Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Subpoenas Samsung in South Korea Over DOJ Antitrust Case

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster


Apple has asked a U.S. court to formally request internal Samsung documents from South Korea as part of discovery in the DOJ's ongoing antitrust lawsuit against the company.

Apple-Logo-16x9-US-Flag-Feature.jpg

The DOJ filed suit against Apple in March 2024, alongside a number of governments, alleging the company used App Store rules, developer restrictions, and control over key iPhone features to stifle competition. After Apple's bid to have the case dismissed failed, the litigation moved into discovery.

Samsung is central to the case. All four complaints identify Samsung as Apple's "closest smartphone competitor," and plaintiffs allege that Apple's conduct caused Samsung to stop making smartwatches that connect to iPhone in 2021. Apple subpoenaed Samsung's U.S. subsidiary, Samsung Electronics America, for documents, but the subsidiary declined to produce any records, arguing the materials are held solely by its South Korean parent. Apple says Samsung America lodged that objection 65 times across its responses.

In a memorandum filed on April 7, Apple asked the court to issue a formal letter of request under the Hague Evidence Convention, an international mechanism that allows civil proceedings to seek documents from foreign entities. The request targets market research, sales data, financial statements, and consumer switching analyses from Samsung's smartphone and wearables divisions, as well as Galaxy Store developer agreements and documents relating to Samsung Pay, messaging apps, and super apps.

Apple pointed specifically to Smart Switch, Samsung's tool for transferring content from iPhone to a Samsung device, as evidence that the company holds directly relevant data on consumer switching behavior. The filing also seeks Samsung's own documents on its digital wallet fees, after plaintiffs alleged Apple charges banks 0.15% per Apple Pay transaction while Samsung charges nothing comparable.

Even if the court grants the motion, South Korean authorities would independently decide whether to comply, and Samsung Electronics could raise objections under Korean law.

Note: Due to the political or social nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Political News forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

Article Link: Apple Subpoenas Samsung in South Korea Over DOJ Antitrust Case
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2026/04/09/apple-subpoenas-samsung-in-doj-case/
  • Wow
Reactions: sydneysider88 and Z-4195
chars1ub0w said:
"Biting the hand that feeds you" comes to mind. Apple depends crucially on Samsung.
Click to expand...
Samsung won't do anything however. They both rely on each other and this BS has been going on since the beginning of phones. Never changes, apple sues, mainly loses, and life goes on. I highly doubt Tim Apple will get the documents he's looking for from South Korea however. That's going to be slim to none chance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: amartinez1660, savantgk3, JohnWick1954 and 7 others
chars1ub0w said:
"Biting the hand that feeds you" comes to mind. Apple depends crucially on Samsung.
Click to expand...
Apple and Samsung have had legal issues with each other for years. They still conduct a lot of business with each other. This suit by the U.S. DOJ hasn't changed that and won't change their relationship. They both benefit from each other.

Also, Apple is allowed to defend itself in court. The DOJ (and presumably Samsung) has access to internal Apple data through subpoena. What's happening is Apple's attorneys are asking for data from Samsung as part of their defense. Samsung is hiding behind technicalities of international law. They are welcome to do that, but Apple's lawyers should have the access to data to build their case in their defense.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: amartinez1660, freedomlinux, whoknows2597 and 4 others
Steve Adams said:
Samsung won't do anything however. They both rely on each other and this BS has been going on since the beginning of phones. Never changes, apple sues, mainly loses, and life goes on. I highly doubt Tim Apple will get the documents he's looking for from South Korea however. That's going to be slim to none chance.
Click to expand...
A little clarification -- this is Apple defending itself against a lawsuit by the U.S. DOJ, partially on behalf of other large companies.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Steve Adams and centauratlas
Seems to be a lot of confusion in the comments. Apple isn’t suing Samsung. Apple is trying to get Samsung to turn over documents to help Apple’s defense, which is needed because, as the article states, the impact of Apple’s actions on Samsung is central to the government’s case against Apple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: eifelbube, whoknows2597 and centauratlas
jlc1978 said:
Smart companies don't take this personally, it's just part of doing business. In this case, it isn't Samsung suing Apple, but government agencies suing.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is DOJ saying Apple stifles other companies, which is true. Many lawsuits on this topic, not just from DOJ.

