cik
stringclasses
1 value
date
stringlengths
8
8
form
stringclasses
4 values
sentenceCount
int64
0
2.33k
sentence
stringlengths
2
5.25k
filename
stringlengths
40
40
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
744
European Commission Investigation The European Commission has notified the Company that it is investigating certain matters relating to the iTunes Music Store in the European Union (EU).
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
745
The European Commission is investigating claims made by Which?, a United Kingdom (UK) consumer association, that the Company is violating EU competition law by charging more for online music in the UK than in Eurozone countries and preventing UK consumers from purchasing online music from the iTunes Music Store for Eur...
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
746
The Which?
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
747
claims were originally lodged with the UK Office of Fair Trading, which subsequently referred them to the European Commission.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
748
The European Commission is investigating the charges under Articles 81 and 82 of the European Commission Treaty.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
749
Gillis et al.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
750
v. Apple Computer, Inc.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
751
Plaintiffs filed this purported class action on December 23, 2005 in San Diego County Superior Court alleging that the Company has misrepresented the hard drive capacity of two Powerbook G4 computers: the 12 inch, 1.5 GHz computer with 512 MB of memory and a 100GB hard drive; and the 15 inch, 1.67 GHz computer with 1GB...
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
752
Plaintiffs allege that the Company’s standard disclosure on its packaging regarding hard drive size was not present on the packaging for these two models.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
753
The complaint alleges violations of the California Business & Profession Code §17200 (unfair competition), California Business & Profession Code §17500 (false advertising), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and causes of action for deceit and negligent misrepresentation.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
754
Plaintiffs seek restitution and other relief.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
755
On February 28, 2006, the Company filed a demurrer and a motion to strike.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
756
The Company withdrew the demurrer and motion to strike per stipulations and await an amended complaint.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
757
Goldberg, et al.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
758
v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
759
(f.k.a.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
760
“Dan v. Apple Computer, Inc.”) Plaintiffs filed this purported class action on September 22, 2003 in Los Angeles County Superior Court against the Company and other members of the computer industry on behalf of an alleged nationwide class of purchasers of certain computer hard drives.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
761
The case alleges violations of California Business and Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and false advertising related to the size of the drives.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
762
Plaintiffs allege that calculation of hard drive size using the decimal method misrepresents the actual size of the drive.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
763
The complaint seeks restitution and other relief.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
764
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 30, 2004 and the Company filed an answer on September 23, 2004, denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
765
Defendants filed a motion to strike portions of the complaint based on sales by resellers and filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings based upon Proposition 64.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
766
The Court granted both motions at a hearing on April 6, 2005.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
767
Plaintiffs thereafter filed an amended complaint on May 6, 2005.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
768
The Defendants filed a demurrer on June 6, 2005, which was heard on August 22, 2005.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
769
The Court granted the demurrer in part and denied it in part.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
770
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and the Company filed an answer on December 15, 2005 denying all allegations and asserting numerous assertive defenses.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
771
Honeywell International, Inc., et al.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
772
v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
773
Plaintiffs Honeywell International, Inc. and Honeywell Intellectual Properties, Inc. filed this action on October 6, 2004 in the United States District Court in Delaware alleging infringement by the Company and other defendants of U.S. patent 5,280,371 entitled “Directional Diffuser for a Liquid Crystal Display.” Plain...
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
774
The Company filed an answer on December 21, 2004 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
775
The Company has tendered the case to several LCD manufacturer suppliers.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
776
On May 18, 2005 the Court stayed the case against the Company and the other non-manufacturer defendants.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
777
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 7, 2005 adding additional defendants and expanding the scope of the accused products.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
778
Given the stay, the Company’s response to the amended complaint is not yet due.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
779
Lenzi v. Apple Canada, Inc. (filed June 7, 2005, Superior Court, Montreal, Quebec) Plaintiff filed a purported class action allegedly on behalf of Quebec customers claiming false advertising and breach of warranty relating to iPod battery life.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
780
Plaintiff sought authorization to institute a class action on behalf of Generations 1, 2 and 3 iPod owners in Quebec.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
781
On February 2, 2006, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s motion for authorization to institute a class action.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
782
Plaintiff has appealed this ruling.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
783
MacTech Systems v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Macadam v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Computer International, Inc. v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Elite Computers and Software, Inc. v. Apple Computer, Inc.; The Neighborhood Computer Store v. Apple Computer, Inc.; MacAccessory Center, Inc. v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Creative Online Computer...
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
784
Plaintiffs request unspecified damages and other relief.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
785
The Company answered the Computer International complaint on November 12, 2003, denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
786
The Company filed an answer in the Macadam case on December 3, 2004 denying all allegations and asserting numerous defenses.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
787
Three of the other Plaintiffs filed amended complaints on February 7, 2005, and on March 16, 2005 the Company filed answers to these claims denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
788
A sixth Plaintiff, MacAccessory Center, filed a complaint on February 23, 2005.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
789
The Company filed an answer to this complaint on April 20, 2005 denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
790
On February 28, 2006, MacGuys and Creative Online filed complaints against the Company.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
791
The Company’s responses to these complaints are not yet due.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
792
All of these cases with the exception of Macadam are in discovery and are coordinated (along with the Branning class action) in Santa Clara Superior Court.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
793
The cases (except Branning, MacGuys and Creative Online) are set for trial on November 27, 2006.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
794
On December 19, 2005, Tom Santos, Macadam’s principal and an original Plaintiff in the Macadam case, filed a Fifth Amended Complaint on his own behalf (not on behalf of Macadam) alleging fraud, violations of California Business & Professional Code §17200 (unfair competition), California Business & Professional Code §17...
