2-operator can not establish its own pricing policy
3-operator pays money to an advertising fund used to Apple's discretion
4-finance the operator highlighting the iPhone in stores by the operator, who is committed to a minimum expenditure
5-Apple can freely use trademarks owned by operators, while Apple strictly controls the ability for the operator to communicate the Apple brand
6, the operator is imposing strict controls conditions, while Apple makes no commitment on compliance orders and deliveries
7-operator participates in the terminal repair costs
8-Apple has the unilateral right to terminate the contract without adherence to a notice in accordance with law
9-Apple can freely use the operator's patents
10-Apple gets conditions at least as favorable as those -or more favorables- competing manufacturers on rates outside the bundle;quality of service; the commissions to sellers; loan fees of a replacement device; limitation of services offered to customers.
A better translation:
Les 10 clauses jugées illicites par la DGCCRF
1-l'opérateur doit commander un volume minimal sur 3 ans
- The carrier must buy a minimum volume for 3 years.
2-l'opérateur ne peut pas établir sa propre politique tarifaire
- The carrier can't establish the pricing structure.
3-l'opérateur verse de l'argent à un fonds publicitaire utilisé à la discrétion d'Apple
- The carrier must pay into an advertising fund that Apple controls.
4-l'opérateur finance la mise en avant de l'iPhone en magasin par l'opérateur, qui s'engage sur un montant minimal de dépenses
- The carrier pays for in-store advertisement of iPhone, and promises to pay a minimum for such advertising.
5-Apple
peut utiliser librement les marques appartenant aux opérateurs, alors
qu'Apple contrôle strictement la possibilité pour l'opérateur de
communiquer sur les marques d'Apple
- Apple can use the carrier's trademarks, while Apple strictly controls how the carrier can use the Apple trademarks.
6-l'opérateur se voit imposer
des conditions de commandes strictes, alors qu'Apple ne prend aucun
engagement sur le respect des commandes et des livraisons
- The carrier must adhere to strict orders, while Apple doesn't have to respect orders or their fulfillment/delivery times.
7-l'opérateur participe aux frais de réparation des terminaux
- The carrier must participate financially in the repairs of phones.
8-Apple a la faculté unilatérale de résilier le contrat, sans respect d'un préavis conforme à la loi
- Apple can unilaterally cancel the contract, without notice.
9-Apple peut utiliser librement les brevets de l'opérateur
- Apple can freely use the carrier's patents.
10-Apple
obtient des conditions au moins aussi favorables -ou plus favorables-
que celles des constructeurs concurrents sur les tarifs hors forfait; la
qualité du service; les commissions accordées aux vendeurs; les frais
de prêt d'un appareil de remplacement; la limitation des services
proposés aux clients.
- Apple gets at least as good a deal -if not better- as other competitor phone makers on prices without a phone plan; the quality of service; commissions given to resellers; the price of providing a temporary replacement phone; the limiting of services proposed to their clientele.
France, put energy in fixing terrorist problem from illegal immigration than going after companies who gives some jobs in country and hurt/kill no one. Moreover, all business by it's legal structure and obligation to it's shareholders act different than non-profit organization.
US Deaths by terrorist attacks: 2997
France Deaths by terrorist attacks: 142
Right!
PS:
France terrorist attacks by illegal immigrants: 0
Pretending that terrorism has the slightest thing to do with illegal immigration is an outright lie.
While it's easy to defend Apple here, let's take a look at Microsoft for a moment — to see the same situation from a different agent. MS forced OEMs to install Windows and only sell Windows. They were not allowed to sell competing operating systems. MS was a bully, setting strict terms that effectively catapulted the company to where it is today. Now Apple is being a bully, in the sense of strict rules. I don't think it's anticompetitive because they are not forbidding the selling of competing options, but it does put a chokehold on how much control a carrier has over their own business, if they want to sell Apple's popular devices.
Thing is, though - they started out with these kinds of contracts right when the iPhone hit the market. They had 0% market share at that point, but had a product that any carrier was prepared to KILL — or sign anything — for.
AppleInsider said: The company [Apple] can also void a contract without warning, ...
Figuratively. The carriers had no choice but to agree to Apple's terms. None of the multiple carriers could afford not to have the iPhone when the others did. The carriers agreed to a contract, but so did Apple. I find it curious that Apple could void the contract that they signed for any reason without warning. That part should probably be removed.