"It's just part of business" trivializes the potential financial impact.
Samsung is unlikely to give away information that Apple could weaponize later.
  • August 2012: Apple won over $1 billion against Samsung in a huge US court decision. It was one of the largest patent cases in decades and its finding was anticipated to have vast market ramifications. As per reports, the jury awarded $1.049 billion to Apple but declined Samsung’s counterclaims against the US tech giant.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: diandi and centauratlas
chars1ub0w said:
Yes, this is DOJ saying Apple stifles other companies, which is true. Many lawsuits on this topic, not just from DOJ.

"It's just part of business" trivializes the potential financial impact.
Samsung is unlikely to give away information that Apple could weaponize later.
  • August 2012: Apple won over $1 billion against Samsung in a huge US court decision. It was one of the largest patent cases in decades and its finding was anticipated to have vast market ramifications. As per reports, the jury awarded $1.049 billion to Apple but declined Samsung’s counterclaims against the US tech giant.
Click to expand...
That said, the DOJ already requested information from Samsung. Apple are now requesting information from Samsung. So Samsung are being pulled into both sides of the process. Given that, it might make sense for Samsung to give both the DOJ and Apple "some" of the information that has been requested, to maintain balance. The same level of "grudging compliance".
 
  • Like
Reactions: whoknows2597
chars1ub0w said:
Yes, this is DOJ saying Apple stifles other companies, which is true. Many lawsuits on this topic, not just from DOJ.
Click to expand...

And a court will ultimately decide if pple's actions were illegal.

chars1ub0w said:
"It's just part of business" trivializes the potential financial impact.
Samsung is unlikely to give away information that Apple could weaponize later.
Click to expand...

Of course Samsung will fight to prevent turning over documents, and whether they have to is up to courts as well.

chars1ub0w said:
  • August 2012: Apple won over $1 billion against Samsung in a huge US court decision. It was one of the largest patent cases in decades and its finding was anticipated to have vast market ramifications. As per reports, the jury awarded $1.049 billion to Apple but declined Samsung’s counterclaims against the US tech giant.
Click to expand...

For companies as big as Samsung and Apple, a billion dollars is hardly life threatening, even if it is a lot of money; and just because a jury awarded it doesn't mean that is what finally will get paid. It simply becomes one more bargaining chip in business deal making. For example, Samsung may have patents it feels Apple is violating and rather tahn pay the award offer Apple a cross licensing deal. Both sides win in the end.

Happy_John said:
That said, the DOJ already requested information from Samsung. Apple are now requesting information from Samsung. So Samsung are being pulled into both sides of the process. Given that, it might make sense for Samsung to give both the DOJ and Apple "some" of the information that has been requested, to maintain balance. The same level of "grudging compliance".
Click to expand...

IANAL, so I'll leave it to lawyers to give an authoritative answer; but as I understand it if the government has evidence that may be relevant to your case and possibly help you defend yourself they have to turn it over, I wonder if that is true in this case?

It would seem to be necessary to level the playing field.
 
All the case business and suing aside.

I think you should be able to use a competitor's smart watch with an iPhone and vice versa. I understand certain features won't work with the other due to proprietary software, but people tend to keep wearables longer than they keep phones. I'm on my 3rd iPhone since I got my current Apple watch. And to be honest, with some of the crap Apple put out lately I considered looking at a Samsung phone a few times, and decided it wasn't for me.

It would be BS if I said not being able to use my Apple watch wasn't an upfront deal breaker when looking at phones. I paid close to $800 for this thing, and I'm not going to just toss it aside.

Now, that being said I'm not switching to a Samsung (or other android) any time soon, however it is kinda anticompetitive to make it impossible to do so. And in this day and age, I don't buy the "it can't be done" technical jibberish.

Just my 2 cents on the issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnWick1954 and Steve Adams
IIGS User said:
All the case business and suing aside.

