Results 1 to 9 of 9

Your favorite Apple, iPhone, iPad, iOS, Jailbreak, and Cydia site.


Thread: Apple's Supplier Contracts Found to Include $50 Million Penalty for any Product Leaks

  1. #1
    What's Jailbreak? Akshay Masand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    5,897
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 200 Times in 179 Posts

    Default Apple's Supplier Contracts Found to Include $50 Million Penalty for any Product Leaks


    As expected, the bankruptcy proceedings of GT Advanced Technologies are revealing details from Apple’s supplier non-disclosure agreements. Court filings made by GT Advanced Technologies have brought to light that Apple imposes a $50 million penalty “per occurrence” for leaking any information about an upcoming and unannounced product. It’s likely that more information can also be brought to light as GTAT’s bankruptcy proceedings carry on.

    In the filing, it was noted that the confidentiality agreement between the two companies is labeled as being “confidential” but that the details need to be disclosed in the interest of creditors, equity holders and other stakeholders in an effort “to ensure an open, transparent and fair process.” The information all started to surface after GTAT pushed for more information about its relationship with Apple to be published. The company even went as far as hinting that many terms in Apple’s contract were unreasonable, referring to them as being “oppressive and burdensome.”

    For those of you who didn’t know, GT Advanced Technologies entered a $578 million deal with Apple a year ago for advanced sapphire supplies. In particular, the scratch resistant material is currently used to protect the Touch ID fingerprint sensor as well as the rear camera lens. As of right now, it is also set to be found on two out of three of the Apple Watch models which are set to be released next year. Despite this, the sapphire manufacturer filed for bankruptcy a week ago with plans to close its plants in both Arizona and Massachusetts which could cost a total of 890 jobs. Apple has said its focusing on preserving the jobs it created but we’ll have to wait and see how things pan out.

    Source: The Financial Times via AppleInsider

    Twitter: @AkshayMasand

  2. #2
    Livin' the SPIDEY Life SpiderManAPV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Georgia USA
    Posts
    2,197
    Thanks
    1,697
    Thanked 826 Times in 526 Posts

    Default Apple's Supplier Contracts Found to Include $50 Million Penalty for any Produ...
    Surely a company that big would have a good enough finance person to tell them to read the contract BEFORE signing it. If you sign a contract and later decide it's too "oppressive" that's your own fault.

    ......beware......
    Just your friendly neighborhood Spider-Man!

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by SpidermanAPV View Post
    Surely a company that big would have a good enough finance person to tell them to read the contract BEFORE signing it. If you sign a contract and later decide it's too "oppressive" that's your own fault.
    +1. And if you aren't smart enough to figure this out ahead of time, I would propose that if something looks too good to be true it probably is. There are two free business 101 lessons folks. Can I be the CEO of a company too?
    Hmm...

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to exNavy For This Useful Post:

    SpiderManAPV (2014-10-14)

  5. #4
    "Apple's Supplier Contracts"

    I think you meant;

    "An Apple Supplier Contract".

    I am pretty sure you dont have more than one supplier contract to reference.

    Also - I agree with others: don't like the contract - don't enter into it...

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to valkraider For This Useful Post:

    SpiderManAPV (2014-10-14)

  7. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by SpidermanAPV View Post
    Surely a company that big would have a good enough finance person to tell them to read the contract BEFORE signing it. If you sign a contract and later decide it's too "oppressive" that's your own fault.
    My thoughts exactly. If the terms of the contract are "too oppressive", re-negotiate, or don't sign it!

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Raptor2213 For This Useful Post:

    SpiderManAPV (2014-10-14)

  9. #6
    Livin the iPhone Life bigboyz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    North East Coast
    Posts
    2,095
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 430 Times in 265 Posts

    Rules of engagement.

  10. #7
    I very much agree with most of the posts here; one should always read and understand any sort of agreement before signing it, whether as an individual or a mega corporation. I couldn't agree more.

    That said, however, when there are so many contracts are are intentionally crafted to be as difficult to read and comprehend as possible, it makes it sometime rather hard to just fault someone for missing some part of it, when that's so often the goal of the issuer of the contract.

    I cannot remember the last time I read a contract that was written in a straight forward and concise manner, that didn't feel like it was intimidated with purposefully confusing and/or misleading "legalese." It's easy to just say "they should have read it" and to assume that they didn't.

  11. #8
    Livin' the SPIDEY Life SpiderManAPV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Georgia USA
    Posts
    2,197
    Thanks
    1,697
    Thanked 826 Times in 526 Posts

    The difference is that mega corps have people whose job it is to translate legalese into understandable text, while your average layman doesn't. I agree that they take it a bit far sometimes, but that's just how the business works.

    ......beware......
    Just your friendly neighborhood Spider-Man!

  12. #9
    Green Apple
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Chicago, Illinois, United States
    Posts
    88
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 45 Times in 25 Posts

    Unfortunately, large corporations write contracts that many times contain language which is actually unenforceable, if not illegal, under the law (and then forcing users into out-of-court arbitration agreements to lessen the chance of the contract being tested, and making assumptions that the folks on the other end of the contract won't have the money to pursue a legal case against them anyway), and they write them in manners which make it hard to understand or connect the dots on exactly what your rights are or aren't. Just ask your nearest disgruntled ridesharing driver about that...

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •