Judge rules Tim Cook must sit through seven-hour 'Fortnite' deposition

Posted:
in General Discussion edited February 1
A judge has ruled that Apple CEO Tim Cook must undertake a seven-hour deposition for the forthcoming case against Epic Games. Apple's bid to subpoena Samsung into the case over how the Fortnite game is distributed, has also been denied.

Credit: Epic Games
Credit: Epic Games


The ongoing dispute between Epic Games and Apple will go to trial in May 2021, but both sides are preparing by requesting testimonies and depositions. In the latest of a series of hearings regarding the preparations, a judge has denied Apple's request that Tim Cook be excused from deposition.

According to Law360, US Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson has disagreed with Apple's legal argument, claiming that it "limits the length of a deposition, rather than barring it altogether." He also concluded that Apple's compromise offer of four hours deposition was inadequate, because the case has "less than meets the eye."

"[In] these three antitrust actions," says the court's conclusion, according to Law360, "the facts of the case go way beyond the historical facts of what happened when. There is really no one like Apple's CEO who can testify about how Apple views competition in these various markets that are core to its business model."

In the same hearing, Judge Hixson denied Apple's request to subpoena internal documents from Samsung. Noting that Samsung is not a party to the case, the judge described Apple's request as "almost quirky."

Apple had reportedly argued that the documentation would show how Samsung distributes "Fortnite," the Epic Games title at the heart of the dispute.

In August 2020, Epic Games updated "Fortnite" to include an optional new payment method. Apple removed the game from the App Store, citing the requirement that all in-app purchases must go through the store's payment mechanism.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 50
    genovellegenovelle Posts: 1,088member
    So, if Samsung distributes it and Samsung sell more phones than Apple, how can Apple have a monopoly?  Having the more profitable products does not equal a monopoly. The question then are we redefining what a monopoly is because one company goes against the grain in almost everything they do and makes more money because of it. 
    williamlondoncornchipBeatsn2itivguylollivermaximarawatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 50
    genovelle said:
    So, if Samsung distributes it and Samsung sell more phones than Apple, how can Apple have a monopoly?  Having the more profitable products does not equal a monopoly. The question then are we redefining what a monopoly is because one company goes against the grain in almost everything they do and makes more money because of it. 
    It's not a monopoly in that there is only one source for the product.  Read the case.  It's about the fact that Apple only allows one method of payment for in-app purchases, and that is through Apple's own systems and at Apple's own rate (30%).  CC transactions typically cost businesses 2-3%.
    elijahgavon b7chemengin1
  • Reply 3 of 50
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,236member
    ITGUYINSD said:
    genovelle said:
    So, if Samsung distributes it and Samsung sell more phones than Apple, how can Apple have a monopoly?  Having the more profitable products does not equal a monopoly. The question then are we redefining what a monopoly is because one company goes against the grain in almost everything they do and makes more money because of it. 
    It's not a monopoly in that there is only one source for the product.  Read the case.  It's about the fact that Apple only allows one method of payment for in-app purchases, and that is through Apple's own systems and at Apple's own rate (30%).  CC transactions typically cost businesses 2-3%.
    And do those CC companies set up and run the entire storefront for businesses?  That's effectively what Apple is doing.  The comparison of the Apple to CC companies is compete nonsense.
    edited February 1 anantksundaramlarryjwapplguyBeatsn2itivguylolliverroundaboutnowjahbladeDogpersonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 50
    I have been deposed and have endured a 10 hour deposition. It’s a nightmare for even the best prepared. You are questioned relentlessly by the opposing counsel. I can understand how people crack under the pressure of interrogation.
    cornchipbakerzdosenDogpersonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 50
    loopless said:
    I have been deposed and have endured a 10 hour deposition. It’s a nightmare for even the best prepared. You are questioned relentlessly by the opposing counsel. I can understand how people crack under the pressure of interrogation.
    I’ve done those too. You get trained. The only three good answers are ‘Yes’, ‘No’, and ‘I don’t recall’ (as much of the third one as possible, as long as there is any doubt as to the facts you can recall). Never venture an explanation or clarification unless asked. Never speculate. Less is more. 