I think you should be able to use a competitor's smart watch with an iPhone and vice versa. I understand certain features won't work with the other due to proprietary software, but people tend to keep wearables longer than they keep phones. I'm on my 3rd iPhone since I got my current Apple watch. And to be honest, with some of the crap Apple put out lately I considered looking at a Samsung phone a few times, and decided it wasn't for me.

It would be BS if I said not being able to use my Apple watch wasn't an upfront deal breaker when looking at phones. I paid close to $800 for this thing, and I'm not going to just toss it aside.

Now, that being said I'm not switching to a Samsung (or other android) any time soon, however it is kinda anticompetitive to make it impossible to do so. And in this day and age, I don't buy the "it can't be done" technical jibberish.

Just my 2 cents on the issue.
Click to expand...
I agree. I would have an apple watch ultra if I could use it with my Pixel and S26 Ultra. or any other device of my choosing. Thats how it should be.
 
Ultimately, a court will decide, and depending on whether they can legally compel Samsung to turn them over, Apple may push to have the court strike the government’s claim that they blocked Samsung’s smartwatch from working with the iPhone. It’s tough for a company to operate in a market and enjoy its legal protections while simultaneously staying outside its jurisdiction. Samsung might be doing Apple a favor by choosing not to assist the government in building its case. You never really know.
 
Last edited:
jlc1978 said:
For companies as big as Samsung and Apple, a billion dollars is hardly life threatening, even if it is a lot of money; and just because a jury awarded it doesn't mean that is what finally will get paid. It simply becomes one more bargaining chip in business deal making. For example, Samsung may have patents it feels Apple is violating and rather tahn pay the award offer Apple a cross licensing deal. Both sides win in the end.
Click to expand...
Nope, that's not what happened in the case.
Samsung paid $548 million.
 
chars1ub0w said:
"Biting the hand that feeds you" comes to mind. Apple depends crucially on Samsung.
Click to expand...

This is an old argument and isn’t true.

Waaaay back when Apple & Samsung were embroiled in numerous court cases over copying the iPhone people suggested Samsung should cut Apple off for parts. They never did for three reasons:

- Apple most certainly had terms in their contract requiring Samsung to meet their needs. Breaching that contract would have been very expensive.
- Apple had a problem with the Samsung Mobile division for copying, not with the Samsung Semiconductor division. They might as well be separate companies.
- If Samsung cut Apple off for components then other companies would be wary of doing business with them for fear of Samsung doing the same to them. Companies need RELIABLE suppliers, not children who break contracts at a whim.
 
  • Like
Reactions: savantgk3 and Non-Euclidean
Didn't know the case was still ongoing.

I guess it's too late to give Pam Bondi a

award.png


to make the case go away like how she made the Epstein client list disappear.
 
chars1ub0w said:
"Biting the hand that feeds you" comes to mind. Apple depends crucially on Samsung.
Click to expand...
Not exactly in the case of Samsung.

Samsung Overlord gives it subsidiaries extraordinary independence. Samsung Memory or Samsung Display isn't going to want to lose sales because Samsung Phone has issues with Apple.
 
This is Apple against the DOJ; however, someone had to complain. Samsung and how many other companies complained to the point that the DOJ got interested?

The two companies do bite each other's hand from time to time, but they are also signing contracts with the other hand.

Not taking sides on this one, but neither company is as pure as the Vestal Virgins.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnWick1954
What if Macbook Neo with the iPhone chip is Apple getting paid to gain experience with opening up the OS (that is used on iPhone chips)? Subjecting the chip to potential vulnerabilities that come from the use of an open OS... and fixing whatever needs to be fixed in hardware?
 
falkon-engine said:
What if Macbook Neo with the iPhone chip is Apple getting paid to gain experience with opening up the OS (that is used on iPhone chips)? Subjecting the chip to potential vulnerabilities that come from the use of an open OS... and fixing whatever needs to be fixed in hardware?
Click to expand...
What experience would they gain from this that they haven’t already gained from creating the M-series? The chips already share common CPU, GPU, and ML cores, and iOS and macOS have been running on them interchangeably since the A12Z Bionic, at least as far as the public knows and likely even earlier within Apple internally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back