Some not-so-great legal news for Apple. To begin with, a judge concluded that Apple CEO Tim Cook should stand for a seven-hour filing in the next case against Epic Games. Second, Apple’s attempt to cite Samsung in this case was also rejected. Womp womp.
Conformable judicial actsEpic Games wanted to fire Cook for eight hours. Apple then tried to quote doctrine apex, which, in short, prevents the secondment of a high-level corporate employee. Or, you know, zero hours. Apple later offered a four-hour concession. According to Judge Thomas S. Hixon, however, “this dispute is less than visible.” Hixon writes that the apex doctrine “limits the length of a filing, rather than restricting it altogether” and that, given the circumstances, the dispute is a question of whether Cook should be filed for “four hours, eight hours or a certain length of time.” between. Therefore, Hixon’s decision that Cook should be fired for seven hours.
As to where Hixon received seven hours, the judge writes that it is the default rule for “how long a witness must have to testify.” Hixon also argues that the apex doctrine focuses on whether a witness has a “unique, non-repetitive knowledge of the facts of the case.” When it comes to Apple’s app store policies – which are at the heart of this seemingly endless case against Epic – Hixon writes, “There’s really no one like Apple’s CEO who can testify to how Apple views competition in these different markets that are core to its business model. ”
Regarding the positive aspect for Cook, Judge Hixon said that “a deposit of more than seven hours is unjustified.”
G / O Media may receive a commission
Another blow is that Judge Hixon rejected Apple’s request to cite internal documents from Samsung. Given that Samsung is not even involved in Apple and Epic beef, Hixon characterized the lawsuit as a “strange plunge” in Samsung’s relationship with Epic. As to why Apple made the request in the first place, the company claimed that these documents would prove that its practices in the App Store are almost the same as all the others. Or simply, from Apple’s point of view, Epic Games can’t make a convincing antitrust argument if it can prove that Samsung made similar decisions in how it distributes Epic’s Fortnite.
However, Hixon claims that because Epic Games is a fairly large company, any arrangement has with Samsung is unique and “can not serve as a stand-in for some larger categories of market participants. ”
It’s hard to say that these two decisions are “victories” for Epic, as much as they are minor for Apple. Cook could very well be dismissed for seven hours, but that does not guarantee that the court will take part in Epic Games at the end of the day. Samsung’s refusal, however, could be weak for other Apple citations to other third parties, including Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo and Amazon.
In any case, these are just the latest developments in the litany of the legal link between securities Apple and Epic games since last summer. A continuation of the courtroom, you might say, a ridiculous show which started the whole saga. As an update, in August, Epic introduced direct purchases in applications in Fortnite which bypassed Apple’s 30% commission for transactions made through the App Store. That led to Apple starting Fortnite from the App Store. In turn, this led to a spicy video from Epic portraying Apple as a dystopian dictator. Which, again, led to Apple closing the Epic Games App Store developer account.
The drama has faded a bit, as the process will not begin until July. That being said, it’s fair to assume that the next few months will still see a lot of advances and legal steps as Epic and Apple try to reap benefits for their individual cases.