Apple (AAPL)

Goldberg, et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.

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. The case alleged violations of California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and false advertising related to the size of the drives. Plaintiffs alleged that calculation of hard drive size using the decimal method misrepresents the actual size of the drive. The complaint sought restitution and other relief. 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. 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. The Court granted both motions at a hearing on April 6, 2005. Plaintiffs thereafter filed an amended complaint on May 6, 2005. The Defendants filed a demurrer on June 6, 2005, which the Court granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and the Company filed an answer on December 15, 2005 denying all allegations and asserting numerous assertive defenses. The Company reached a Court-approved settlement with the Plaintiffs in this action

39

and the matter is concluded. The settlement of this matter did not have a material effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

Goldberg, et al. v.
Apple Computer, Inc., et al.

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. The case alleged violations of California Business &
Professions Code §17200
(unfair competition), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and false advertising
related to the size of the drives. Plaintiffs alleged that calculation of hard
drive size using the decimal method misrepresents the actual size of the drive.
The complaint sought restitution and other relief. 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. 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. The
Court granted both motions at a hearing on April 6, 2005. Plaintiffs
thereafter filed an amended complaint on May 6, 2005. The Defendants filed
a demurrer on June 6, 2005, which the Court granted in part and denied in
part. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and the Company filed an answer on December 15,
2005 denying all allegations and asserting numerous assertive defenses. The
Company reached a Court-approved settlement with the Plaintiffs in this action

39

and the matter is
concluded. The settlement of this matter did not have a material effect on the
Company’s financial position or results of operations.

Goldberg, et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.

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. The case alleged violations of California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and false advertising related to the size of the drives. Plaintiffs alleged that calculation of hard drive size using the decimal method misrepresents the actual size of the drive. The complaint sought restitution and other relief. 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.  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.  The Court granted both motions at a hearing on April 6, 2005.  Plaintiffs thereafter filed an amended complaint on May 6, 2005. The Defendants filed a demurrer on June 6, 2005, which the Court granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and the Company filed an answer on December 15, 2005 denying all allegations and asserting numerous assertive defenses. The Company reached a Court-approved settlement with the Plaintiffs in this action and the matter is concluded.  The settlement of this matter did not have a material effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.