Apple 2008 Annual Report Download - page 35

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 35 of the 2008 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 103

  • 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

Table of Contents
The Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation (formerly Charoensak v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Tucker v. Apple Computer, Inc.); Somers v. Apple
Inc.
The first-listed action is a consolidated case combining two cases previously pending under the names Charoensak v. Apple Computer Inc.
(formerly Slattery v. Apple Computer Inc.) and Tucker v. Apple Computer, Inc . The original plaintiff (Slattery) in the Charoensak case filed a
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 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. On
July 17, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and on October 17, 2008, the Company filed its opposition to plaintiffs’ motion.
The class certification hearing is set for December 15, 2008.
A related class action complaint, Somers v. Apple Inc ., was filed on December 31, 2007 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 February 21, 2008, the Company filed an answer denying all material allegations and asserting numerous defenses.
The Court has scheduled the class certification hearing for April 20, 2009.
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.
32