Apple Avoids Sharing Australian Carrier Contracts with Samsung

[MacRumors]

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.

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.

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

 

[Jerome Morrow]

Nicely done.

 

[*LTD*]

Samsung: Born To Lose.™

 

[perealb]

Lol

 

[qtx43]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[iSRS]

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]

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]

...justice Annabelle Bennett indicated that there was no reason to mistrust Apple on the issue.

Could this be the basis of her feeling?:
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/13827537/

 

[Yamcha]

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]

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]

Samsung is running of ideas. Enjoy your injunction!

 

[SockRolid]

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.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

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]

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]

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*]

I could easily see Apple trying this card

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

 

[BC2009]

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]

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]

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]

Good on ya mate.

 

[1239689]

-