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
769
The trial was conducted on October 15 and 16, 2007.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
770
On January 11, 2008, the Court issued a ruling in plaintiff’s favor.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
771
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.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
772
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.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
773
The Court also ordered the parties to submit further briefing regarding the collective recovery award by February 23, 2008.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
774
Texas MP3 Technologies Ltd v. Apple Inc. et al.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
775
Plaintiff filed this action against the Company and other defendants on February 16, 2007 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
776
7,065,417 entitled “MPEG Portable Sound Reproducing System and A Reproducing Method Thereof.” The complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
777
On July 12, 2007, the Company filed a petition for reexamination of the patent, which the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
778
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 1, 2007, adding the iPhone as an accused device.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
779
On August 2, 2007, the Company filed a motion to stay the litigation pending the outcome of the reexamination, which the Court denied.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
780
The Company filed an answer on August 20, 2007, denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
781
The Company also asserted counterclaims for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
782
The Markman hearing is set for March 12, 2009, and trial is scheduled for July 6, 2009.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
783
The Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation (formerly Charoensak v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Tucker v. Apple Computer, Inc.); Black v. Apple Inc.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
784
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.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
785
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.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
786
Plaintiff’s complaint alleged violations of §§1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
787
§§1 and 2), California Business & Professions Code §16700 et seq.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
788
(the Cartwright Act), California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), common law unjust enrichment and common law monopolization.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
789
Plaintiff sought unspecified damages and other relief.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
790
The Company filed a motion to dismiss on February 10, 2005.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
791
On September 9, 2005, the Court denied the motion in part and granted it in part.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
792
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 23, 2005 and the Company filed an answer on October 18, 2005.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
793
In August 2006, the Court dismissed Slattery without prejudice and allowed plaintiffs to file an amended complaint naming two new plaintiffs (Charoensak and Rosen).
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
794
On November 2, 2006, the Company filed an answer to the amended complaint denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
795
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.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
796
The complaint alleges violations of §§1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
797
§§1 and 2), California Business & Professions Code §16700 et seq.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
798
(the Cartwright Act), California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition) and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
799
Plaintiff sought unspecified damages and other relief.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
800
On November 3, 2006, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
801
On December 20, 2006, the Court denied the motion to dismiss.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
802
On January 11, 2007, The Company filed an answer denying all material allegations and asserting numerous defenses.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
803
On March 20, 2007, the Court consolidated the two cases.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
804
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on April 19, 2007.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
805
On June 6, 2007, the Company filed an answer to the consolidated complaint denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
806
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.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
807
Plaintiff alleges that the Company’s alleged monopolization violates the Florida Antitrust Act and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
808
Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other relief.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
809
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.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
810
The Company’s motion to transfer was granted on October 17, 2007.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
811
Plaintiff and the Company entered into a Stipulation for Voluntary Dismissal on November 19, 2007, and the Court entered plaintiff’s dismissal of all claims with prejudice on November 20, 2007.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
812
The matter is concluded.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
813
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.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
814
The complaint alleges violations of §§1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
815
§§1 and 2), California Business & Professions Code §16700 et seq.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
816
(the Cartwright Act), California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition) and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
817
Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other relief.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
818
The Company’s response to the complaint is not yet due.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
819
Tse v. Apple Computer, Inc. et al.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
820
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.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
821
6,665,797 entitled “Protection of Software Again [sic] Against Unauthorized Use.” The complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
822
The Company filed an answer on October 31, 2005 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
823
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.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
824
On July 24, 2007, the Company filed a petition for reexamination of the patent, which the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
825
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.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
826
Union Fédérale des Consummateurs - Que Choisir v. Apple Computer France S.à.r.l.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
827
and iTunes S.à.r.l.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
828
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 compatible with music from online music services other than the iTunes Store and that the music from the iTunes Store is only compatible with the iPod and (2) allegedly tying the sales of iPods to the iTunes Store and vice versa.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
829
Plaintiff seeks damages, injunctive relief and other relief.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
830
The first hearing on the case took place on May 24, 2005.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
831
The Company’s response to the complaint was served on November 8, 2005.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
832
Plaintiff’s responsive pleading was filed on February 10, 2006.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
833
The Company filed a reply on June 6, 2006 and UFC filed a response on September 19, 2006.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
834
Vitt v. Apple Computer, Inc.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
835
Plaintiff filed this purported class action on November 7, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of a purported nationwide class of all purchasers of the iBook G4 alleging that the computer’s logic board fails at an abnormally high rate.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
836
The complaint alleges violations of California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition) and California Business & Professions Code §17500 (false advertising).
