Apple (AAPL)

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

Table of Contents

tying claim. On July 17, 2009, the Court invited the Company to file a motion for reconsideration of the certification of an injunctive-relief class or a motion to strike plaintiffs’ prayer for the type of injunctive relief sought. On August 3, 2009, the Company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the plaintiffs’ Rule of Reason tying claim. On August 31, 2009, the Company filed a motion seeking reconsideration and denial of an injunctive relief class. The Company also filed a motion seeking decertification of the Rule 23(b)(3) damages class or alternatively for leave to move for reconsideration. A hearing on the Company’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to plaintiffs’ Rule of Reason tying claim took place on October 5, 2009.

A related complaint, Somers v. Apple Inc., was filed on December 31, 2007 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a purported class of indirect purchasers, 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), the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and California monopolization law. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other relief. On February 21, 2008, the Company filed an answer denying all material allegations and asserting numerous defenses. On February 23, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion for class certification and on April 20, 2009, the Company filed its opposition to that motion. An evidentiary hearing on the class certification motion took place on June 30, 2009. On July 17, 2009, the Court denied certification of plaintiff’s damage claims and deferred ruling on certification of plaintiff’s injunctive claims pending resolution of the additional briefing requested by the Court, which is described above.

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

43

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. The Court vacated the hearing date for this motion and the motion will be decided on the papers.

A related complaint, Somers v. Apple Inc., was filed on December 31, 2007 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a purported class of indirect purchasers, 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. On February 23, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. The Court has scheduled the class certification hearing for June 1, 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.

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

40

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 June 1, 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 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.

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.

SIZE="2">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.

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.

40

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. The Court has scheduled the class certification hearing for November 7, 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 November 7, 2008.

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.

38

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.

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 Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation (formerly Charoensak v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Tucker v. Apple Computer, Inc.); Black 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.

36

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.

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. Plaintiff alleges that the Company’s alleged monopolization violates the Florida Antitrust Act and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other relief. 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. The Company’s motion to transfer was granted on October 17, 2007. 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. The matter is concluded.

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. The Company’s response to the complaint is not yet due.

The Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation (formerly Charoensak v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Tucker v. Apple Computer, Inc.); Black 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

31

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.

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. Plaintiff alleges that the Company's alleged monopolization violates the Florida Antitrust Act and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other relief. 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. The Company's motion to transfer was granted on October 17, 2007.

The Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation (formerly Charoensak v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Tucker v. Apple Computer, Inc.); Black 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

31

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.

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.
Plaintiff alleges that the Company's alleged monopolization violates the Florida Antitrust Act and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other
relief. 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. The Company's motion to transfer was granted on October 17, 2007.

The Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation (formerly Charoensak v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Tucker v. Apple Computer, Inc.)

This 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.

Plaintiff filed the Tucker case 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 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) 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 and ordered plaintiffs to file a consolidated complaint by April 19, 2007.  Plaintiffs filed the consolidated complaint on April 19, 2007 and the Company filed its answer on June 6, 2007.

The Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation (formerly Charoensak v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Tucker v. Apple Computer, Inc.)

This 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.

Plaintiff filed the Tucker case 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 seeks 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 and ordered plaintiffs to file a consolidated complaint by April 19, 2007.