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
20080201
10-Q
569
v. Apple Computer, Inc.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
570
Plaintiffs originally filed this purported class action in San Francisco County Superior Court on February 17, 2005.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
571
The initial complaint alleged violations of California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition) and violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act regarding a variety of purportedly unfair and unlawful conduct including, but not limited to, allegedly selling used computers as new and failing to honor warranties.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
572
Plaintiffs also brought causes of action for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract and violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
573
Plaintiffs requested unspecified damages and other relief.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
574
On May 9, 2005, the Court granted the Company’s motion to transfer the case to Santa Clara County Superior Court.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
575
On May 2, 2005, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding two new named plaintiffs and three new causes of action including a claim for treble damages under the Cartwright Act (California Business & Professions Code §16700 et seq.)
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
576
and a claim for false advertising.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
577
The Company filed a demurrer to the amended complaint, which the Court sustained in its entirety on November 10, 2005.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
578
The Court granted plaintiffs leave to amend and they filed an amended complaint on December 29, 2005.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
579
Plaintiffs’ amended complaint added three plaintiffs and alleged many of the same factual claims as the previous complaints, such as alleged selling of used equipment as new, alleged failure to honor warranties and service contracts for the consumer plaintiffs, and alleged fraud related to the opening of the Apple retail stores.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
580
Plaintiffs continued to assert causes of action for unfair competition (§17200), violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, violations of the Cartwright Act, and alleged new causes of action for fraud, conversion, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
581
The Company filed a demurrer to the amended complaint on January 31, 2006, which the Court sustained on March 3, 2006 on sixteen of seventeen causes of action.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
582
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding one new plaintiff.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
583
The Company filed a demurrer, which was granted in part on September 9, 2006.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
584
Plaintiffs filed a further amended complaint on September 21, 2006.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
585
On October 2, 2006, the Company filed an answer denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
586
On November 30, 2007, the Company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which the Court denied.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
587
European Commission Investigation The European Commission is investigating certain matters relating to the iTunes Stores in Europe.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
588
The European Commission had previously notified the Company that it was investigating claims made by Which?, a United Kingdom (“U.K.”) consumer association, that the Company is violating EU competition law by charging more for online music in the U.K. than in Eurozone countries and preventing U.K. consumers from purchasing online music from the iTunes Stores for Eurozone countries.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
589
The Which?
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
590
claims were originally lodged with the U.K. Office of Fair Trading, which subsequently referred them to the European Commission.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
591
On March 30, 2007, the European Commission issued Statements of Objections to the major record labels, Apple Inc. and iTunes S.à.r.l.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
592
In the Statements of Objections, the Commission challenges provisions in the agreements pursuant to which each major record company authorizes iTunes S.à.r.l.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
593
to distribute digital music downloads through the iTunes Store.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
594
The Commission contends that, because of these provisions, residents of the European Economic Area are only permitted to buy music from the iTunes Store for the country that issued the customer’s credit card.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
595
The Commission contends that these provisions are territorial sales restrictions which violate Article 81 of the European Community Treaty.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
596
The Commission seeks fines and behavioral relief.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
597
The Company filed its responses to the Statements of Objections on June 20, 2007.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
598
A hearing on the Statements of Objections took place in Brussels, Belgium on September 19, 2007.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
599
On January 9, 2008, the Company announced that it planned to equalize the price of iTunes Store content throughout Europe within six months.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
600
That same day, the Commission announced its intent to close the investigation.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
601
Gordon v. Apple Computer, Inc.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
602
Plaintiff filed this purported class action on August 31, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, on behalf of a purported nationwide class of consumers who purchased 65W Power Adapters for iBooks and Powerbooks between November 2002 and the present.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
603
The complaint alleges various problems with the 65W Adapter, including fraying, sparking, and premature failure.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
604
Plaintiffs allege violations of California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and breach of warranties.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
605
The complaint seeks damages and equitable relief.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
606
The Company filed an answer on October 20, 2006 denying the material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
607
Harvey v. Apple Inc.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
608
Plaintiff filed this action on August 6, 2007 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, alleging infringement by the Company of U.S. Patent No.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
609
6,753,671 entitled “Recharger for use with a portable electronic device and which includes a proximally located light emitting device” and U.S. Patent No.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
610
6,762,584 entitled “Recharger for use with a portable electronic device and which includes a connector terminus for communicating with rechargeable batteries contained within the device.” The complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
611
The Company filed an answer on October 12, 2007 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
612
The Company also asserted counterclaims for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
613
The Markman hearing is set for October 28, 2009, and trial is scheduled for April 5, 2010.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
614
Honeywell International, Inc., et al.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
615
v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
616
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.” Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
617
The Company filed an answer on December 21, 2004 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
618
The Company has tendered the case to several liquid crystal display manufacturer suppliers.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
619
On May 18, 2005 the Court stayed the case against the Company and the other non-manufacturer defendants.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
620
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 7, 2005 adding additional defendants and expanding the scope of the accused products.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
621
Given the stay, the Company’s response to the amended complaint is not yet due.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
622