Some of the other clauses probably shouldn't be illegal, just hard ball business on the part of Apple.
Below is a machine translated version of the ten complaints:
The 10 clauses deemed illegal by the DGCCRF
1-operator must order a minimum volume of 3 years
2-operator can not establish its own pricing policy
3-operator pays money to an advertising fund used to Apple's discretion
4-finance the operator highlighting the iPhone in stores by the operator, who is committed to a minimum expenditure
5-Apple can freely use trademarks owned by operators, while Apple strictly controls the ability for the operator to communicate the Apple brand
6, the operator is imposing strict controls conditions, while Apple makes no commitment on compliance orders and deliveries
7-operator participates in the terminal repair costs
8-Apple has the unilateral right to terminate the contract without adherence to a notice in accordance with law
9-Apple can freely use the operator's patents
10-Apple gets conditions at least as favorable as those -or more favorables- competing manufacturers on rates outside the bundle;quality of service; the commissions to sellers; loan fees of a replacement device; limitation of services offered to customers.
You signed the contract you live with it.
Stop with this BULLSHIT. If they thought the terms were unfair they should have never signed the contract in the first place. Who deems what's fair or not? This is pure stupidity.
All these companies made alot of money selling iPhones. Sick of this crap. All these loser companies and loser governments trying to ge
because of those lawful limits. Just because you can put a clause in there and someone agrees to it doesn't mean it's legally enforceable. You knew that.
t handouts from Apple.
We do have limits on what's allowed in contracts even here in the US. In fact I have little doubt that due to those limits you personally have been protected from some of the onerous terms some companies would like to add to a contract you might have little choice but to accept.
Just because a term is stuffed in a contract that's signed and accepted does not mean all of the terms are legal and enforceable. You knew that. Apple has good lawyers and knows it too.
IIRC there's other investigations in the EU looking at the terms of Apple's carrier contracts. In those other instances it has as much to do with (anti)competitive practices as anything.
While it's easy to defend Apple here, let's take a look at Microsoft for a moment — to see the same situation from a different agent. MS forced OEMs to install Windows and only sell Windows. They were not allowed to sell competing operating systems. MS was a bully, setting strict terms that effectively catapulted the company to where it is today. Now Apple is being a bully, in the sense of strict rules. I don't think it's anticompetitive because they are not forbidding the selling of competing options, but it does put a chokehold on how much control a carrier has over their own business, if they want to sell Apple's popular devices.
Those restrictions are in EXCHANGE for signing on with Apple. None of the carriers involved was forced to sign any agreements! Those trade offs were completely VOLUNTARY. That's not "bullying", that's business!
If these contracts are so bad, why do they renew them? It must be worth it if everyone is signing these 'bad' deals. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on phones. If you want their phones, you need to do what you have to to have them. Vive l'escroquerie de France!
Someone with the user name 'studiomusic' should know much about bad deals and why people sign up for them.
If these contracts are so bad, why do they renew them? It must be worth it if everyone is signing these 'bad' deals. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on phones. If you want their phones, you need to do what you have to to have them. Vive l'escroquerie de France!
Someone with the user name 'studiomusic' should know much about bad deals and why people sign up for them.
Yep, sure do! Especially for the Euro Techno music scene in the 90's... There is a big difference between a struggling artist wanting the big break and a multi-billion dollar company (with a team of expensive lawyers) wanting more money from selling a phone made by Apple.
Someone with the user name 'studiomusic' should know much about bad deals and why people sign up for them.
Yep, sure do! Especially for the Euro Techno music scene in the 90's... There is a big difference between a struggling artist wanting the big break and a multi-billion dollar company (with a team of expensive lawyers) wanting more money from selling a phone made by Apple.
They both want to make money so there really is not much of a difference.
Euro Techno was a very narrow sub-genre, and the artists were foolish to believe they could make a living making that music. How many people on here do you think ever heard of 'meet her at the love parade'?
Another interesting part of the contracts is
that it was stipulated that if any legal complaints arose they would be
decided in the courts on London. So it brings into question if the
French government even has jurisdiction in this case.
