Some not-so-good legal news for Apple. To begin with, a judge ruled that Apple CEO Tim Cook should serve for a seven-hour deposit in the upcoming case against Epic Games. Second, Apple’s attempt to sue Samsung in the case was also denied. Womp womp.
According to court documents, Epic Games wanted to introduce Cook for eight hours. Apple then tried to peak learning, which occurs in a nutshell that a high-level corporate employee is fired. Or, you know, zero hours. Apple later offered a four-hour concession. According to Judge Thomas S. Hixon, “this dispute is less than meets the eye.” Hixon writes that the apex doctrine “limits the length of a deposit, rather than completely blocks it,” and that the dispute, given the circumstances, is a question of whether Cook for four hours, eight hours, or a length of time in between. Hence Hixon’s ruling that Cook should be sacked for seven hours.
Regarding where Hixon came from seven hours ago, the judge writes that this is the standard rule for “how long a witness must endure.” Hixon also argues that the apex doctrine focuses on whether a witness has a ‘unique, non-recurring knowledge of the facts of the case’. As for Apple’s app store policy – which is at the heart of this seemingly endless case against Epic – Hixon writes, “there really is no one like Apple’s CEO who can testify to how Apple views competition in these different markets. his business model. ”
On the bright side for Cook, Judge Hixon said a “deposition of more than seven hours is unfair.”
G / O Media can get a commission
Another blow is that Judge Hixon rejected Apple’s request to sue Samsung’s internal documents. Since Samsung is not even involved in Apple and Epic’s beef, Hixon described the request as a ‘strange deep dive’ into Samsung’s relationship with Epic. Why Apple made the request in the first place, the company claimed that the documents would prove that the practice of its App Store is almost the same as that of everyone. Or simply put, from Apple’s point of view, Epic Games cannot make a convincing antitrust argument if it can prove that Samsung made similar decisions about how Epic’s are distributed. Fortnite.
However, Hixon claims that Epic Games is a fairly large company, regardless of the arrangement it has unique at Samsung and ‘can not serve as a maintenance for a larger category of market participants. ”
It’s hard to say that these two statements are ‘victories’ for Epic, just as much as they are small setbacks for Apple. Cook could very well be fired for seven hours, but that does not guarantee the court will comply with Epic Games at the end of the day. However, Samsung’s denial could badly predict Apple’s other subpoenas for other third parties, including Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo and Amazon.
In any case, these are just the latest developments in the litany of the legal tit-for-tat between Apple and Epic Games since last summer. A continuation of a courtroom, you might say, of the ridiculous show which kicked off this whole saga in the first place. As a refreshment, Epic made direct in-app purchases in August Fortnite this left Apple’s 30% commission for transactions made via the App Store. This led to Apple start up Fortnite from the App Store. This in turn led to a spicy video from Epic portraying Apple as a dystopian dictator. Which in turn led to Apple Terminates Epic Games App Store Developer Account.
The drama is a bit dead because the trial only starts in July. That said, it is reasonable to assume that the next few months will see many more passive-aggressive legal back and forth as Epic and Apple try to reap benefits for their individual business.