agreement Archives - 9to5Mac Skip to main content

agreement

Six 'agreement' stories April 2013 - February 2015
See All Stories

Apple threatens to ban iPhone, iPad accessory makers that design based on leaks

Avatar for Jordan Kahn Feb 10 2015 - 6:52 am PT
24 Comments
Site default logo image

Apple is working to step up the secrecy surrounding future iPhone and iPad models by targeting a frequent source of leaks: third-party accessory makers. 9to5Mac has learned that in fall 2014, just before the iPhone 6 launched, Apple demanded that a number of leading accessory makers sign agreements barring them from seeking out information about future Apple devices, according to four sources with first-hand knowledge of the matter.

On one hand, the agreement dangled the loss of “future business opportunities that Apple and/or its affiliates may present to you” as a potential consequence of violating or not signing the agreement. On the other hand, signing and following it could lead to months-long delays in making accessories like cases available, during the time of year when those cases were most needed and demanded by customers.
Expand
Expanding
Close

GT Advanced claims Apple used ‘bait-and-switch strategy’ and said to ‘put on your big boy pants and accept the agreement’

Avatar for 9to5 Staff Nov 7 2014 - 12:12 pm PT
20 Comments

Following a court order that documents be unsealed regarding the ill-fated partnership between Apple and sapphire crystal glass maker GT Advanced, a number of interesting anecdotes surrounding the tumultuous relationship have been exposed. In an unedited affidavit, GT Advanced COO Daniel Squiller claimed that Apple used a classic “bait-and-switch” strategy to secure its deal with the now-bankrupt supplier.
Expand
Expanding
Close

GT Advanced reaches amended settlement agreement with Apple, will repay up to $290,000 per furnace sold

Avatar for 9to5 Staff Nov 4 2014 - 2:58 pm PT
2 Comments

GT Advanced announced this afternoon that it has reached an amended settlement agreement with Apple related to the sapphire crystal glass manufacturer’s recent bankruptcy filing, in which both parties have agreed to waive the condition that GT Advanced’s declaration on October 8th remain under seal and expunged. Meanwhile, GT Advanced has filed a Form 8-K with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that provides further details about the recent fallout between Apple and GT Advanced.
Expand
Expanding
Close

Site default logo image

Penguin agrees to pay $75 million in consumer damages following eBook price fixing case

Avatar for Jordan Kahn May 22 2013 - 10:57 am PT
0 Comments

We already knew back in December that Pearson, along with a handful of other publishers had decided to settle with the U.S. Department of Justice in the high-profile Apple ebook price-fixing case. Today a statement from Peason’s Penguin unit confirms that it has now also reached an agreement that will see the publisher pay $75 million in consumer damages to the US State Attorneys General on behalf of people that were overcharged due to the alleged price fixing:

Penguin has reached a comprehensive agreement with the US State Attorneys General and private class plaintiffs to pay $75 million in consumer damages plus costs and fees to resolve all antitrust claims relating to eBook pricing.  Penguin has also committed to the State Attorneys General to abide by the same injunctive relief as previously agreed in a separate settlement with the Department of Justice.

In anticipation of reaching this agreement, Pearson had made a $40m provision for settlement in its 2012 accounts. An incremental charge will be expensed in Pearson’s 2013 statutory accounts as part of the accounting for the Penguin Random House joint-venture.

Site default logo image

Apple reverses decision to change VPN on Demand in VirnetX lawsuit, but only for devices that already shipped

Avatar for Jordan Kahn Apr 26 2013 - 7:06 am PT
0 Comments

Due to a loss in a patent lawsuit that awarded patent holder VirnetX $368.2 million, we reported earlier this month that Apple would be changing the behaviour of its VPN on Demand features for devices running iOS 6.1 and up. The changes would mean a downgrade in functionality for users effectively forcing them to start the VPN client before they run an app, or before they open mobile Safari to access an intranet site.

Now, in a recently updated knowledge base article (via MacRumors), Apple appears to be backtracking on that decision informing customers it “no longer plans to change the behavior of the VPN On Demand feature of iOS 6.1 for devices that have already been shipped.”

Apple continues by stating “The ‘Always’ option will continue to work as it currently does on these devices.” It seems as if Apple and VirnetX have reached some type of settlement, but what this means for future devices that have yet to ship is unclear.

Attorney General calls T-Mobile’s no-contract plans ‘deceptive’, carrier agrees to offer refunds and change advertising

Avatar for Jordan Kahn Apr 25 2013 - 11:36 am PT
0 Comments
Site default logo image

Following the launch of T-Mobile’s new “Uncarrier” strategy alongside the $99 iPhone 5 and new no subsidy pricing plans last month, today the Washington State Attorney General has ordered T-Mobile to change its advertising calling its promise to offer no annual contracts “deceptive”.

The result of a court order filed by Attorney General Bob Ferguson and signed by T-Mobile will ensure the carrier’s commitment to changing advertising in order to properly outline “the limitations of its new no-contract” service plans. It will also allow “customers duped by the deceptive ads to exit their contracts with no penalty.”

“As Attorney General, my job is to defend consumers, ensure truth in advertising, and make sure all businesses are playing by the rules,” Ferguson said. “My office identified that T-Mobile was failing to disclose a critical component of their new plan to consumers, and we acted quickly to stop this practice and protect consumers across the country from harm.”

More specifically, the Attorney General’s investigation found T-Mobile “failed to disclose that customers who purchase a phone using the 24-month payment plan” would be required to stay with T-Mobile’s plans for 24 months or pay the balance owed on the phone in order to cancel their service. T-Mobile has been working with the Attorney General’s Office to come to a solution and has now agreed to the following terms:
Expand
Expanding
Close