The French government have jurisdiction over French laws. A lot of people seem to think a company can put anything it likes in a contract and if the other party signs it, then tough. That isn't the case. A contract can not stipulate or lead to an unlawful action. Nor can it neuter rights and such that are enshrined by law. It would seem the French authorities believe the contract in some way contravenes French laws. Given they think that, the jurisdiction of that matter is French.
As an example, Apple really don't like the EU's mandatory 2 year minimum warranty and have come into strife in Italy and France over it. I encountered this personally when I contacted Apple because the power cable of my MBPR was woefully inadequate and it was splitting at the mag-safe connector. As it was at about 18 months or so, they told me I was out of warranty and would have to purchase a whole new power brick. I had to strenuously point out that EU law overrode their warranty terms. They conceded when I mentioned taking them to the small claims court and sent me a replacement.
The French government have jurisdiction over French laws. It would seem the French authorities believe the contract in some way contravenes French laws.
You forget that France has sold its soul sovereignty to the EU, so it may not be their jurisdiction anymore.
Comments
Les 10 clauses jugées illicites par la DGCCRF
1-l'opérateur doit commander un volume minimal sur 3 ans
- The carrier must buy a minimum volume for 3 years.
2-l'opérateur ne peut pas établir sa propre politique tarifaire
- The carrier can't establish the pricing structure.
3-l'opérateur verse de l'argent à un fonds publicitaire utilisé à la discrétion d'Apple
- The carrier must pay into an advertising fund that Apple controls.
4-l'opérateur finance la mise en avant de l'iPhone en magasin par l'opérateur, qui s'engage sur un montant minimal de dépenses
- The carrier pays for in-store advertisement of iPhone, and promises to pay a minimum for such advertising.
5-Apple peut utiliser librement les marques appartenant aux opérateurs, alors qu'Apple contrôle strictement la possibilité pour l'opérateur de communiquer sur les marques d'Apple
- Apple can use the carrier's trademarks, while Apple strictly controls how the carrier can use the Apple trademarks.
6-l'opérateur se voit imposer des conditions de commandes strictes, alors qu'Apple ne prend aucun engagement sur le respect des commandes et des livraisons
- The carrier must adhere to strict orders, while Apple doesn't have to respect orders or their fulfillment/delivery times.
7-l'opérateur participe aux frais de réparation des terminaux
- The carrier must participate financially in the repairs of phones.
8-Apple a la faculté unilatérale de résilier le contrat, sans respect d'un préavis conforme à la loi
- Apple can unilaterally cancel the contract, without notice.
9-Apple peut utiliser librement les brevets de l'opérateur
- Apple can freely use the carrier's patents.
10-Apple obtient des conditions au moins aussi favorables -ou plus favorables- que celles des constructeurs concurrents sur les tarifs hors forfait; la qualité du service; les commissions accordées aux vendeurs; les frais de prêt d'un appareil de remplacement; la limitation des services proposés aux clients.
- Apple gets at least as good a deal -if not better- as other competitor phone makers on prices without a phone plan; the quality of service; commissions given to resellers; the price of providing a temporary replacement phone; the limiting of services proposed to their clientele.
Pretending that terrorism has the slightest thing to do with illegal immigration is an outright lie.
Do you even know what a monopoly means? Don't make me laugh.
Just because a term is stuffed in a contract that's signed and accepted does not mean all of the terms are legal and enforceable. You knew that. Apple has good lawyers and knows it too.
IIRC there's other investigations in the EU looking at the terms of Apple's carrier contracts. In those other instances it has as much to do with (anti)competitive practices as anything.
There is a big difference between a struggling artist wanting the big break and a multi-billion dollar company (with a team of expensive lawyers) wanting more money from selling a phone made by Apple.
Euro Techno was a very narrow sub-genre, and the artists were foolish to believe they could make a living making that music. How many people on here do you think ever heard of 'meet her at the love parade'?
As an example, Apple really don't like the EU's mandatory 2 year minimum warranty and have come into strife in Italy and France over it. I encountered this personally when I contacted Apple because the power cable of my MBPR was woefully inadequate and it was splitting at the mag-safe connector. As it was at about 18 months or so, they told me I was out of warranty and would have to purchase a whole new power brick. I had to strenuously point out that EU law overrode their warranty terms. They conceded when I mentioned taking them to the small claims court and sent me a replacement.