    I have little doubt that Cook is super well-trained. 
    muthuk_vanalingamrandominternetpersonBeatsbakerzdosenn2itivguyjahbladeDogpersonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 50
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 8,996member
    This judge* either:
    -- Has been paid off
    -- Is a Libertarian opposed to any and all rules, regulations and authority
    Or
    -- He's an Apple hater.

    I can't believe that a judge would suggest that "Historical facts do not apply"... 

    Apple should ask for him to be removed from the trial -- or log their appeal right now, today.

    *  Actually, he's not a judge, he's a magistrate -- which is a pretend judge with the powers of a  real judge.
    edited February 1 ramanpfaffBeatsn2itivguywatto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 50
    I’m a little fuzzy here — what exactly are the “three” antitrust actions? 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 50
    larryjwlarryjw Posts: 732member
    loopless said:
    I have been deposed and have endured a 10 hour deposition. It’s a nightmare for even the best prepared. You are questioned relentlessly by the opposing counsel. I can understand how people crack under the pressure of interrogation.
    It depends on the purpose of the deposition. If the opposing side is merely getting evidence for trial, then its just documents and explanations for the documents. 

    I'm sure with Fortnite, the deposition is going to be adversarial, and very confrontational. One can also be sure, Apple is going to depose Fortnite leaders, and treat these people with equal aggression.

    Apple will also get the Samsung data they want during deposition and discovery. Just because Apple can't get Samsung info directly from Samsung, does not mean they will not be able to get that information from Fortnite. 
    tenthousandthingsDogpersonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 50
    cornchipcornchip Posts: 1,821member

    -- Is a Libertarian opposed to any and all rules, regulations and authority
    Or

    That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. I don’t think a libertarian judge would delight in hearing this case. In fact quite the opposite. Libertarians are typically very pro-free-market, which this case is pretty much the opposite of. 
    randominternetpersonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 50
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 5,463member
    loopless said:
    I have been deposed and have endured a 10 hour deposition. It’s a nightmare for even the best prepared. You are questioned relentlessly by the opposing counsel. I can understand how people crack under the pressure of interrogation.
    I've been deposed several times, including once for a company I worked at.  I suppose it depends on one's preparedness and ability to sit in what could be considered a hostile environment.  

    My experiences were different than yours.  Being fully prepared, and most of all relaxed, my testimonies left opposing counsel looking like jackasses when they tried to manipulate (i.e. "fabricate") scenarios and pass them off as fact, or a remote possibility in order to suit their agenda.  My testimonies literally had opposing counsels searching for words and requesting recesses after being caught with their pants down.  I relished it.

    That being said, I could only imagine what kind of high-paid, flesh-eating lawyers (on both sides) will do to those being deposed.  If they're wanting Tim Cook to be on the hot seat for 7 hours, rest assured Apple will do the same, if not more, to Epic's CEO Tim Sweeney.  Sweeney comes off as the kind of guy that will squeal like a pig when put under pressure.  

    I think Tim Cook will be fine.  
    edited February 1 lolliveranantksundaramDogpersonmaximarawatto_cobraDetnator
  • Reply 11 of 50
    I really hope the solution is allowing third party app stores. That would break the monopoly and still allow customers to make the decision as to whether they prefer a tightly controlled app ecosystem or a less restrictive app environment.
    Rayz2016kestral
  • Reply 12 of 50
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 8,996member
    cornchip said:

    -- Is a Libertarian opposed to any and all rules, regulations and authority
    Or

    That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. I don’t think a libertarian judge would delight in hearing this case. In fact quite the opposite. Libertarians are typically very pro-free-market, which this case is pretty much the opposite of. 

    And "Free Market" is exactly what Fortnite wants:   No rules -- they just do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want.
    Very Libertarian of them.


    Rayz2016kestralwatto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 50
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 8,996member
    sflocal said:
    loopless said:
    I have been deposed and have endured a 10 hour deposition. It’s a nightmare for even the best prepared. You are questioned relentlessly by the opposing counsel. I can understand how people crack under the pressure of interrogation.
    ...
    Epic's CEO Tim Sweeney.  Sweeney comes off as the kind of guy that will squeal like a pig when put under pressure.  

    ... 

    That's true of most bullies
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 50
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 8,996member
    I really hope the solution is allowing third party app stores. That would break the monopoly and still allow customers to make the decision as to whether they prefer a tightly controlled app ecosystem or a less restrictive app environment.

