Apple 2007 Annual Report Download - page 35

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 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 & Professions Code §16700
et seq. (the Cartwright Act), California Business & 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. 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 Tucker case was filed as a 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 sought unspecified damages and other relief. On
November 3, 2006, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On December 20, 2006, the Court denied the motion to dismiss. On
January 11, 2007, The Company filed an answer denying all material allegations and asserting numerous defenses.
On March 20, 2007, the Court consolidated the two cases. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on April 19, 2007. On June 6, 2007, the
Company filed an answer to the consolidated complaint denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
A related class action complaint, Black v. Apple Inc ., was filed on August 27, 2007 in the Circuit Court in Broward County, Florida, alleging
that the Company is attempting to maintain a monopoly by precluding customers from using non-iTunes downloads on iPods and from using
iTunes music on non-iPod MP3 players. Plaintiff alleges that the Company's alleged monopolization violates the Florida Antitrust Act and the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other relief. The Company removed the case to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on September 28, 2007, and filed a motion to transfer the case to the Northern
District of California on October 12, 2007. The Company's motion to transfer was granted on October 17, 2007.
Tse v. Apple Computer, Inc. et al.
Plaintiff Ho Keung Tse filed this action against the Company and other defendants on August 5, 2005 in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,665,797 entitled "Protection of Software Again [sic] Against Unauthorized Use."
The complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief. The Company filed an answer on October 31, 2005 denying all material allegations
and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. On October 28, 2005, the Company and the other defendants filed a motion to transfer the case to
the Northern District of California, which was granted on August 31, 2006. On July 24, 2007, the Company filed a petition for reexamination of
the patent, which the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted. On July 25, 2007, the Company filed a motion to stay the litigation pending the
outcome of the reexamination, which the court granted on October 4, 2007.
Union Fédérale 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
32