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.
/article-new/2011/11/apple_samsung_logos.jpg?lossy)
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.
Top Rated Comments
(View all)i hope they keep trying. this is just entertaining. next, they should ask to see iCar.
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.
I could easily see Apple trying this card
You tend to envision a lot of unlikely (sometimes bordering on the absurd) scenarios.