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
795
The Company filed a demurrer to Santos’ amended complaint and a special motion to strike the defamation cause of action on January 20, 2006.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
796
Those motions were heard on February 17, 2006, and the Court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend as to one cause of action, overruled the demurrer as to one cause of action and sustained the demurrer with leave to amend as to two causes of action.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
797
The Court also denied the special motion to strike.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
798
Santos has not yet filed a further amended complaint.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
799
The Company also filed a cross complaint against Santos on January 20, 2006 alleging violations of California Business & Professional Code §17200, fraud and deceit, breach of contract, and violation of California Penal Code §502.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
800
On October 1, 2003, one of the reseller Plaintiffs, Macadam, was deauthorized as an Apple reseller.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
801
Macadam filed a motion for a temporary order to reinstate it as a reseller, which the Court denied.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
802
The Court denied Macadam’s motion for a preliminary injunction on December 19, 2003.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
803
On December 6, 2004 Macadam filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in the Northern District of California, which placed a stay on the litigation as to Macadam only.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
804
The Company filed a claim in the bankruptcy proceedings on February 16, 2005.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
805
The Macadam bankruptcy case was converted to Chapter 7 (liquidation) on April 29, 2005.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
806
The Company has reached a tentative settlement of the Macadam case with the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Trustee.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
807
The Bankruptcy Court denied, without prejudice, the Trustee’s motion to approve that settlement on April 7, 2006.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
808
We expect the Trustee to re-file the motion to approve the settlement with further support.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
809
Macsolutions Inc. v. Apple Computer, Inc.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
810
Plaintiff Macsolutions, Inc., an Apple authorized reseller, filed this lawsuit against the Company on January 20, 2006 alleging breach of contract, fraud, misappropriation of trade secrets, intentional interference with economic advantage, violation of the Cartwright Act, violation of California Business & Professions ...
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
811
The factual allegations in this complaint are similar to those in the eight other reseller cases and the Branning class action.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
812
Principally, Plaintiffs allege that the Company has treated Macsolutions unfairly compared to other resellers, that the Company has competed unfairly in opening the Apple Retail stores, and has allegedly sold used goods as new.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
813
The Company’s response is not yet due.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
814
Premier International Associates LLC v. Apple Computer, Inc.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
815
Plaintiff Premier International Associates LLC filed this action on November 3, 2005 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, alleging infringement by the Company of U.S.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
816
Patents 6,243,725 and 6,763,345 both entitled “List Building System.” The complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
817
The Company filed an answer on January 13, 2006 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
818
The Company also asserted counter claims for a declaratory judgment of noninfringement and invalidity.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
819
Quantum Technology Management, Ltd. v. Apple Computer, Inc.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
820
Plaintiff filed this action on December 21, 2005 in the United States Court for the District of Maryland against the Company and Fingerworks Ltd., alleging infringement of U.S. Patent number 5,730,165 entitled “Time Domain Capacitive Field Detector.” The complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
821
The Company’s response is not yet due.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
822
Slattery v. Apple Computer, Inc.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
823
Plaintiff 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 Music Store with the purchase of iPods and vice versa and unlawful acquisition or maintenan...
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
824
Plaintiff’s complaint alleged violations of §§1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
825
§§1 and 2), California Business and Professions Code §16700 et seq.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
826
(the Cartwright Act), California Business and Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), common law unjust enrichment and common law monopolization.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
827
Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other relief.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
828
The Company filed a motion to dismiss on February 10, 2005.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
829
On September 9, 2005, the Court denied the motion in part and granted it in part.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
830
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 23, 2005 and the Company filed an answer on October 18, 2005.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
831
On May 8, 2006, the Court will hear Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint that substitutes two new plaintiffs for Slattery.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
832
St-Germain v. Apple Canada, Inc.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
833
Plaintiff filed this case in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, on August 5, 2005, seeking authorization to institute a class action for the refund by the Company of the Canadian Private Copying Levy that was applied to the iPod purchase price in Quebec between December 12, 2003 and December 14, 2004 but later declared invalid ...
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
834
The Company has completed a refund program for this levy.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
835
A class certification hearing took place January 13, 2006.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
836
On February 24, 2006 the Court granted class certification and notice was published during the last week of March 2006.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
837
Teleshuttle Technologies, LLC and BTG International Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation and Apple Computer, Inc.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
838
Plaintiffs filed this case on July 20, 2004 in United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging infringement of U.S. patent 6,557,054, entitled “Method and System for Distributing Updates by Presenting Directory of Software Available for User Installation That is Not Already Installed on Us...
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
839
The Company filed an answer on October 18, 2004, denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
840
On August 22, 2005, the Company filed an amended answer to add charges of inequitable conduct.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
841
The parties reached a settlement and on April 7, 2006, the Court entered an order dismissing the complaint.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
842
The matter is now concluded.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20060505
10-Q
843
Settlement of this matter did not have a material effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.
0001104659-06-031303/full-submission.txt