Some not-so-great legal news for Apple. For starters, a judge has concluded that Apple CEO Tim Cook should make a seven-hour deposition in the next case against Epic Games. Second, Apple’s attempt to cite Samsung in the case has also been denied. Womp womp.
In accordance with judicial documents, Epic Games wanted to fire Cook for eight hours proposed. Apple then tried to cite the vertex doctrine, which in short prevents the dismissal 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 it appears.” Hixon writes that the doctrine of the apex “limits the duration of a deposition rather than forbids it altogether” and that, given the circumstances, the dispute is the question of whether Cook should be deposited for “four hours, eight hours or a certain intermediate duration “. Therefore, Hixon’s sentence that Cook should be dismissed for seven hours.
As for where Hixon spent seven hours, the judge writes that it is the default rule of “how long a witness must suffer to be deposed.” Hixon also argues that the Vertex doctrine focuses on whether a witness has a “unique and 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 really isn’t anyone like Apple’s CEO who can testify to how Apple sees competition in these various core markets in its business model. ”
As for Cook, Judge Hixon said “a deposition of more than seven hours is not justified.”
G / O Media may receive a commission
Again, Judge Hixon denied Apple’s request to cite Samsung’s internal documents. Since Samsung doesn’t even participate in the meat of Apple and Epic, Hixon characterized the lawsuit as “a peculiar deep dive” into Samsung’s relationship with Epic. As to why Apple made the request in the first place, the company alleged that these documents would show that the practices of its App Store are virtually the same as everyone else’s. Or, simply, from Apple’s point of view, Epic Games cannot present a compelling antitrust argument if it can show that Samsung made similar decisions in how to distribute Epic’s. Fortnite.
Still, Hixon argues that since Epic Games is a pretty big company, whatever the arrangement that it has with Samsung is unique and “cannot serve as a substitute for a larger category of market participants “.
It’s hard to say that these two sentences are Epic’s “victories,” no matter how minor setbacks they may be for Apple. Cook could very well be fired for seven hours, but that doesn’t guarantee the court will defend Epic Games at the end of the day. Samsung’s denial, however, could foreshadow Apple’s other citations to third parties, including Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo and Amazon.
In any case, these are just the latest developments in the litany of legality Apple and Epic Games since this past summer. A continuation of the courtroom, you might say, of the ridiculous display which started this whole saga in the first place. As an update, in August, Epic introduced direct purchases to the app at Fortnite which avoided Apple’s 30% commission for transactions made through the App Store. That led to Apple boot Fortnite from the App Store. In turn, this led to a spicy video of Epic portraying Apple as a dystopian dictator. Which again led to Apple ending the developer account in the Apic Games App Store.
The drama has been exhausted a bit, as the trial will not begin until July. That said, it’s fair to assume that the next few months will still see a lot of passive-aggressive legal comings and goings, as both Epic and Apple are trying to gain advantages for their individual cases.