Apple 2009 Annual Report Download - page 33

Table of Contents
purchase price in Quebec between December 12, 2003 and December 14, 2004 but later declared invalid by the Canadian Court. The Company
has completed a refund program for this levy. A class certification hearing took place January 13, 2006. On February 24, 2006, the Court granted
class certification and notice was published during the last week of March 2006. The trial was conducted on October 15 and 16, 2007. On
January 11, 2008, the Court issued a ruling in plaintiff’s favor. The Court ruled that despite the Company’
s good faith efforts with the levy
refund program, the Company must pay the amount claimed, and that the class is comprised of 20,000 persons who purchased an iPod in Quebec
between December 12, 2003 and December 14, 2004. The Court ordered the Company to submit a statement of account showing the amount
received by the Canadian Private Copying Collective, and the amount that has already been paid to class members in Quebec under the
Company’
s levy refund program. The Court also ordered the parties to submit further briefing regarding the collective recovery award by
February 23, 2008. On February 11, 2008, the Company filed an appeal. A hearing on the appeal is set for October 27, 2009.
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 took place on December 16, 2008. On December 22, 2008, the Court granted certification of the monopolization
claims and denied without prejudice certification of the tying claims pending reconsideration of its denial of the Company’
s motion to dismiss.
On February 13, 2009, the Company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings as to plaintiffs’
tying claims. On May 15, 2009, the Court
issued an order granting the Company’
s motion in part, dismissing the federal per se tying claim and related state court tying claims and inviting
the Company to file another motion for judgment on the pleadings if plaintiffs pursue a rule of reason
30