Apple 2005 Annual Report Download - page 25

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 25 of the 2005 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 152

  • 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
  • 133
  • 134
  • 135
  • 136
  • 137
  • 138
  • 139
  • 140
  • 141
  • 142
  • 143
  • 144
  • 145
  • 146
  • 147
  • 148
  • 149
  • 150
  • 151
  • 152

remand. On January 28, 2005 a second plaintiff, Allen, filed a purported nationwide class action in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging
identical claims. Plaintiff Stamm dismissed the Stamm case on September 2, 2005. An amended complaint in the Allen case was filed on
October 24, 2005, adding additional named plaintiffs and expanding the alleged class to include purchasers of the 20-inch Apple Cinema
Display and the 23-inch Apple Cinema HD Display. The amended complaint alleges that the displays have a purported defect that causes
dimming of one-half of the screen, and that the Company misrepresented the quality of the displays and/or concealed the purported defect.
Plaintiffs assert claims under California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition); California Business & Professions Code
§17500 (false advertising) and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The amended complaint seeks remedies including damages and equitable
relief. On November 14, 2005, the Company filed an answer to the amended complaint as to the allegations regarding the 17-
inch display and a
demurrer/motion to strike as to the allegations regarding the 20-inch and 23-inch displays on the ground that plaintiffs failed to allege that they
purchased those displays. At a status conference on November 21, 2005, the Court ordered Plantiffs to amend their complaint. The Company’s
demurrer is off calendar pending this amendment.
St-Germain v. Apple Canada, Inc.
Plaintiff filed this case in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, on August 5, 2005, seeking authorization to institute a class action for the refund by the
Company of the Canadian Private Copying Levy that was applied to the iPod purchase price in Quebec between December 12, 2003 and
December 14, 2004 but later declared invalid by the Canadian Court. A class certification hearing is scheduled for January 13, 2006. The
Company has already begun a refund program for this levy.
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 filed an amended complaint on September 7, 2004, adding a second patent, U.S.
patent 6,769,009 entitled “Method and System for Selecting a Personalized Set of Information Channels.” Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages
and other relief. The Company filed an answer on October 18, 2004, denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative
defenses. On August 22, 2005, the Company filed an amended answer to add charges of inequitable conduct. The case is in discovery.
Markman briefing is completed. A technology tutorial and Markman hearing are tentatively scheduled for January 13, 20, and 27, 2006.
Tiger Direct, Inc. v. Apple Computer, Inc.
Plaintiff Tiger Direct, Inc. filed this trademark infringement action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
April 26, 2005 alleging infringement of the word mark TIGER. Plaintiff claims to have a valid registration in the mark TIGER and alleges that
the Company’s use of TIGER in reference to the latest version of Mac OS X infringes the mark allegedly owned by Plaintiff. Plaintiff
attempted to obtain an ex parte preliminary injunction barring the Company’s use of the TIGER mark on April 27, 2005 but the motion was
denied. Plaintiff served the Company on April 27, 2005 and again moved for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff’s motion was heard on May 3,
2005. On May 11, 2005, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion. The Company filed a response to the complaint on May 17, 2005, denying all
material allegations and asserting counterclaims for cancellation of certain marks registered to Tiger Direct. On June 10, 2005, Plaintiff filed an
appeal, but subsequently withdrew it. Plaintiff filed a response to the Company’s counterclaims. The parties have reached a settlement.
Settlement of this matter did not have a material effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operation.
23