major gamble if they are trying to cover it up because if caught they pretty much fired all their cases are tossed out and all credibility from Apple would be fried in court.

gnasher729
Nov 11, 2011, 02:46 PM
I could easily see Apple trying this card hoping that carriers would be to chicken to go against them.

It would be a major gamble if they are trying to cover it up because if caught they pretty much fired all their cases are tossed out and all credibility from Apple would be fried in court.

You could see that? I'm sure Apple's lawyers are well paid, but not well enough paid to risk disbarment and jail time. I'm sure the carriers are afraid of Apple, but they wouldn't be afraid anymore during the next contract negotiations if they had that kind of dirt on Apple. And maybe _you_ could easily see Apple lying in court, but I couldn't. Not if there was no risk being caught, and definitely not if being caught was practically unavoidable.

DesignerOnMac
Nov 11, 2011, 03:10 PM
Two words: "clueless flailing."

Samsung will go ballistic if and when Apple rolls out their TV set.
We'll need to get lots of popcorn for that.

I'll take my popcorn with a little butter please!

*LTD*
Nov 11, 2011, 03:29 PM
I could easily see Apple trying this card

You tend to envision a lot of unlikely (sometimes bordering on the absurd) scenarios.

BC2009
Nov 11, 2011, 04:32 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)

Nice week for Samsung and Adobe. ��

And Google TV. Steve Jobs laughing hard on the other side.

charlituna
Nov 11, 2011, 09:59 PM
There's a way to determine if Apple's lying. Show the documents to the court, not Samsung's lawyers. If the records are present, Apple is lying and shame on them. If they are missing, Samsung's fishing expedition was a bust. Tough.

I was thinking the same thing. Argue the terms are anti-competive and ask the court to set up a review by a 3rd party to see if the terms are present. But Samsung would never see the contracts in full.

----------

Two words: "clueless flailing."

Samsung will go ballistic if and when Apple rolls out their TV set.
We'll need to get lots of popcorn for that.

They will just do what they are doing now and claim that Apple didn't properly license patents key to tv tech. Apple will counter that they tried and were refused and since they are key patents they fall under FRAND and Samsung shouldn't have refused them. Or that they bought their components from a company that licensed the patents to make the parts and thus Apple doesn't have to pay and Samsung is trying to double dip which is unfair and unreasonable and also a violation of FRAND

MacinDoc
Nov 12, 2011, 12:04 AM
I could easily see Apple trying this card hoping that carriers would be to chicken to go against them.

It would be a major gamble if they are trying to cover it up because if caught they pretty much fired all their cases are tossed out and all credibility from Apple would be fried in court.
How could you "easily" see this? It would be a huge gamble for Apple and its lawyers, for minimal benefit. The only way you make this bluff is if you are 100% certain that nobody will call it. And anyway, if you do make this claim, every carrier has you by the cajones in the next round of negotiations. So, in other words, it would be the dumbest legal and negotiating move ever.

Maybe you could try to turn the bias in your comments down a few notches. It's okay to believe that the sun doesn't shine out of Apple's backside, but that doesn't mean that Steve Jobs was the Antichrist and Apple's employees and contractors his evil minions.

justperry
Nov 12, 2011, 03:24 AM
Good on ya mate.

ekdor
Nov 12, 2011, 09:05 PM
-

ekdor
Nov 12, 2011, 09:09 PM
-

Chundles
Nov 12, 2011, 09:09 PM
DAMN!!!

I was hoping to see how many beers the Telstra CEO had to skull before Apple said they could have the phone.

Those of course being the traditional contract terms down here...

ekdor
Nov 12, 2011, 09:17 PM
-

liavman
Nov 13, 2011, 10:34 AM
Justice Annabelle Bennett indicated that there was no reason to mistrust Apple on the issue

Way to go Annabelle!! You are on the good side :p

----------

Lying would be a really really bad idea, because obviously the carriers involved know what's in the contracts since they signed them as well. You shouldn't lie to a judge anyway, but doing it when there is someone who can prove it anytime they want, that would be an awfully stupid thing to do.

Well, given how nit-picky lawyers can get ( remember, it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is ), I can see why Samsung lawyers wanted to make sure that Apple is answering the right question. This is not that dissimilar to normal work situations, where you ask a question that is two sentences long ending with Is this true? and the answer is simply a 'No'. It will be better if the answer accompanies with some sentence to indicate that they really understood the question. In legal cases, though they try to reduce ambiguity, they still argue to death about what each clause means.

Also, if the question is a straightforward, 'Do such provisions exist in your contract' ( assuming 'such' terms are unambiguous ), then the answer is a simple 'No'. Why all this big drama? May be this is all way too common in such legal proceedings and it is us, in this heightened awareness of everything about Apple, are butting our heads into businesses where we really do not belong.

MacAddict1978
Nov 13, 2011, 02:40 PM
Lying would be a really really bad idea, because obviously the carriers involved know what's in the contracts since they signed them as well. You shouldn't lie to a judge anyway, but doing it when there is someone who can prove it anytime they want, that would be an awfully stupid thing to do.

Not to mention, the Judge could privately review the contracts to ensure Apple is carrying itself with integrity if the judge felt there was deception.

I dont understand what Samsung hoped to do with this insane notion. Were they hoping there was language in the contracts forbidding a carrier to display Samsung tablets except in the last 5 feet of the store?

I'm thinking it was probably something like that, some anti-competative clause.

The reason you don't see tablets front and center except iPads is because people don't care about them. Retailers don't waste prominent display space on things that won't sell as well. (They did try, and people went straight to the iPad anyway.)

As far as pricing agreements with carriers, it's well know that Apple charges the highest subsidized pricing of any device maker in the market. That isn't anti-competitive at all. If anything, carriers have MORE incentive to buy into competing devices because it's more profitable.

So really, what did they hope to see?

D4F
Nov 14, 2011, 03:34 AM
Not to mention, the Judge could privately review the contracts to ensure Apple is carrying itself with integrity if the judge felt there was deception.

I dont understand what Samsung hoped to do with this insane notion. Were they hoping there was language in the contracts forbidding a carrier to display Samsung tablets except in the last 5 feet of the store?

I'm thinking it was probably something like that, some anti-competative clause.

The reason you don't see tablets front and center except iPads is because people don't care about them. Retailers don't waste prominent display space on things that won't sell as well. (They did try, and people went straight to the iPad anyway.)

As far as pricing agreements with carriers, it's well know that Apple charges the highest subsidized pricing of any device maker in the market. That isn't anti-competitive at all. If anything, carriers have MORE incentive to buy into competing devices because it's more profitable.

So really, what did they hope to see?

Where I live other tablets are quite popular. Especially 7". People don't feel like dragging 10" with them too often. I rarely take my iPad with me due to its size.
As for store front Samsung, Asus are much more visible than iPads. And here's a shocker :rolleyes: ... people like them.

daxomni
Nov 14, 2011, 11:40 AM
This article reminds me of the Catholic Church abuse scandal that was delayed for generations because the Church insisted that the specific topics being demanded by the courts didn't exist in the specific documents referenced. It was a genius move that allowed abusers to keep on abusing without having to suffer the consequences. Only after the scandal broke did the widespread "defense through obscurity" policy become clear. I strongly suggest the court demand to see the documents to verify the veracity of Apple's contention. Otherwise the judge would appear to be expressing irrational trust or naivete.