Originally Posted by Abster2core
You are correct in part.
As I originally posted, i.e., For those of you who have denigrated comments by accusing Apple of lying, perhaps a little course on your judicial system is in order. To openly declare that Apple would overtly commit perjury is a testament of not only ignorance but stupidity." was in a general response to a comment made earlier:
I had taken the letter from Apple as being a deposition, and as by definition, a deposition is taken under oath.
However, now having access to the letters to the FCC, it would appear that although they are not depositions, lying to their questions in any format could have serious consequences. One that Apple would surely consider in light of their need to cooperate with the agency if they ever wanted to continue to provide products that need their approval.
And if Apple were to be subpoenaed in front of the FCC and lied under oath in testimony, depositions or supported materials, it would be perjury.
"In the United States, for example,The rules for perjury also apply when a person has made a statement under penalty of perjury, even if the person has not been sworn or affirmed as a witness before an appropriate official."
Absolutely. A charge of perjury then comes down to whether Apple believed or had reason to believe they were giving their response under penalty of perjury or under oath. I don't see anything in the request for information or response that would make me believe they were or thought they were, but it is possible. Regardless of if it would be legally defined as perjury, lying to the FCC in a formal response would and should carry penalties. They are a government regulatory body and as such has the authority to sanction and penalize a company for lying, which would not be in Apple's best interests, as they rely on the FCC for approval.
In any event, I do not think Apple lied in their response. I do think they intentionally gave answers that could be misleading. For example, their use of the word 'replace'. Even though they clearly and only give examples of their "UI being replaced" that show they mean replaced as in given an alternative, many interpret it as meaning Apple functionality is actually removed and replaced by Google's app. This is obviously not the case with even a cursory reading, but none the less, it has been interpreted as such by some.
Actually, even their examples are misleading.
For example, on an iPhone, the Phone icon that is always shown at the bottom of the Home Screen launches Apples mobile telephone application, providing access to Favorites, Recents, Contacts, a Keypad, and Visual Voicemail. The Google Voice application replaces Apples Visual Voicemail by routing calls through a separate Google Voice telephone number that stores any voicemail, preventing voicemail from being stored on the iPhone, i.e., disabling Apples Visual Voicemail
They state that the GV app would replace Apple's VVM, intentionally leading some to take it to mean the Apple VVM is removed. But then they continue to explain that they mean it is actually replaced because calls are routed through a separate GV telephone number that stores the voice mail. This makes it sound like calls are being re
routed to the GV phone number, when in fact the calls that go to the GV Voice Mail system are only
calls that were made to the GV phone number. It would be identical to you using an app that allowed you to retrieve voice main left on your home answering machine, which were left when people called your home
phone number. The only difference is that the GV service first rings your home phone or work phone or iPhone. If anyone direct dials your cell phone number, their messages will be left on your Apple VVM server. Nothing is rerouted in that sense and Apple's VVM is clearly not disabled, as they state, just made redundant with a free service. It is 'disabled' only in the sense that if it isn't used, it is disabled. Note that they say 'disabled' as an example of the voice mail being stored elsewhere. Denying or delaying the app for this reason would be the same as denying an app that automated listening to you home answering machine.
Their second example is similarly misleading.
Similarly, SMS text messages are managed through the Google hubreplacing the iPhones text messaging feature.
Again, the iPhones text messaging feature is only replaced if a user choose not to use it and exclusively uses the GV SMS feature. Any SMS that are sent to your iPhone phone number will appear in the iPhones built in messaging app. The GV receives only SMS sent to your GV number. Someone not paying attention, might read the work 'replacing' and think it meant the iPhone's Messages app was removed. But again, it is only 'replaced' in the sense that a user can use it as a replacement. They could opt to use both or neither or the built in option.
Then there is their statement about the user contacts list on the iPhone.
In addition, the iPhone users entire Contacts database is transferred to Googles servers, and we have yet to obtain any assurances from Google that this data will only be used in appropriate ways.
Unbelievably, some have read this to mean the contacts data is sent to Google without the user's consent or knowledge. This is the most vexing misreading or intentional fabrication. It obviously says nothing of the sort. While this could be the case, I would have my doubts. Whether it is the case or not, Apple's statement certainly contains no such accusation.
They state that they "have yet to obtain any assurances from Google that this data will only be used in appropriate ways". This is an incredibly vague statement. Did they even request this consent from Google? If they did, what reason would Google have for not giving such assurances? If Google was the malevolent entity that some believe them to be, why would they not simply give the assurances and then break their word? What is Apple's definition of 'appropriate'? I am sure Google feels they would only use it appropriately, even if we or Apple would not.
Again, I don't think Apple actually lied in their statement to the FCC. I think the were intentionally vague and used language that was open to interpretation, with the knowledge that some would misconstrue the meaning.