Apple 2006 Annual Report Download - page 38

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 38 of the 2006 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 143

  • 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

United States District Court for the Northern District of California, on behalf of a purported nationwide class, and made identical allegations to
those made in the Butzer case. Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of express and implied warranties, violation of the CLRA, violation of the
Song-Beverly Act, false advertising and unfair competition. The complaint sought restitution, an injunction and other remedies. The Company
filed an answer to the Butzer complaint on October 19, 2005 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The
Company filed an answer to the Wirges action on February 28, 2006, and also filed a motion to transfer the Wirges case to the Northern
District of California. The Company filed an answer to the Blackwell complaint on March 15, 2006 denying all material allegations and
asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The Company has reached a settlement with the named plaintiffs in all three cases and these matters
are concluded. Settlement of these matters did not have a material effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.
Charoensak v. Apple Computer, Inc. (formerly Slattery v. Apple Computer, Inc.)
The original Plaintiff (Slattery) filed this purported class action on January 3, 2005 in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California alleging various claims including alleged unlawful tying of music purchased on the iTunes Store with the purchase of iPods and
vice versa and unlawful acquisition or maintenance of monopoly market power. Plaintiff’s complaint alleged violations of §§1 and 2 of the
Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. §§1 and 2), California Business and Professions Code §16700 et seq. (the Cartwright Act), California Business and
Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), common law unjust enrichment and common law monopolization. Plaintiff sought unspecified
damages and other relief. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on February 10, 2005. On September 9, 2005, the Court denied the motion in
part and granted it in part. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 23, 2005 and the Company filed an answer on October 18, 2005.
On May 8, 2006, the Court heard Plaintiff’
s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint to substitute two new plaintiffs for Slattery. In
August 2006, the court dismissed Slattery without prejudice and allowed plaintiffs to file an amended complaint naming two new plaintiffs
(Charoensak and Rosen). On November 2, 2006, the Company filed an answer to the amended complaint denying all material allegations and
asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The hearing on class certification is set for April 16, 2007.
Contois Music Technology LLC v. Apple Computer, Inc.
Plaintiff Contois Music Technology filed this action on June 13, 2005 in the United States District Court for Vermont, alleging infringement by
the Company of U.S. Patent No. 5,864,868, entitled “Computer Control System and User Interface for Media Playing Devices.” The complaint
sought unspecified damages and other relief. The Company filed an answer on November 23, 2005 denying all material allegations and
asserting numerous affirmative defenses. A Markman hearing was held on June 13, 2006 and the court issued a claim construction ruling on
July 24, 2006. The parties agreed to a settlement and the case was dismissed on August 18, 2006. This matter is now concluded. Settlement of
this matter did not have a material effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.
Creative Technology Ltd. and Creative Labs, Inc. v. Apple Computer, Inc. (filed on May 15, 2006, International Trade Comission), Creative
Technology Ltd. v. Apple Computer, Inc. (filed on May 15, 2006, United States District Court for the Northern District of California), Apple
Computer, Inc. v. Creative Technology Ltd. and Creative Labs, Inc. (filed May 15, 2006, United States District Court for the Western District
of Wisconsin), Apple Computer, Inc. v. Creative Technology Ltd. and Creative Labs, Inc. (filed on June 1, 2007, International Trade
Comission), Apple Computer, Inc. v. Creative Technology Ltd. and Creative Labs (filed on June 1, 2006, United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas)
On May 15, 2006, Creative Labs, Inc., and Creative Technology Ltd. (collectively “Creative”) filed a complaint with the U.S. International
Trade Commission (“ITC”) alleging that the Company infringed U.S. patent number 6,928,433 (“‘433 patent”) and seeking an order
permanently barring iPods from importation into the United States. On May 15, 2006, Creative also brought suit against the Company in
37