Apple Inc to Bring Tim Cook to the court to testify in the Case Against ‘Fortnite’ Maker Epic Games

This week, Apple Inc. gets its turn in court to defend itself against Epic Games Inc.’s antitrust charges, and it’s planning to call in its strongest spokesperson: Tim Cook. Mr Cook, a reserved CEO who is accustomed to highly choreographed media events, is due to testify in a trial that, regardless of the outcome, may be one of the most important for the iPhone manufacturer, as it faces allegations of exploiting its market position, which it disputes.
Mr. Cook, who is approaching his tenth anniversary as Apple’s CEO, is no stranger to high-profile make-or-break moments. He’s a polished public speaker who’s testified twice before Congress, but he’s never testified in a courtroom where his comments could sway a judge in favour or against the business. His testimony is likely to be the most in-depth public debate he would offer about a subject that will loom large over Apple for years. According to a source familiar with Mr Cook’s efforts, he has been training for the hearing. That has included hours of practice rounds for former jurors selected by his defence staff to mimic the witness stand.
What is the case surrounding Apple Inc? How will Tim Cook testify as Apple’s supporter?
In a case that threatens to unravel Apple’s control of the App Store, a crucial part of Apple’s services sector that raised almost $54 billion last year, Cook is likely to try to bolster Apple’s claim that it isn’t a monopoly. Epic claims that Apple has generated monopolies by banning other app stores on the iPhone and forcing users to use its in-app payment scheme to receive digital sales, enabling Apple to take a 30% fee, which Epic claims is excessive. Apple counters that the commission is reasonable in light of the benefit it has generated for players and consumers, that it is comparable to other fees, and that it is not restricting the distribution of Epic’s game Fortnite. It cites Android devices, computers, and video game consoles as examples.
Tim Cook would have to argue that the payments were necessary to run a company and that they were not unreasonable, according to Jeffrey Jacobovitz, a retired Federal Trade Commission prosecutor who isn’t interested in the dispute but closely monitors it. “However, the risk is that everything will continue to exist in infamy”, he said. When the trial in Oakland, Calif., nears its conclusion, Apple’s former publicity director Phil Schiller, now a business fellow, and Craig Federighi, head of the tech, are due to testify this week, while Mr Cook, who is set to testify for 100 minutes, is expected at the end of the week or early next week. Mr Cook will discuss the company’s fundamental principles, as well as how it works and the rivalry it faces, according to Apple’s announcement to the court. He’ll also highlight the App Store’s economic advantages to developers, which the firm also touts.
Apple wants to take advantage of its manager to defend that Epic’s real drive was for a better price. During cross-checks this week, Epic would probably further criticize Apple’s assertion that its guidelines are to guarantee consumers security and other safeguards and emphasize that Apple’s security statements are a pretext for justifying a business policy decision. The origins of Apple’s App Store have been one of the side stories in Epic’s near-month-long legal battle. Unfair commissions may be collected and directed at benefit protection. Epic has uncovered an email from summer 2011 involving senior officials that shows internal discussions.
Epic has based its claim that the App Store’s net margin was almost 80% in the fiscal year 2019 on an expert’s review of Apple records. According to the study, Apple’s operating margin was calculated at 77.8%. Apple has disputed the figures, claiming that they do not reflect how the company operates. An Apple lawyer pushed Epic Chief Executive Tim Sweeney about how his business doesn’t pay for joint technical expenses on a specific project, to highlight the case.
Mr. Sweeney’s success was largely subdued over the course of two days. David Reichenberg, an antitrust lawyer who isn’t interested in the case but watched Mr. Sweeney’s results said: “I’m pretty sure Apple looks pretty happy. He didn’t seem to be self-assured”. In 2015, after Mr. Sweeney, who had previously attended an Apple marketing session, contacted Mr. Cook with App Store ideas, Mr. Cook replied privately to his deputies: “Is this the man who was at one of our rehearsals?”