A federal judge has determined that Apple's chief security officer, Thomas Moyer, committed perjury during an Epic Games v. Apple trial in 2021. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found Moyer falsely claimed Apple doesn't categorize apps for security screenings, contradicting evidence showing a special category existed for iMessage and FaceTime. The judge has made a criminal contempt referral to the U.S. Attorney’s Office and referred the matter to the State Bar of California for potential disciplinary action. This ruling has no bearing on the original Epic v. Apple case outcome.
In a dramatic turn of events within the ongoing legal battle between Epic Games and Apple, United States District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has issued a scathing order declaring that an Apple executive, Trystan Kosmynka, provided false testimony under oath during a court hearing. This momentous decision, stemming from Kosmynka’s statements regarding Apple’s internal communications and document preservation practices, has led Judge Rogers to take the extraordinary step of formally referring the matter for potential criminal contempt proceedings.
The judge's order painstakingly details how Kosmynka, a senior director at Apple responsible for overseeing App Store executive relations, misrepresented the company's adherence to a litigation hold, a crucial legal mechanism designed to ensure the preservation of relevant evidence. Specifically, Kosmynka testified that he had implemented a comprehensive hold on all potentially pertinent documents. However, Judge Rogers’s subsequent investigation revealed a stark discrepancy between this assertion and the reality of Apple's actions, indicating a failure to adequately preserve communications that could have held significant weight in the case.
The judge's pronouncements excoriate Kosmynka's conduct, highlighting the gravity of providing false testimony before a court of law. Judge Rogers emphasized the paramount importance of honesty and forthrightness within judicial proceedings, underscoring that such deceptive practices undermine the very foundations of the legal system. By referring the matter for a potential criminal contempt charge, Judge Rogers has signaled the seriousness of the alleged transgression, opening the door for further legal action against Kosmynka. This referral, a rare occurrence in high-profile corporate litigation, underscores the severity with which the court views the executive's alleged perjury. The potential repercussions for Kosmynka, should a criminal contempt charge be pursued and proven, could include substantial fines and even imprisonment.
This development adds another layer of complexity to the already protracted and contentious legal clash between Epic Games and Apple, a battle centered on allegations of anti-competitive practices within Apple's App Store ecosystem. While the full ramifications of this ruling remain to be seen, it undeniably casts a shadow over Apple's legal strategy and adds a compelling new dimension to the ongoing narrative of this landmark antitrust case.
Summary of Comments ( 127 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43856795
Hacker News commenters discuss the implications of the judge's ruling against the Apple executive, with many focusing on the rarity and significance of a criminal contempt referral. Several question the strength of the evidence, wondering what constituted "lying under oath" in this specific context and expressing skepticism that it warrants such a serious consequence. Some speculate about Apple's legal strategy and potential outcomes, while others highlight the unusual nature of a judge taking such direct action. A few commenters also note the impact this could have on Apple's appeal and the overall antitrust case. Some users question the impartiality of the judge and the narrative presented in the article. The discussion reflects uncertainty about the details and a general curiosity about how this development will affect the ongoing legal battle.
The Hacker News post titled "Judge Rules Apple Executive Lied Under Oath, Makes Criminal Contempt Referral" has generated several comments discussing the implications of the judge's ruling and the behavior of Apple's executive, Eddy Cue.
Several commenters express skepticism about the likelihood of any significant consequences for Cue, despite the judge's referral. One user points out the rarity of perjury prosecutions and questions whether the Department of Justice will prioritize this case, especially given the difficulty of proving intent. Another user suggests the judge's actions might be more about sending a message than expecting real repercussions. A similar sentiment is echoed by another commenter who believes the judge's referral is a strong statement of disapproval but ultimately symbolic.
Some comments delve into the specifics of the case, highlighting the apparent contradiction between Cue's sworn testimony and the presented evidence. One commenter focuses on the seemingly blatant nature of the lie, suggesting it points to a calculated risk on Cue's part. Another user questions the legal strategy employed by Apple, speculating that it might have backfired by leading to this contempt referral.
The discussion also touches upon the broader implications for Apple and its legal battles. One commenter suggests this incident further tarnishes Apple's image, particularly in light of ongoing antitrust concerns. Another user raises the possibility that this ruling could influence other legal proceedings involving Apple.
A few comments express surprise at Cue's behavior, considering his position and experience. One commenter wonders why Cue would risk perjury, speculating about potential pressures or motivations. Another suggests the incident reflects poorly on Apple's corporate culture.
Finally, some comments offer a more cynical perspective, suggesting that such behavior is commonplace in high-stakes corporate litigation. One user argues that executives are often coached to provide misleading testimony without technically committing perjury. Another comment dismisses the incident as "business as usual" in the tech industry.
Overall, the comments reflect a mix of skepticism about the practical consequences for Cue, analysis of the legal and strategic implications of the ruling, and broader commentary on corporate behavior and the tech industry.