Apple 2006 Annual Report Download - page 45

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 45 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

Tucker v. Apple Computer, Inc.
Plaintiff filed this purported class action on July 21, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging
various claims including alleged unlawful tying of music and videos purchased on the iTunes Store with the purchase of iPods and vice versa
and unlawful acquisition or maintenance of monopoly market power. The complaint alleges violations of §§1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15
U.S.C. §§1 and 2), California Business & Professions Code §16700 et seq. (the Cartwright Act), California Business & Professions Code
§17200 (unfair competition), and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other relief. On
November 3, 2006, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was heard on November 20, 2006. On December 20, 2006, the
Court denied the motion to dismiss.
Union Federale des Consummateurs - Que Choisir v. Apple Computer France s.à.r.l. and iTunes s.à.r.l.
Plaintiff, a consumer association in France, filed this complaint on February 9, 2005 alleging that the above-listed entities are violating
consumer law by (1) omitting to mention that the iPod is allegedly not compatible with music from online music services other than the iTunes
Store and that the music from the iTunes Store is only compatible with the iPod and (2) allegedly tying the sales of iPods to the iTunes Store
and vice versa. Plaintiff seeks damages, injunctive relief and other relief. The first hearing on the case took place on May 24, 2005. The
Company’s response to the complaint was served on November 8, 2005. Plaintiff’s responsive pleading was filed on February 10, 2006. The
Company filed a reply on June 6, 2006 and UFC filed a response on September 19, 2006.
Vitt v. Apple Computer, Inc.
Plaintiff filed this purported class action on November 7, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on
behalf of a purported nationwide class of all purchasers of the iBook G4 alleging that the computer’s logic board fails at an abnormally high
rate. The complaint alleges violations of California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition) and California Business &
Professions Code §17500 (false advertising). Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other relief. The Company’s response to the complaint is
not yet due.
Vogel v. Jobs et al.
Plaintiff filed this purported class action on August 24, 2006, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against
the Company and certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors alleging improper backdating of stock option grants to
maximize certain defendants’ profits, failing to properly account for those grants and issuing false financial statements. The lawsuit purports to
be brought on behalf of all purchasers of the Company’s stock from December 1, 2005 through August 11, 2006, and asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act as well as control person claims. A motion for appointment of lead plaintiff and
counsel was scheduled to be heard on December 4, 2006 but was taken off calendar when the case was re-assigned to the Hon. Jeremy Fogel.
The motion therefore is still pending. Defendants’ responses to the complaint are not yet due.
Wimmer v. Apple Computer, Inc. (originally filed as Tomczak v. Apple Computer, Inc. on October 19, 2005 in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division; amended complaint filed October 26, 2005); Moschella, et al., v. Apple
Computer, Inc. (filed October 26, 2005 United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division); Calado, et al. v.
Apple Computer, Inc.
(filed October 26, 2005, Los Angeles County Superior Court); Kahan, et al., v. Apple Computer, Inc. (filed October 31,
2005, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York); Jennings, et al., v. Apple Computer, Inc. (filed November 4, 2005,
United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division); Rappel v. Apple Computer, Inc. (filed on November 23,
2005, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey); Mayo v. Apple Computer, Inc. (filed on December 7, 2005, United States
District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana); Valencia v. Apple Computer, Inc. (filed on December 22, 2005, United States District
Court for
44