Apple 2004 Annual Report Download - page 23

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 23 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

actual size of the drive. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on March 30, 2004 and
the Company filed an answer on September 23, 2004, denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The Company is
investigating this claim. The parties are conducting discovery related to class certification.
Hawaii Structural Iron Workers and Pension Trust Fund v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Steven P. Jobs; Young v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.;
Hsu v. Apple Computer Inc., et al.
Beginning on September 27, 2001, three shareholder class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer. These lawsuits are substantially identical, and purport to bring suit on behalf
of persons who purchased the Company's publicly traded common stock between July 19, 2000, and September 28, 2000. The complaints allege
violations of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act and seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. 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. Plaintiffs filed their amended
complaint on January 31, 2003, and on March 17, 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Court heard the
Company's motion on July 11, 2003 and dismissed Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice on August 12, 2003. Plaintiffs have appealed the ruling.
Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.
Plaintiffs Honeywell International, Inc. and Honeywell Intellectual Properties, Inc. filed this action on October 6, 2004 in the United States
District Court in Delaware alleging infringement by the Company and other defendants of U.S. patent 5,280,371 entitled "Directional Diffuser
for a Liquid Crystal Display." Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief. The Company is investigating this claim in connection with
preparing its response to the complaint.
MacTech Systems v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Macadam v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Computer International, Inc. v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Elite
Computers and Software, Inc. v. Apple Computer, Inc.; The Neighborhood Computer Store v. Apple Computer, Inc. (all in Santa Clara County
Superior Court)
Five resellers have filed similar lawsuits against the Company for various causes of action including breach of contract, fraud, negligent and
intentional interference with economic relationship, negligent misrepresentation, trade libel, unfair competition and false advertising. Plaintiffs
request unspecified damages and other relief. The Company answered the Computer International complaint on November 12, 2003 denying all
allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The parties are in discovery in that case. The Company expects the other four plaintiffs
to file amended complaints. On October 1, 2003, one of the resellers, Macadam, was deauthorized as an Apple reseller. Macadam filed a motion
for a temporary order to reinstate it as a reseller, which the Court denied. The Court denied Macadam's motion for a preliminary injunction on
December 19, 2003.
Teleshuttle Technologies, LLC and BTG International Inc. v. Microsoft and Apple Computer, Inc.
Plaintiffs filed this case on July 20, 2004 in United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging infringement of U.S.
patent 6,557,054, entitled "Method and System for Distributing Updates by Presenting Directory of Software Available for User Installation That
is Not Already Installed on User Station." Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
September 7, 2004, adding a second patent, US patent 6,769,009 entitled "Method and System for Selecting a Personalized Set of Information
Channels." The Company filed an answer on October 18, 2004, denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
VirginMega/French Competition Council
On June 28, 2004, VirginMega filed a complaint with the French Competition Council against Apple Computer France. VirginMega sought
"interim measures," requiring the Company to license its FairPlay
20