Some not so good legal news for Apple. To begin with, a judge concluded that Apple CEO Tim Cook should give a seven-hour statement in the next case against Epic Games. Second, Apple’s attempt to subpoena Samsung in the case was also denied. Womp womp.
According court documents, Epic Games wanted to depose Cook for an eight-hour proposal. Apple then tried to quote the summit doctrine, which in a nutshell prevents a high-level corporate employee from being ousted. Or, you know, zero hours. Apple later offered a four hour concession. According to Judge Thomas S. Hixon, however, “this dispute is less than it appears”. Hixon writes that the apex doctrine “limits the length of a deposition, rather than barring it altogether”, and that under the circumstances, the dispute is a question of whether Cook should be deposed for “four hours, eight hours or some length of time in between. ”Consequently, Hixon’s decision that Cook should be deposed for seven hours.
As for where Hixon got seven hours from, the judge writes that it is the standard rule for “how long a witness must suffer being deposed”. Hixon also argues that the apex doctrine focuses on whether a witness has “unique, non-repetitive knowledge of the facts of the case”. When it comes to the policies of the Apple app store – which are at the heart of this seemingly endless case against Epic – Hixon writes “there is really no one like the Apple CEO who can testify about how Apple sees competition in these various markets that are essential to your business model. ”
On the bright side for Cook, Judge Hixon said that “a deposition of more than seven hours is unjustified”.
G / O Media can receive a commission
Another scam is Judge Hixon denied Apple’s request to subpoena Samsung’s internal documents. Given that Samsung is not even involved in the Apple and Epic complaint, Hixon characterized the request as “a deep and peculiar dip” in Samsung’s relationship with Epic. As to why Apple placed the order in the first place, the company claimed that these documents would prove that its App Store’s practices are almost the same as everyone else’s. Or, simply, from Apple’s point of view, Epic Games cannot make a convincing antitrust case if it can prove that Samsung made similar decisions about how to distribute Fifteen days.
However, Hixon argues that since Epic Games is a Pretty Big Company, any agreement that you have with Samsung is unique and “it cannot serve as a substitute for some larger category of market participants. ”
It is difficult to say that these two decisions are “victories” for Epic, as much as they are minor setbacks for Apple. Cook could well be deposed for seven hours, but that doesn’t guarantee that the court will be on Epic Games’ side at the end of the day. Samsung’s denial, however, may bode for Apple’s other subpoenas to third parties, including Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo and Amazon.
In any case, these are just the latest developments in the legal tit-for-tat litany among Apple and Epic Games since last summer. A continuation of the court, you could say, from ridiculous showmanship that started this whole saga in the first place. As a reminder, in August, Epic introduced direct in-app purchases at Fifteen days which bypassed Apple’s 30% commission for transactions made through the App Store. This led to Apple initializing Fifteen days on the App Store. This in turn led to a spicy video of Epic portraying Apple as a dystopian dictator. Which again led to Apple close the Epic Games App Store developer account.
The drama has abated somewhat, as the trial is not scheduled to begin until July. That said, it is fair to assume that the coming months will still see many passive-aggressive legal comings and goings, as Epic and Apple try to take advantage of their individual cases.