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
837
Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other relief.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
838
The Company filed a motion to dismiss on January 19, 2007, which the Court granted on March 13, 2007.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
839
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 26, 2007.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
840
The Company filed a motion to dismiss on August 16, 2007, which was heard on October 4, 2007.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
841
The Court has not yet issued a ruling.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
842
Vogel v. Jobs et al.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
843
Plaintiff filed this purported class action on August 24, 2006, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors alleging improper backdating of stock option grants to maximize certain defendants’ profits, failing to properly account for those grants and issuing false financial statements.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
844
On January 19, 2007, the Court appointed the New York City Employees’ Retirement System as lead plaintiff.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
845
On March 23, 2007, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
846
The Consolidated Complaint purports to be brought on behalf of several classes of holders of the Company’s stock and asserts claims under Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act as well as state law.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
847
The Consolidated Complaint seeks rescission of amendments to various stock option and other incentive compensation plans, an accounting and damages in an unspecified amount.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
848
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on June 8, 2007, which was heard on September 7, 2007.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
849
On November 14, 2007, the Court issued an order dismissing all securities claims with prejudice, and held that any amended complaint could only be styled as a derivative case.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
850
On December 14, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a first amended consolidated class action complaint.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
851
On January 23, 2008, defendants filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion for leave.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
852
Item 1A.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
853
Risk Factors Because of the following factors, as well as other factors affecting the Company’s financial condition and operating results, past financial performance should not be considered to be a reliable indicator of future performance, and investors should not use historical trends to anticipate results or trends in future periods.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
854
The matters relating to the Company’s past stock option practices and the restatement of the Company’s consolidated financial statements may result in additional litigation and government enforcement actions.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
855
The findings from the Company’s investigation into its past stock option granting practices and the resulting restatement of prior financial statements in its 2006 Form 10-K have exposed the Company to greater risks associated with litigation, regulatory proceedings and government enforcement actions.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
856
As described in Part II, Item 1, “Legal Proceedings,” several derivative complaints and a class action complaint have been filed in state and federal courts against the Company and certain current and former directors and executive officers pertaining to allegations relating to past stock option grants.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
857
The Company has provided the results of its investigation to the SEC and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California, and the Company has responded to their requests for documents and additional information.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
858
The Company intends to continue to provide its full cooperation.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
859
On April 24, 2007, the SEC filed an enforcement action against two former officers of the Company.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
860
In announcing the lawsuit, the SEC stated that it would not bring an enforcement action against the Company based in part on the Company’s “swift, extensive, and extraordinary cooperation in the Commission’s investigation.” According to the SEC’s statement, the Company’s “cooperation consisted of, among other things, prompt self-reporting, an independent internal investigation, the sharing of the results of that investigation with the government, and the implementation of new controls designed to prevent the recurrence of fraudulent conduct.” No assurance can be given regarding the outcomes from litigation, regulatory proceedings, or government enforcement actions relating to the Company’s past stock option practices.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
861
These and related matters have required, and will continue to require, the Company to incur substantial expenses for legal, accounting, tax, and other professional services, and may divert management’s attention from the Company’s business.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
862
If the Company is subject to adverse findings, it could be required to pay damages and penalties and might face additional remedies that could harm its financial condition and operating results.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
863
Global markets for personal computers, digital music devices, mobile communication devices, and related peripherals and services are highly competitive and subject to rapid technological change.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
864
If the Company is unable to compete effectively in these markets, its financial condition and operating results could be materially adversely affected.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
865
The Company competes in global markets that are highly competitive and characterized by aggressive price cutting, with its resulting downward pressure on gross margins, frequent introduction of new products, short product life cycles, evolving industry standards, continual improvement in product price/performance characteristics, rapid adoption of technological and product advancements by competitors, and price sensitivity on the part of consumers.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
866
The Company’s ability to compete successfully depends heavily on its ability to ensure a continuing and timely introduction of new innovative products and technologies to the marketplace.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
867
The Company believes it is unique in that it designs and develops virtually the entire solution for its personal computers, consumer electronics, and mobile communication devices, including the hardware, operating system, several software applications, and related services.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt
0000320193
20080201
10-Q
868
As a result, the Company must make significant investments in research and development.
0001193125-08-017426/full-submission.txt