In re Apple Computer, Inc.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
623
Derivative Litigation (formerly Karant v. Jobs, et al.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
624
and Related Actions) (Federal Action) On June 30, 2006, a putative derivative action captioned Karant v. Jobs, et.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
625
al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
626
A number of related actions were filed in the subsequent weeks and have been consolidated into a single action captioned In re Apple Computer, Inc.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
627
Derivative Litigation, Master File No.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
628
C-06-04128-JF before the Hon.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
629
Jeremy Fogel.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
630
The actions were filed after the Company’s announcement on June 29, 2006 that an internal investigation had discovered irregularities related to the issuance of certain stock option grants made between 1997 and 2001, that a special committee of the Company’s outside directors had retained independent counsel to perform an investigation and that the Company had informed the Securities and Exchange Commission.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
631
The action purports to assert claims on behalf of the Company against several current and former executive officers and members of the Board of Directors alleging improper backdating of stock option grants to maximize certain defendants’ profits, failing to properly account for and take tax deductions for those grants, insider trading, and issuing false financial statements.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
632
The Company is named as a nominal defendant.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
633
The consolidated complaint alleges various causes of action under federal and California law, including claims for unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, violation of the California Corporations Code, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, rescission, constructive fraud and waste of corporate assets, as well as claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
634
Plaintiffs seek damages, disgorgement, restitution and imposition of a constructive trust.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
635
A Consolidated Shareholder Derivative Complaint was filed on December 18, 2006, and a First Amended Shareholder Derivative Complaint was filed on March 6, 2007.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
636
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on April 20, 2007, which was heard on September 7, 2007.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
637
On November 19, 2007, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss with leave to amend.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
638
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December 19, 2007.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
639
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on January 25, 2008.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
640
On June 12, 2007, the Company’s Board of Directors approved a resolution appointing a Special Litigation Committee to make all decisions relating to options litigation.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
641
In re Apple Computer, Inc.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
642
Derivative Litigation (formerly Plumbers and Pipefitters v. Jobs, et al.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
643
and Related Actions) (State Action); Boston Retirement Board v. Apple Computer, Inc. On July 5, 2006, a putative derivative action captioned Plumbers and Pipefitters v. Jobs, et.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
644
al., was filed in California Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
645
A number of related actions were filed in the subsequent weeks, and have been consolidated into a single action captioned In re Apple Computer, Inc.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
646
Derivative Litigation, No.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
647
1:06CV066692, assigned to the Hon.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
648
Joseph Huber.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
649
These actions purport to assert claims on behalf of the Company against several current and former executive officers and members of the Board of Directors alleging improper backdating of stock option grants to maximize certain defendants’ profits, failing to properly account for and take tax deductions for those grants and issuing false financial statements.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
650
The Company is named as a nominal defendant.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
651
A consolidated complaint was filed on October 5, 2006, alleging a variety of causes of action under California law, including claims for unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, violation of the California Corporations Code, abuse of control, accounting, constructive trust, rescission, deceit, gross mismanagement and waste of corporate assets.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
652
On December 7, 2006, the Court granted the Company’s motion to stay these actions.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
653
On November 3, 2006, the Boston Retirement Board, a purported shareholder, filed a petition for writ of mandate against the Company in California Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara County (Boston Retirement Board v. Apple Computer Inc.).
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
654
The petition sought to compel the Company to allow inspection of certain corporate records relating to the Company’s option practices and the Special Committee’s investigation.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
655
On January 16, 2007, the Company filed a demurrer to the petition.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
656
The Court entered an order overruling the demurrer on March 13, 2007.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
657
The Company filed its answer to the petition on April 5, 2007.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
658
The trial took place on September 24, 2007.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
659
The Court granted the petition for inspection but narrowed the scope of the records to be produced.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
660
In re Apple iPod Nano Products Liability Litigation (formerly Wimmer v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Moschella, et al., v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Calado, et al.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
661
v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Kahan, et al., v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Jennings, et al., v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Rappel v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Mayo v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Valencia v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Williamson v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Sioson v. Apple Computer, Inc. Beginning on October 19, 2005, eight complaints were filed in various United States District Courts and two complaints were filed in California State Court alleging that the Company’s iPod nano was defectively designed so that it scratches excessively during normal use, rendering the screen unreadable.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
662
The federal actions were coordinated in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and assigned to the Hon.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
663
Ronald Whyte pursuant to an April 17, 2006 order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
664
Plaintiffs filed a First Consolidated and Amended Master Complaint on September 21, 2006, alleging violations of California and other states’ consumer protection and warranty laws and claiming unjust enrichment.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
665
The Master Complaint alleges two putative plaintiff classes: (1) all U.S. residents (excluding California residents) who purchased an iPod nano that was not manufactured or designed using processes necessary to ensure normal resistance to scratching of the screen; and (2) all iPod nano purchasers other than U.S. residents who purchased an iPod nano that was not manufactured or designed using processes necessary to ensure normal resistance to scratching of the screen.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
666
The Company answered the Master Complaint on November 20, 2006.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
667
The two California State Court actions were coordinated on May 4, 2006, and assigned to the Hon.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
668
Carl West in Los Angeles Superior Court.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt