Apple Required to Reveal Australian iPhone Carrier Contracts to Samsung

Discussion in 'iOS Blog Discussion' started by MacRumors, Nov 9, 2011.

  1. macrumors bot

    MacRumors

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


    Last week, we noted 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.

    [​IMG]


    Bloomberg now reports 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.
    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
     
  2. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2011
    #2
    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.
     
  3. macrumors 6502

    Menopause

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    #3
    This judge be crazy ! :eek:
     
  4. macrumors 6502

    ComputersaysNo

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Location:
    Amsterdam
    #4
    Crikey!
     
  5. macrumors 6502a

    iRobby

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Location:
    Fort Myers, FL USA
    #5
    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
     
  6. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    #6
    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
     
  7. macrumors 68000

    BC2009

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    #7
    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?
     
  8. macrumors 6502

    aeaglex07

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    Location:
    United States
    #8
    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?
     
  9. macrumors 6502a

    Tailpike1153

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2004
    Location:
    Fort Wayne, IN
    #9
    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!
     
  10. macrumors 6502

    FakeWozniak

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    #10
    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.
     
  11. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2009
    #11

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



    .
     
  12. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2010
    #12
    Judge Bennett deferred on the additional docs that Samsung wanted.

     
  13. ekdor, Nov 9, 2011
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2013

    Guest

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    #13
    -
     
  14. macrumors 6502

    Colpeas

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2011
    Location:
    Prague, Czech Rep.
    #14
    Samsung just got totally insane... This makes no sense. Maybe they want to copy the whole UI...
     
  15. macrumors Pentium

    KnightWRX

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Location:
    Quebec, Canada
    #15
    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:
     
  16. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2010
    #16
    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.
     
  17. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 6, 2010
    #17
    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
     
  18. macrumors 68020

    MacinDoc

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2004
    Location:
    The Great White North
    #18
    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.
     
  19. macrumors 68000

    BC2009

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    #19
    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.
     

Share This Page