Apple Avoids Sharing Australian Carrier Contracts with Samsung

Discussion in 'iOS Blog Discussion' started by MacRumors, Nov 11, 2011.

  1. macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]


    Earlier this week, it was reported 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.

    [​IMG]


    Those early reports on the judge's ruling may, however, have been somewhat incomplete, as ZDNet Australia now reports 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.
    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
     
  2. macrumors 6502a

    Jerome Morrow

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2011
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #2
    Nicely done.
     
  3. macrumors G4

    *LTD*

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    Location:
    Canada
    #3
    Samsung: Born To Lose.™
     
  4. macrumors regular

    perealb

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    #4
    Lol
     
  5. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2007
    #5
    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.
     
  6. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2009
    #6
    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 ;)...
     
  7. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2002
    Location:
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    #7
    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.
     
  8. macrumors 68040

    Glideslope

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2007
    Location:
    NY
    #8
    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. #
     
  9. macrumors G5

    gnasher729

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    #9
    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.
     
  10. macrumors 6502

    starbird

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2010
    #10
    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?
     
  11. macrumors 6502a

    Jerome Morrow

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2011
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #11
    They can't be, because they are missing. Don't you believe them? :)
     
  12. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 6, 2010
    #12
  13. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2008
    #13
    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..
     
  14. M-O
    macrumors 6502a

    M-O

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    #14
    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.
     
  15. macrumors G5

    Consultant

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    #15
    Samsung is running of ideas. Enjoy your injunction!
     
  16. macrumors 65816

    SockRolid

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2010
    Location:
    Almost Rock Solid
    #16
    All Your Patent Are Belong To Us

    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.
     
  17. macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #17
    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.
     
  18. macrumors G5

    gnasher729

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    #18
    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.
     
  19. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    #19
    I'll take my popcorn with a little butter please!
     
  20. macrumors G4

    *LTD*

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    Location:
    Canada
    #20
    You tend to envision a lot of unlikely (sometimes bordering on the absurd) scenarios.
     
  21. macrumors 68000

    BC2009

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    #21
    And Google TV. Steve Jobs laughing hard on the other side.
     
  22. macrumors G3

    charlituna

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #22
    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.

    ----------

    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
     
  23. macrumors 68020

    MacinDoc

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2004
    Location:
    The Great White North
    #23
    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.
     
  24. macrumors 603

    justperry

    #24
    Good on ya mate.
     
  25. ekdor, Nov 12, 2011
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2013

    Guest

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    #25
    -
     

Share This Page