Apple 2002 Annual Report Download - page 15

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 15 of the 2002 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 90

  • 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
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90

believes these claims are without merit and intends to defend them vigorously. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on June 4, 2002, which
was heard by the Court on September 13, 2002. On December 11, 2002, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss for failure to state
a cause of action, with leave to plaintiffs to amend their complaint within thirty days.
Pierce et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc.
Plaintiff Pierce filed this action on June 15, 2000 in Santa Clara County Superior Court. This case was a purported nationwide consumer class
action brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's AirPort Card and AirPort Base Station ("AirPort System"). Plaintiffs alleged that the
Company engaged in false advertising and unfair business practices (among other causes of action) by advertising that the AirPort System is
Internet-
ready and failing to disclose that the AirPort System is incompatible with certain Internet service providers, primarily America Online.
The Company answered the complaint, denying all allegations and alleging numerous affirmative defenses. The parties reached a settlement
that received final approval by the Court on October 8, 2002. The Company is administering the settlement. Settlement of this matter did not
have a material effect on the Company's financial position or results of operations.
Pitney Bowes Inc. v. Apple Computer, Inc.
Plaintiff Pitney Bowes filed this patent infringement action on June 18, 2001 in the United States District Court in Connecticut alleging patent
infringement relating to laser printer technology. Plaintiff has filed similar lawsuits against other companies. Plaintiff seeks unspecified
damages and other relief. The Company has answered the complaint, denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The
Company also asserted counterclaims requesting a declaratory judgment for non-infringement, unenforceability and invalidity of the patents at
issue. The Connecticut Court transferred this case to the Eastern District of Kentucky on February 1, 2002 and consolidated the case with two
other lawsuits, a declaratory judgment action filed by Xerox and Pitney Bowes' patent infringement case against Epson. The case is set for trial
on June 8, 2004.
Sternberg v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Gordon et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc.
Plaintiff Sternberg filed this action against the Company on March 17, 2000 in the Santa Clara County Superior Court. The case was a
purported nationwide consumer class action brought on behalf of purchasers of iMac DV and iMac DV SE computers. Plaintiff alleged that
Apple engaged in false advertising, unfair competition and breach of warranty, among other causes of action, by marketing and selling a DVD
player with iMac DV and iMac DV SE computers where the playback was unacceptable. A companion case, Gordon et al. v. Apple Computer,
Inc
. was filed by largely the same plaintiffs on June 14, 2000. This case was essentially the same as Sternberg but with respect to a different
computer model—the Power Macintosh G4. The Company answered both complaints, denying all allegations and alleging numerous
affirmative defenses. The parties reached a settlement in August 2001 that received final
16
approval by the Court on February 25, 2002. The Company is administering the settlement. Settlement of this matter did not have a material
effect on the Company's financial position or results of operations.
UNOVA, Inc. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.
Plaintiff UNOVA filed this patent infringement action against the Company and six other defendants on May 8, 2002 in the Central District of
California for infringement of eight UNOVA patents related to "Smart Battery Management". Plaintiff alleges that the Company's portable
computers manufactured since 1996 infringe these eight patents. Plaintiff has filed similar lawsuits against other companies in addition to the
co-defendants in this case. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other relief. The Company has answered the complaint, denying all
allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The Company also asserted counterclaims requesting a declaratory judgment for non-
infringement, invalidity and unenforceability.
Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders
No matters were submitted to a vote of security holders during the fourth quarter of the Company's fiscal year ended September 28, 2002.
17
PART II
Item 5. Market for the Registrant's Common Equity and Related Shareholder Matters