Apple (AAPL)

Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.

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 No. 5,280,371 entitled “Directional Diffuser for a Liquid Crystal Display.” Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief. The Company filed an answer on December 21, 2004 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The Company has tendered the case to several liquid crystal display manufacturer suppliers. On May 18, 2005 the Court stayed the case against the Company and the other non-manufacturer defendants. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 7, 2005 adding additional defendants and expanding the scope of the accused products. The Company’s response to the amended complaint is not yet due. On April 2, 2008, the Court lifted the stay for the purpose of determining whether the liquid crystal display manufacturer suppliers used by the Company and certain other defendants are licensed under the ‘371 patent. On October 31, 2008, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement based on the contention that its suppliers are licensed under the ‘371 patent. A hearing on the motion has been postponed and has not been rescheduled.

27

Table of Contents

In re Apple iPod Nano Products Liability Litigation (formerly Wimmer v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Moschella, et al., v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Calado, et al. 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.

The federal actions were coordinated in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and assigned to the Hon. Ronald Whyte pursuant to an April 17, 2006 order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. 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. 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. The Company answered the Master Complaint on November 20, 2006.

The two California State Court actions were coordinated on May 4, 2006, and assigned to the Hon. Carl West in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on June 8, 2006, alleging violations of California state consumer protection, unfair competition, false advertising and warranty laws and claiming unjust enrichment. The Consolidated Complaint alleges a putative plaintiff class of all California residents who own an iPod nano containing a manufacturing defect that results in the nano being susceptible to excessive scratching. The Company answered the Consolidated Amended Complaint on October 6, 2006. The parties have reached a settlement and on April 28, 2009, the Court granted final approval of the settlement. On May 21, 2009, an objector filed a notice of appeal.

Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.

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 No. 5,280,371 entitled “Directional Diffuser for a Liquid Crystal Display.” Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief. The Company filed an answer on December 21, 2004 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The Company has tendered the case to several liquid crystal display manufacturer suppliers. On May 18, 2005 the Court stayed the case against the Company and the other non-manufacturer defendants. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 7, 2005 adding additional defendants and expanding the scope of the accused products. The Company’s response to the amended complaint is not yet due. On April 2, 2008, the Court lifted the stay for the purpose of determining whether the liquid crystal display manufacturer suppliers used by the Company and certain other defendants are licensed under the ‘371 patent. On October 31, 2008, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement based on the contention that its suppliers are licensed under the ‘371 patent. A hearing on the motion has been postponed and has not been rescheduled.

In re Apple iPod Nano Products Liability Litigation (formerly Wimmer v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Moschella, et al., v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Calado, et al. 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.

41

The federal actions were coordinated in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and assigned to the Hon. Ronald Whyte pursuant to an April 17, 2006 order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. 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. 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. The Company answered the Master Complaint on November 20, 2006.

The two California State Court actions were coordinated on May 4, 2006, and assigned to the Hon. Carl West in Los Angeles Superior Court. Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on June 8, 2006, alleging violations of California state consumer protection, unfair competition, false advertising and warranty laws and claiming unjust enrichment. The Consolidated Complaint alleges a putative plaintiff class of all California residents who own an iPod nano containing a manufacturing defect that results in the nano being susceptible to excessive scratching. The Company answered the Consolidated Amended Complaint on October 6, 2006. The parties have reached a settlement and the Court has granted preliminary approval of the settlement. The parties’ request for final approval of the settlement is pending.

Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.

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. The Company filed an answer on December 21, 2004 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The Company has tendered the case to several liquid crystal display manufacturer suppliers. On May 18, 2005 the Court stayed the case against the Company and the other non-manufacturer defendants. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 7, 2005 adding additional defendants and expanding the scope of the accused products. The Company’s response to the amended complaint is not yet due. On April 2, 2008, the Court lifted the stay for the purpose of determining whether the liquid crystal display manufacturer suppliers used by the Company and certain other defendants are licensed under the ‘371 patent. On October 31, 2008, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement based on the contention that its suppliers are licensed under the ‘371 patent. A hearing on the motion is scheduled for January 30, 2009.

Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.

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. The Company filed an answer on December 21, 2004 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The Company has tendered the case to several liquid crystal display manufacturer suppliers. On May 18, 2005 the Court stayed the case against the Company and the other non-manufacturer defendants. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 7, 2005 adding additional defendants and expanding the scope of the accused products. The Company’s response to the amended complaint is not yet due. On April 2, 2008, the Court lifted the stay for the purpose of determining whether the liquid crystal display manufacturer suppliers used by the Company and certain other defendants are licensed under the ‘371 patent. On October 31, 2008, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement based on the contention that its suppliers are licensed under the ‘371 patent. A hearing on the motion is scheduled for December 19, 2008.

