Apple 2004 Annual Report Download - page 22

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 22 of the 2004 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 132

  • 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
  • 91
  • 92
  • 93
  • 94
  • 95
  • 96
  • 97
  • 98
  • 99
  • 100
  • 101
  • 102
  • 103
  • 104
  • 105
  • 106
  • 107
  • 108
  • 109
  • 110
  • 111
  • 112
  • 113
  • 114
  • 115
  • 116
  • 117
  • 118
  • 119
  • 120
  • 121
  • 122
  • 123
  • 124
  • 125
  • 126
  • 127
  • 128
  • 129
  • 130
  • 131
  • 132

for violation of California Civil Code Section 17200 (unfair competition), the Consumer Legal Remedies Action ("CLRA") and claims for false
advertising, fraudulent concealment and breach of warranty. The complaints seek unspecified damages and other relief. The Company is
investigating these claims. The cases have been consolidated in San Mateo County and Plaintiffs have filed a consolidated complaint.
In addition, a similar complaint relative to iPod battery life, Mosley v. Apple Computer, Inc. was filed in Westchester County, New York on
June 23, 2004 alleging violations of New York General Business Law Sections 349 (unfair competition) and 350 (false advertising). The
Company removed the case to Federal Court and Plaintiff filed a motion for remand, which the Court has not yet decided.
Davis v. Apple Computer, Inc.
Plaintiff filed this purported class action in San Francisco County Superior Court on December 5, 2002, alleging that the Company engaged in
unfair and deceptive business practices relating to its AppleCare Extended Service and Warranty Plan. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for
violation of the California Business and Professions Code §17200 and §17500, breach of the Song-Beverly Warranty Act, intentional
misrepresentation and concealment. Plaintiff requests unspecified damages and other relief. The Company filed a demurrer and motion to strike
which were granted, in part, and Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The Company filed an answer on April 17, 2003 denying all allegations
and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. Plaintiff subsequently amended its complaint. On October 29, 2003, the Company filed a motion to
disqualify Plaintiff's counsel in his role as counsel to the purported class and to the general public. The Court granted the motion, but allowed
Plaintiff to retain substitute counsel. Plaintiff did engage new counsel for the general public, but not for the class. The Company moved to
disqualify Plaintiff's new counsel and to have the Court dismiss the general public claims for equitable relief. The Court declined to disqualify
Plaintiff's new counsel or to dismiss the equitable claims, but did confirm that the class action claims are dismissed. The case is stayed pending
an appeal.
East Texas Technology Partners LP v. Apple Computer, Inc.
Plaintiff filed this patent infringement action on January 23, 2004 in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Texas alleging
infringement by the Company and seven other defendants of U.S. patent 6,574,239 relating to "Virtual Connection of a Remote Unit to a
Server." The complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief. The Plaintiff's law firm withdrew from the case because of a conflict of
interest and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The case was re-filed on February 10, 2004 in the Northern District of Texas by a new
law firm. The Company received service of the new complaint on May 17, 2004 and filed a response on August 6, 2004, denying all allegations
and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The Company is investigating this claim, and the case is in discovery.
Gobeli Research Ltd. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.
Plaintiff Gobeli Research Ltd. filed this patent infringement action against the Company and Sun Microsystems, Inc. on April 15, 2004 in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, alleging infringement of U.S. patent 5,418,968 related to a
"System and Method of Controlling Interrupt Processing." Plaintiff alleges that the Company's Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X operating systems
infringe Plaintiff's patent. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other relief. The Company has answered the complaint, denying all allegations
and asserting numerous defenses. The Company is investigating this claim.
Goldberg, et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al. (f.k.a. "Dan v. Apple Computer, Inc.")
Plaintiffs filed this purported class action on September 22, 2003 in Los Angeles County Superior Court against the Company and other
members of the industry on behalf of an alleged nationwide class of purchasers of certain computer hard drives. The case alleges violations of
Civil Code Section 17200 (unfair competition), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") and false advertising related to the size of the
drives. Plaintiffs allege that calculation of hard drive size using the decimal method misrepresents the
19