Canada court orders Apple divulge documents in iPhone anti-competition probe
The Federal Court of Canada on Wednesday said it will order Apple to release documents to the country's Competition Bureau as part of an ongoing investigation into possible anticompetitive practices regarding iPhone partner carrier contracts.
According to Reuters, Chief Justice Paul Crampton agreed to sign an order compelling Apple's Canadian subsidiary to hand over documents pertinent to the investigation, including contracts with cellular providers.
The probe, announced last week by Canada's Competition Bureau, is an attempt to assess whether Apple illegally leveraged the iPhone's substantial market sway to force wireless carriers into raising service prices for competing handsets. Alternatively, Apple may have inked agreements that dissuaded partners from lowering prices of other smartphones.
In the U.S. and beyond, Apple is known to wield the iPhone as a considerable bargaining chip in landing favorable deals with providers eager to sell the popular device. Last year, the European Commission scrutinized Apple's iPhone sales strategies after receiving complaints from mobile operators.
Derek Leschinsky, a lawyer with the bureau, said California-based Apple is considering a constitutional challenge of the order to compel production of sensitive business documents through its wholly owned foreign subsidiary.
Apple has 90 days to hand over the documents, or in lieu of such action, lodge a challenge with Canada's federal court system. As noted by Leschinsky, however, no party has been successful in arguing the Competition Act as unconstitutional.
According to Reuters, Chief Justice Paul Crampton agreed to sign an order compelling Apple's Canadian subsidiary to hand over documents pertinent to the investigation, including contracts with cellular providers.
The probe, announced last week by Canada's Competition Bureau, is an attempt to assess whether Apple illegally leveraged the iPhone's substantial market sway to force wireless carriers into raising service prices for competing handsets. Alternatively, Apple may have inked agreements that dissuaded partners from lowering prices of other smartphones.
In the U.S. and beyond, Apple is known to wield the iPhone as a considerable bargaining chip in landing favorable deals with providers eager to sell the popular device. Last year, the European Commission scrutinized Apple's iPhone sales strategies after receiving complaints from mobile operators.
Derek Leschinsky, a lawyer with the bureau, said California-based Apple is considering a constitutional challenge of the order to compel production of sensitive business documents through its wholly owned foreign subsidiary.
Apple has 90 days to hand over the documents, or in lieu of such action, lodge a challenge with Canada's federal court system. As noted by Leschinsky, however, no party has been successful in arguing the Competition Act as unconstitutional.
Comments
The handsets are a bargain comparatively. I've never seen so many "free" phones offered with a contract.
Perhaps someone can explain what's really going on here in plain English?
That's obvious. As I said, I find it to be totally implausible. In nearly four decades of existence, Apple has done the exact opposite with every one of its products, starting with PCs.
Why don't they investigate the carriers to determine why the country has some of the highest rates for mobile plans anywhere?
The handsets are a bargain comparatively. I've never seen so many "free" phones offered with a contract.
Oh no, that's too logical, because the Canadian authorities will protect carriers like Rogers and go after the American business as a sign of saying "We're doing something!" Sometimes it seems these legal maneuvers are attempts to get access to documents that otherwise they would not be able to view than anything else.
Anticompetitive practices. Who is affected? If any company wants to charge a million dollars for a phone, what's stopping them from doing that? The carriers don't have to carry anything they don't want to. They also don't have to sign anything they don't want to. Saying because Apple mobile products have "substantial market sway" they have to be investigated for doing something every other company does is a crock. Why don't they investigate Samsung's practices, or Amazon's or Google's. Apple is successfully not because of contracts but because a lot of people are willing to buy their products, no matter what they cost. Those people who complain about the price can go buy someone else's phone. It's as simple as that. Nobody has a "right" to buy an Apple phone for less money than another phone.
Actually, If Apple has to divulge it's contracts then everyone should have to and the public should also know who has made the request. Let's all be transparent instead of hiding behind some bogus non-governmental agency.
Difficult to prove anti-competitive practices among carriers without evidence of collusion since Canada is a much more sparsely populated country that automatically suggests greater costs to deliver products and services. I'm not absolving the carriers of anti-competitive practices however, but the Competition Bureau needs reasonable cause to investigate and won't unless someone provides it to them in the form of an official complaint.
Why aren't they demanding the carriers produce their contracts instead of Apple? Because it's a blatant case of harassing Apple and has nothing to do with protecting consumer interests.
It's clear that the current Canadian Government is not on the side of carriers. It has made decisions to expand the level competition in that industry to the latter's disdain.
Difficult to prove anti-competitive practices among carriers without evidence of collusion since Canada is a much more sparsely populated country that automatically suggests greater costs to deliver products and services. I'm not absolving the carriers of anti-competitive practices however, but the Competition Bureau needs reasonable cause to investigate and won't unless someone provides it to them in the form of an official complaint.
Just anecdotally form my own experience, they just need to look at historical pricing to discover that carrier packages are always more expensive for iPhone owners. Every time I have looked at plans for my own, my wife's and my kid's iPhones I have spotted great deals only to be told those deals do not apply to iPhones. I'd go and check right now but looking through the carriers' plans is such a mindfu*k I won't subject myself to it.
"More expensive" is not evidence of anti-competitiveness.
Why don't they investigate the carriers to determine why the country has some of the highest rates for mobile plans anywhere?
The handsets are a bargain comparatively. I've never seen so many "free" phones offered with a contract.
According to the OECD, when you compare capping, speed and volume, Canadians do quite well.
Particularly when examining some of the issues that Canadians have had to face that are quite foreign to most countries, e.g.,
However, having said that, my experience (with Rogers) tells me our service compared to ATT and Verizon is far superior re speed, volume and support, as well as price. Just recently, my foray into New England last month to visit relatives is some proof of that. Everything was equal or better here, including the price they were paying. (the dollar excluding). Support was significantly inferior for our American cousins.
Now this is not to say, that it would be nice if we were paying less. But having superior healthcare, transportation services and less recently planted flags in our cemeteries somewhat offsets the difference that our neighbours to the south are subject with.
"More expensive" is not evidence of anti-competitiveness.
Exactly. I haven't looked into the details of this case but it looks topsy turvey to me. As far as I am concerned it should be a case against the carriers for not extending the same deals to IOS devices as everybody else.
Originally Posted by Onhka
...
...
THERE it is....it's all about RIM !!!!
Why aren't they demanding the carriers produce their contracts instead of Apple? Because it's a blatant case of harassing Apple and has nothing to do with protecting consumer interests.
According to AppleInsider's article on Monday, they already did that:
Both Apple and its carrier partners in Canada have been asked to turn over documents dating back to the Canadian introduction of the original iPhone in July 2008. Apple has reportedly delivered "some" documents, while carriers have provided more than 2,500 such records.