27

Table of Contents

Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.

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. The Company filed an answer on December 21, 2004 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The Company has tendered the case to several liquid crystal display manufacturer suppliers. On May 18, 2005 the Court stayed the case against the Company and the other non-manufacturer defendants. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 7, 2005 adding additional defendants and expanding the scope of the accused products. The Company’s response to the amended complaint is not yet due. On April 2, 2008, the Court lifted the stay for the purpose of determining whether the liquid crystal display manufacturer suppliers used by the Company and certain other defendants are licensed under the ‘371 patent.

Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.

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. The Company filed an answer on December 21, 2004 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The Company has tendered the case to several liquid crystal display manufacturer suppliers. On May 18, 2005 the Court stayed the case against the Company and the other non-manufacturer defendants. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 7, 2005 adding additional defendants and expanding the scope of the accused products. The Company’s response to the amended complaint is not yet due. On April 2, 2008, the Court lifted the stay for the purpose of determining whether the liquid crystal display manufacturer suppliers used by the Company and certain other defendants are licensed under the ‘371 patent.

Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.

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. The Company filed an answer on December 21, 2004 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The Company has tendered the case to several liquid crystal display manufacturer suppliers. On May 18, 2005 the Court stayed the case against the Company and the other non-manufacturer defendants. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 7, 2005 adding additional defendants and expanding the scope of the accused products. Given the stay, the Company’s response to the amended complaint is not yet due.

Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.

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. The Company filed an answer on December 21, 2004 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The Company has tendered the case to several liquid crystal display manufacturer suppliers. On May 18, 2005 the Court stayed the case against the Company and the other non-manufacturer defendants. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 7, 2005 adding additional defendants and expanding the scope of the accused products. Given the stay, the Company's response to the amended complaint is not yet due.

Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.

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. The Company filed an answer on December 21, 2004 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The Company has tendered the case to several
liquid crystal display manufacturer suppliers. On May 18, 2005 the Court stayed the case against the Company and the other non-manufacturer defendants. Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on November 7, 2005 adding additional defendants and expanding the scope of the accused products. Given the stay, the Company's response to the amended complaint is not yet due.

Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.

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. The Company filed an answer on December 21, 2004 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The Company has tendered the case to several liquid crystal display manufacturer suppliers. On May 18, 2005 the Court stayed the case against the Company and the other non-manufacturer defendants. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 7, 2005 adding additional defendants and expanding the scope of the accused products. Given the stay, the Company’s response to the amended complaint is not yet due.

Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.

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. The Company filed an answer on December 21, 2004 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The Company has tendered the case to several liquid crystal display manufacturer suppliers. On May 18, 2005 the Court stayed the case against the Company and the other non-manufacturer defendants. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 7, 2005 adding additional defendants and expanding the scope of the accused products. Given the stay, the Company’s response to the amended complaint is not yet due.

Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.

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.  The Company filed an answer on December 21, 2004 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The Company has tendered the case to several LCD manufacturer suppliers. On May 18, 2005 the Court stayed the case against the Company and the other non-manufacturer defendants.  Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 7, 2005 adding additional defendants and expanding the scope of the accused products.  Given the stay, the Company’s response to the amended complaint is not yet due.

Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.

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. The Company filed an answer on December 21, 2004 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The Company has tendered the case to several LCD manufacturer suppliers. On May 18, 2005 the Court stayed the case against the Company and the other non-manufacturer defendants. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 7, 2005 adding additional defendants and expanding the scope of the accused products. Given the stay, the Company’s response to the amended complaint is not yet due.

Honeywell
International, Inc., et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.

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. The Company filed an
answer on December 21, 2004 denying all material allegations and asserting
numerous affirmative defenses. The Company has tendered the case to several LCD
manufacturer suppliers. On May 18, 2005 the Court stayed the case against
the Company and the other non-manufacturer defendants. Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on November 7, 2005 adding additional defendants and
expanding the scope of the accused products. Given the stay, the Company’s
response to the amended complaint is not yet due.

Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.

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.  The Company filed an answer on December 21, 2004 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The Company has tendered the case to several LCD manufacturer suppliers. On May 18, 2005 the Court stayed the case against the Company and the other non-manufacturer defendants.  Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 7, 2005 adding additional defendants and expanding the scope of the accused products.  Given the stay, the Company’s response to the amended complaint is not yet due.

Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.

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. The Company filed an answer on December 21, 2004 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The Company has tendered the case to several LCD manufacturer suppliers. On May 18, 2005 the Court stayed the case against the Company and the other non-manufacturer defendants. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 7, 2005 adding additional defendants and expanding the scope of the accused products. Given the stay, the Company’s response to the amended complaint is not yet due.

Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.

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.  The Company filed an answer on December 21, 2004 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The Company has tendered the case to several suppliers. On May 18, 2005 the Court stayed the case against the Company and the other supplier defendants.  Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 7, 2005 adding additional defendants and expanding the scope of the accused products.  Given the stay, the Company’s response to the amended complaint is not yet due.

48

Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.

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. The Company filed an answer on December 21, 2004 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The Company has tendered the case to several suppliers. On May 18, 2005 the Court stayed the case against the Company and the other supplier defendants. Plantiffs filed an amended complaint on November 7, 2005 adding additional defendants and expanding the scope of the accused products. Given the stay, the Company’s response to the amended complaint is not yet due.

21

MacTech Systems v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Macadam v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Computer International, Inc. v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Elite Computers and Software, Inc. v. Apple Computer, Inc.; The Neighborhood Computer Store v. Apple Computer, Inc. MacAccessory Center, Inc. v. Apple Computer, Inc.; MacAccessory Center, Inc. v. Apple Computer, Inc. (all in Santa Clara County Superior Court)

Six resellers have filed similar lawsuits against the Company for various causes of action including breach of contract, fraud, negligent and intentional interference with economic relationship, negligent misrepresentation, trade libel, unfair competition and false advertising. Plaintiffs request unspecified damages and other relief. The Company answered the Computer International complaint on November 12, 2003, denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The Company filed an answer in the Macadam case on December 3, 2004 denying all allegations and asserting numerous defenses. Three of the other plaintiffs filed amended complaints on February 7, 2005, and on March 16, 2005 the Company filed answers to these claims denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. A sixth Plaintiff, MacAccessory Center, filed a complaint on February 23, 2005. The Company filed an answer to this complaint on April 20, 2005 denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. These cases are in discovery.

On October 1, 2003, one of the reseller Plaintiffs, Macadam, was deauthorized as an Apple reseller. Macadam filed a motion for a temporary order to reinstate it as a reseller, which the Court denied. The Court denied Macadam’s motion for a preliminary injunction on December 19, 2003. On December 6, 2004 Macadam filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in the Northern District of California, which placed a stay on the litigation as to Macadam only. The Company filed a claim in the bankruptcy proceedings on February 16, 2005. The Company took Macadam’s debtor examination in April 2005. The Company, joined by another creditor of Macadam, filed a motion to convert the bankruptcy to Chapter 7 (liquidation) on April 29, 2005 and that motion was granted. Plantiffs’ counsel in four of the six other reseller cases, was recently appointed litigation counsel for the Macadam Estate by the bankruptcy court. The Company has moved for reconsideration of that decision.

Honeywell
International, Inc., et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.

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. The Company filed an
answer on December 21, 2004 denying all material allegations and asserting
numerous affirmative defenses. The Company has tendered the case to several
suppliers. On May 18, 2005 the Court stayed the case against the Company
and the other supplier defendants. Plantiffs filed an amended complaint on
November 7, 2005 adding additional defendants and expanding the scope of the
accused products. Given the stay, the Company’s response to the amended
complaint is not yet due.

21

MacTech Systems v.
Apple Computer, Inc.; Macadam v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Computer
International, Inc. v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Elite Computers and
Software, Inc. v. Apple Computer, Inc.; The Neighborhood
Computer Store v. Apple Computer, Inc. MacAccessory Center, Inc.
v. Apple Computer, Inc.; MacAccessory Center, Inc. v. Apple Computer, Inc. (all in Santa Clara County Superior Court)

Six resellers have filed
similar lawsuits against the Company for various causes of action including
breach of contract, fraud, negligent and intentional interference with economic
relationship, negligent misrepresentation, trade libel, unfair competition and
false advertising. Plaintiffs request unspecified damages and other relief. The
Company answered the Computer International complaint on November 12,
2003, denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The
Company filed an answer in the Macadam case on December 3, 2004 denying
all allegations and asserting numerous defenses. Three of the other plaintiffs
filed amended complaints on February 7, 2005, and on March 16, 2005
the Company filed answers to these claims denying all allegations and asserting
numerous affirmative defenses. A sixth Plaintiff, MacAccessory Center, filed a
complaint on February 23, 2005. The Company filed an answer to this
complaint on April 20, 2005 denying all allegations and asserting numerous
affirmative defenses. These cases are in discovery.

