Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Since he isn’t a party and isn’t an employee of a party, the point is epic will subpoena him. If he refuses to comply, a court will decide.
I may be wrong, but since this is a civil case, my understanding is that nobody can obligate a witness to testify or come to the court.
 
Scott is still a shareholder.
He still has millions of dollars in Apple stock, if he has to testify, he’s going to try to put apple in the best light to keep his pockets full.
He may be A former employee, but when money is involved, that doesn’t mean anything
 
  • Like
Reactions: TracesOfArsenic
I wonder how much money Epic has lost? Why wouldn't they just do the 30% and get back in the store? It's the cost of doing business with Apple users. Raise the price 30% and put your stuff back in the store. Apple has had this in place for a long time.
These are all virtual currencies , they are getting a **** load of money for something that doesn’t really cost them anything, sure there’s the initial developer cost to put the features in, but once they are in it’s just free money, i think it’s pretty bad form to complain over something like this, Epic agreed to the terms when they used apples libraries and software and gave them a platform to give every Apple user access.
 
Hehehe. This looks like mafia stuff. Sorry “We don’t have the phone number of our previous VIP that worked with the Jobs teams since 1992? No one knows him here, no friends, nothing ... He left and no one talks with him now, so we can’t find him even though is producing broadway shows?” What’s next? “A run to the Caribbean?”.
It’s common courtesy that you don’t hand out someone’s contact data without checking with that person.
 
Apple tried to throw Valve under the bus, thats was a shady move TBH. Now Forstall? Still is not the time for the second coming of Forstall, he must remain in hiding. Meanwhile, Tim can have all the drama he wants. Why can we all get along ...
 
  • Haha
Reactions: progx
Apple tried to throw Valve under the bus, thats was a shady move TBH. Now Forstall? Still is not the time for the second coming of Forstall, he must remain in hiding. Meanwhile, Tim can have all the drama he wants. Why can we all get along ...

Apple didn’t ”try to throw valve under the bus.” They asked for documents from third-party Valve. Same as Epic seeking testimony from third party Forstall.

The level of misunderstanding of litigation on here is what’s truly “epic.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: Captain Trips
did you reply to the right post....? Or are we just all going wildly off-topic? Who’s tax dollars?
Our tax dollars fund court cases: judge pay, court upkeep, building, etc. Yes, Apple and Epic's legal teams are paying for expenses, but it's when the court passes their ruling.

This whole case is a giant waste of time. It's a huge publicity stunt for Epic Games and their store. If the court rules in favor of Epic, which I doubt, then it'll set a pretty bad precedent going forward. Epic will try this on console manufacturers next, forcing users to install their application in order to play their game (and selling other games that these stores will offer). Epic may have deviated away from the traditional retail percentage, but Apple, Microsoft, Google, Sony and Nintendo all still use the standard 30% commission traditional retailers use.

The "spyware" myth was debunked, it was a joke.

Another thing I noticed today: Epic is getting pounded on TrustPilot and BBB lately. Search "Epic Store complaints", I wasn't expecting to find really anything.
 
Apple:
 

Attachments

  • FA88E684-33DC-45BE-A969-E6978E814248.jpeg
    FA88E684-33DC-45BE-A969-E6978E814248.jpeg
    124.7 KB · Views: 73
  • Like
Reactions: TMRJIJ
Ohh depending of Scotts attitude, this might be the FINISH Apple! move with FATALITY. I hope Scott is still pissed of...
I bet Apple will try to influence him with $$$
 
Since he isn’t a party and isn’t an employee of a party, the point is epic will subpoena him. If he refuses to comply, a court will decide.
Apple has offered to represent him. If he says he does not want to testify, can their counsel represent him in an attempt to quash the subpoena or would that be a conflict? Can Apple reimburse him for his legal expense, if he provides his own counsel or does that create a conflict for the attorney? If he is compelled to testify, given that he is no longer an employee, must he be compensated by either side for his time? If so, is there a standard rate or would it be based on his last salary?

Given that he has be gone for 10 years, in your experience, how likely would a court be to compel his testimony if he were to refuse to testify?
 
Last edited:
My guess is Apple gave Scott Forstall a new identity and hidden him off shore or on a yacht in the high seas of Monte Carlo, Monaco.
 
Apple has offered to represent him. If he says he does not want to testify, can their counsel represent him in an attempt to quash the subpoena or would that be a conflict? Can Apple reimburse him for his legal expense, if he provides his own counsel or does that create a conflict for the attorney? If he is compelled to testify, given that he is no longer an employee, must he be compensated by either side for his time? If so, is there a standard rate or would it be based on his last salary?

Given that he has be gone for 10 years, if your opinion, how likely would a court be to compel his testimony if he were to refuse to testify?

I don’t give legal advice on the web.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.