    It would also break Apple's reputation for rock solid stability, privacy and security.   No Thank You!   It's one of the reasons I buy Apple products.
    edited February 1 n2itivguyroundaboutnowRayz2016mikeincaDogpersonwatto_cobraDetnator
  • Reply 15 of 50
    I really hope the solution is allowing third party app stores. That would break the monopoly and still allow customers to make the decision as to whether they prefer a tightly controlled app ecosystem or a less restrictive app environment.

    It would also break Apple's reputation for rock solid stability, privacy and security.   No Thank You!   It's one of the reasons I buy Apple products.
    it wouldn't...as long as you do not install Apps from 3rd party app stores. And a very small percentage (<0.1%) of people would dare install Apps from 3rd party app stores, so it wouldn't make a difference to the Apple's ecosystem in reality. Not sure why you think it would break Apple's reputation. 
    gatorguy
  • Reply 16 of 50
    BeatsBeats Posts: 1,917member
    Scumbags hang out together. I’m sure Samsung the knockoff Apple company did everything in their power to not speak bad of Epic. After all, they have been siding with those losers. 
    lolliverwatto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 50
    urashidurashid Posts: 108member
    ITGUYINSD said:
    genovelle said:
    So, if Samsung distributes it and Samsung sell more phones than Apple, how can Apple have a monopoly?  Having the more profitable products does not equal a monopoly. The question then are we redefining what a monopoly is because one company goes against the grain in almost everything they do and makes more money because of it. 
    It's not a monopoly in that there is only one source for the product.  Read the case.  It's about the fact that Apple only allows one method of payment for in-app purchases, and that is through Apple's own systems and at Apple's own rate (30%).  CC transactions typically cost businesses 2-3%.
    Why not compare it to a game console store such as Xbox. You will see that they also charge the same 30%.

    From the Microsoft store App Developer Agreement (specifically for Xbox games):

    "Thirty percent (30%) of Net Receipts for: (a) all Apps and In-App Products acquired by Customers in the Microsoft Store on an Xbox console and billed to such Customers on a non-subscription basis"


    Haven't seen any Epic Games lawsuit against Microsoft.
    n2itivguylolliverroundaboutnowmaximarawatto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 50
    So who will be chosen to run Apple while Tim’s “indisposed”?
  • Reply 19 of 50
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 2,011member
    I really hope the solution is allowing third party app stores. That would break the monopoly and still allow customers to make the decision as to whether they prefer a tightly controlled app ecosystem or a less restrictive app environment.

    It would also break Apple's reputation for rock solid stability, privacy and security.   No Thank You!   It's one of the reasons I buy Apple products.
    it wouldn't...as long as you do not install Apps from 3rd party app stores. And a very small percentage (<0.1%) of people would dare install Apps from 3rd party app stores, so it wouldn't make a difference to the Apple's ecosystem in reality. Not sure why you think it would break Apple's reputation. 
    My friends and family, whom I advise to buy Apple, would no longer get that recommendation from me if Apple had to abandon its rules of control. They need Apple's protection. Maybe you don't, because you are savvy, but they do. I myself would likely abandon Apple if Apple's controls were removed by the courts or the government. It's the main reason that I buy from Apple. And if Epic completely wins, Apple loses my business, and the business of my friends and family. The only thing Apple could do to win back my business is to offer no third party app store at all. The courts cannot mandate that Apple offer a third party app store.
    Rayz2016GeorgeBMacmaximarawatto_cobra
  • Reply 20 of 50
    I really hope the solution is allowing third party app stores. That would break the monopoly and still allow customers to make the decision as to whether they prefer a tightly controlled app ecosystem or a less restrictive app environment.

    It would also break Apple's reputation for rock solid stability, privacy and security.   No Thank You!   It's one of the reasons I buy Apple products.
    it wouldn't...as long as you do not install Apps from 3rd party app stores. And a very small percentage (<0.1%) of people would dare install Apps from 3rd party app stores, so it wouldn't make a difference to the Apple's ecosystem in reality. Not sure why you think it would break Apple's reputation. 
    How you don’t see it would is the real question. 
    Rayz2016GeorgeBMacDogpersonwatto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.