On October 1, 2003,
one of the reseller Plaintiffs, Macadam, was deauthorized as an Apple reseller.
Macadam filed a motion for a temporary order to reinstate it as a reseller,
which the Court denied. The Court denied Macadam’s motion for a preliminary
injunction on December 19, 2003. On December 6, 2004 Macadam filed
for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in the Northern District of California, which placed
a stay on the litigation as to Macadam only. The Company filed a claim in the
bankruptcy proceedings on February 16, 2005. The Company took Macadam’s
debtor examination in April 2005. The Company, joined by another creditor
of Macadam, filed a motion to convert the bankruptcy to Chapter 7 (liquidation)
on April 29, 2005 and that motion was granted. Plantiffs’ counsel in four
of the six other reseller cases, was recently appointed litigation counsel for
the Macadam Estate by the bankruptcy court. The Company has moved for
reconsideration of that decision.

Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.

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.  The Company filed an answer on December 21, 2004 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The Company has tendered the case to several suppliers. On May 18, 2005 the Court stayed the case against the Company and the other supplier defendants.

MacTech Systems v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Macadam v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Computer International, Inc. v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Elite Computers and Software, Inc. v. Apple Computer, Inc.; The Neighborhood Computer Store v. Apple Computer, Inc.  MacAccessory Center, Inc. v. Apple Computer Inc. (all in Santa Clara County Superior Court)

Six resellers have filed similar lawsuits against the Company for various causes of action including breach of contract, fraud, negligent and intentional interference with economic relationship, negligent misrepresentation, trade libel, unfair competition and false advertising. Plaintiffs request unspecified damages and other relief. The Company answered the Computer International complaint on November 12, 2003, denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The Company filed an answer in the Macadam case on December 3, 2004 denying all allegations and asserting numerous defenses.   Three of the other plaintiffs filed amended complaints on February 7, 2005 and on March 16, 2005 the Company filed answers to these claims denying all allegations and asserting

49

Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.

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. The Company is investigating this claim.  The Company filed an answer on December 21, 2004 denying all material allegations, and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The Company also asserted counterclaims requesting declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity. The case is in discovery.

Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.

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. The Company is investigating this claim.  The Company filed an answer on December 21, 2004 denying all material allegations, and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The Company also asserted counterclaims requesting declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity.

47

Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.

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. The Company is investigating this claim in connection with preparing its response to the complaint.

MacTech Systems v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Macadam v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Computer International, Inc. v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Elite Computers and Software, Inc. v. Apple Computer, Inc.; The Neighborhood Computer Store v. Apple Computer, Inc. (all in Santa Clara County Superior Court)

Five resellers have filed similar lawsuits against the Company for various causes of action including breach of contract, fraud, negligent and intentional interference with economic relationship, negligent misrepresentation, trade libel, unfair competition and false advertising. Plaintiffs request unspecified damages and other relief. The Company answered the Computer International complaint on November 12, 2003 denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The parties are in discovery in that case. The Company expects the other four plaintiffs to file amended complaints. On October 1, 2003, one of the resellers, Macadam, was deauthorized as an Apple reseller. Macadam filed a motion for a temporary order to reinstate it as a reseller, which the Court denied. The Court denied Macadam's motion for a preliminary injunction on December 19, 2003.

Honeywell International, Inc., et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et al.

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. The Company is investigating this claim in connection with preparing its response to the complaint.

MacTech Systems v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Macadam v. Apple Computer, Inc.; Computer International, Inc. v. Apple Computer, Inc.;
Elite Computers and Software, Inc. v. Apple Computer, Inc.; The Neighborhood Computer Store v. Apple Computer, Inc. (all in Santa Clara
County Superior Court)

Five
resellers have filed similar lawsuits against the Company for various causes of action including breach of contract, fraud, negligent and intentional interference with economic relationship,
negligent misrepresentation, trade libel, unfair competition and false advertising. Plaintiffs request unspecified damages and other relief. The Company answered the Computer International complaint
on November 12, 2003 denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The parties are in discovery in that case. The Company expects the other four plaintiffs to file
amended complaints. On October 1, 2003, one of the resellers, Macadam, was deauthorized as an Apple reseller. Macadam filed a motion for a temporary order to reinstate it as a reseller, which
the Court denied. The Court denied Macadam's motion for a preliminary injunction on December 19, 2003.