[quote author=“sleepygeek”]In the Apple 10-Q filed today, the company says (p.30):
In the opinion of management, the company does not have a potential liability related to any current legal proceedings and claims that would individually or in aggregate have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, liquidity, or results of operations.
A fairly strong statement.

Yes it is.. nicely spotted.

[quote author=“sleepygeek”]In the Apple 10-Q filed today, the company says (p.30):

In the opinion of management, the company does not have a potential liability related to any current legal proceedings and claims that would individually or in aggregate have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, liquidity, or results of operations.

A fairly strong statement.

Yes- nice find - but I don’t think I would expect them to say anything else. - It would be foolish for them to say they might have liability. 

I’m still not saying anything significant will come of the Burst case and am glad to see no FUD being spread that will adversely affect AAPL (even if I do think we’ll close near 105 next week).

The issue for AAPL going forward in the Burst case is not whether they are liable but do they want to risk a Jury trial with the possibility of an injunction and treble damages if they lost?  (Burst would potentially be due Treble damages if they won in court since Apple has been aware of their patents since the early 1990s)

I expect this whole matter to fade back into the woodwork for the next several months until a settlement is announced or until we get closer to the trial date.

[quote author=“sleepygeek”]In the Apple 10-Q filed today, the company says (p.30):

In the opinion of management, the company does not have a potential liability related to any current legal proceedings and claims that would individually or in aggregate have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, liquidity, or results of operations.

A fairly strong statement.

True, but not necessarily conclusive, since as noted on the next page (31) we learn that:

“Apple Computer, Inc. v. Burst.com, Inc.
. . . The case is in discovery. A claim construction hearing was held on February 8, 2007. The court has not yet issued its claim construction ruling. Trial is set for February 26, 2008.”

Accordingly, Apple’s opinion cannot be construed as taking account of the May 8 Markman ruling.  Given that “The “Markman Ruling” is now ensconced as the pivotal event in patent infringement assessment, in which the judge determines the scope of the patent claims.” I think Apple’s position may now be more tenuous than previously.

FWIW, I sold my Burst shares this afternoon for a 17% one-day profit and will likely re-establish a position later.

Of course it wasn’t a conclusive statement, but management did not have to make a statement either way, especially didn’t have to say no potential adverse effects on the results of operations.

As regards the Markman hearing, it seems to me reasonable that the patent holders would define terms in a sensible way. There was no point to Apple agreeing these definitions when they could try for definitions that further strenghtened their case. Apple’s proposed interpretations were slightly wacky so far as I could see. Another point is that by disputing things they don’t much care about, they may avoid an attack on things they do care about.

To put it another way - all Apple has definitely lost is the possibility that the Markman decision alone might kill Burst’s claims.

(I continue to have no idea if Burst will actually prevail or not, I’m just saying the latest news doesn’t really change things much).

I’m inclined to think that Apple vs Burst will be one of the news pieces used next week to try to bring AAPL stock down.

[quote author=“wheeles”]I’m inclined to think that Apple vs Burst will be one of the news pieces used next week to try to bring AAPL stock down.

I’m expecting Cringley to weigh in before too long.  He’s been following the story for years and generally has been an advocate of Burst’s claims.

Apple seeks dismissal of the suit, again:

Apple demands dismissal of Burst.com iPod suit
Apple refutes Burst.com’s claims to own patents used in iPod
Jonny Evans

As Bloomberg reports, Apple’s attorney Matthew Powers told US District Judge Marily Patel: It’s not some epiphanous, oh my God, when you put all these things together you have an iPod. That is what they are trying to do to save the core, which is obviously all in the prior art. None of which is invented by Mr. Lang.”