Apple 1996 Annual Report Download - page 48

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 48 of the 1996 Apple annual report below. You can navigate through the pages in the report by either clicking on the pages listed below, or by using the keyword search tool below to find specific information within the annual report.

Page out of 87

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • 74
  • 75
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87

Monitor-Size Litigation
In August 1995, the Company was named, along with 41 other entities, including computer manufacturers and computer monitor vendors, in a
putative nationwide class action filed in the California Superior Court for Orange County, styled Keith Long et al. v. AAmazing Technologies
Corp. et al. The complaint alleges that each of the defendants engaged in false or misleading advertising with respect to the size of computer
monitor screens. Also in August 1995, the Company was named as the sole defendant in a purported class action alleging similar claims filed in
the New Jersey Superior Court for Camden County, entitled Mahendri Shah v. Apple Computer, Inc. Subsequently, in November 1995, the
Company, along with 26 other entities, was named in a purported class action alleging similar claims filed in the New Jersey Superior Court for
Essex County, entitled Maizes & Maizes v. Apple Computer, Inc. et al. Similar putative class actions have been filed in other California
counties in which the Company was not named as a defendant. The complaints in all of these cases seek restitution in the form of refunds or
product exchange, damages, punitive damages, and attorneys fees. In December 1995, the California Judicial Council ordered all of the
California actions, including Long, coordinated for purposes of pretrial proceedings and trial before a single judge, the Honorable William
Cahill, sitting in the County of San Francisco. All of the California actions were subsequently coordinated under the name In re Computer
Monitor Litigation and a master consolidated complaint filed superseding all of the individual complaints in those actions. On July 3, 1996,
Judge Cahill ordered all of the California cases dismissed without leave to amend as to plaintiffs residing in California on the ground that a
stipulated judgment entered in September 1995 in a prior action brought by the California Attorney General alleging the same cause of action
was res judicata as to the plaintiffs in the consolidated California class action suits. This order may be subject to appellate review at a later
stage of the proceedings. Both the New Jersey cases and the consolidated California cases are at a preliminary stage, with no discovery having
taken place.
The Company has various claims, lawsuits, disputes with third parties, investigations, and pending actions involving allegations of false or
misleading advertising, product defects, discrimination, infringement of intellectual property rights, and breach of contract and other matters
against the Company and its subsidiaries incident to the operation of its business. The liability, if any, associated with these matters is not
determinable.
The Company believes the resolution of the foregoing actions will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition. However,
depending on the amount and timing of any unfavorable resolution of these lawsuits, it is possible that the Company's results of operations
could be materially affected in a particular period.
46