Apple Avoids Sharing Australian Carrier Contracts with Samsung

[1239689]

-

 

[Chundles]

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...

 

[1239689]

-

 

[liavman]

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

----------

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]

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]

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 ... people like them.

 

[daxomni]

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.