UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

FORM 10-K

FOR ANNUAL AND TRANSITION REPORTS
PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended October 31, 2004

For the transition period from .......................to................................

Ciena Corporation

(410) 865-8500
(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: None

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: Common Stock, $.01 par value

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. YES [X] NO [   ]

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. [   ]

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2). YES [X] NO [   ]

The aggregate market value of the Registrant’s Common Stock held by non-affiliates of the Registrant was $1,954,477,066, based on the closing price of the Common Stock on the Nasdaq Stock Market on April 30, 2004.

The number of shares of Registrant’s Common Stock outstanding as of December 6, 2004 was 571,762,211

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Part III of the Form 10-K incorporates by reference certain portions of the Registrant’s proxy statement for its 2005 annual meeting of stockholders to be filed with the Commission not later than 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this report.

PART I

     The information in this Form 10-K contains certain forward-looking statements, including statements related to markets for Ciena’s products and services and trends in its business that involve risks and uncertainties. Ciena’s actual results may differ materially from the results discussed in these forward-looking statements. Factors that might cause such a difference include those discussed in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations-Risk Factors” and “Business” as well as those discussed elsewhere in this Form 10-K.

Item 1. Business

OVERVIEW

     Ciena Corporation supplies application-focused communications networking equipment, software and services to communications service providers, cable operators, governments and enterprises. Ciena is a network specialist, focused on optimizing access and edge networks for broadband communication, enhancing enterprise data services and evolving network infrastructure to support new services through automation and convergence. Ciena leverages its core competencies in optical networking, data networking and broadband access to develop and deliver solutions that address its customers’ most important networking problems. Our solutions enable customers to gain a competitive advantage by increasing the functionality of their networks and reducing their costs of transporting data, voice and video.

     Ciena was incorporated in Delaware in November 1992, and completed its initial public offering on February 7, 1997. Ciena’s principal executive offices are located at 1201 Winterson Road, Linthicum, Maryland 21090. Our telephone number is (410) 865-8500, and our web site address is www.ciena.com. We make our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports, available free of charge on the Investor Relations page of our web site as soon as reasonably practicable after we file these reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

     In fiscal 2001, Ciena’s annual revenue reached $1.6 billion, based largely on the sale of a single product category, long-distance optical transport equipment, primarily to inter-exchange carriers (IXCs) and emerging telecommunications carriers in the US, Europe, and Asia. In early 2001, the telecommunications industry began a severe decline, which has affected almost all of its participants, including communications networking equipment suppliers like Ciena. This decline caused the market for networking equipment to shrink substantially, with a resulting adverse impact on our revenue and profitability. In response to these changes in the telco market, we embarked upon a strategy designed to increase our addressable market through a combination of internal development, acquisitions and strategic alliances targeting emerging high-value applications. Since 2001, we have entered new market segments, including cable, government and enterprise, by expanding our network solution offerings and developing a growing number of strategic relationships. We have broadened our portfolio of products and services beyond the network core — where the backbone of carriers’ networks reside — to increase our emphasis on technologies that reside toward the edge of large communications networks where end users gain access. We have also worked to increase our market share by adding new features and enhanced functionality to our products.

     During fiscal 2004, to further implement our strategy, we completed the acquisitions of Catena Networks, Inc. and Internet Photonics Inc. Through the Catena acquisition, we added broadband access solutions that enable the delivery of traditional “plain old telephone service” (POTS), DSL, video services, and voice over IP (VoIP) from a single, integrated platform. Through the Internet Photonics acquisition, we added carrier-grade optical Ethernet transport and switching solutions for deployment of Ethernet private-line services by cable operators and carriers. The broadband access markets served by these products are expected to benefit as service providers shift spending to the access portions of their networks to enable increased residential access to high-bandwidth services such as DSL, video on demand and high definition television (HDTV).

     Ciena had revenue of $298.7 million for its fiscal year ended October 31, 2004, an increase of 5.5% when compared with fiscal 2003 revenue of $283.1 million. Ciena recorded a net loss of $789.5 million in fiscal 2004 compared with a net loss of $386.5 million for fiscal 2003. The percentage of Ciena’s total revenues from transport and switching products declined from 80.6% in fiscal 2003 to 65.5% in fiscal 2004 and the percentage of our revenues from data networking products and broadband access products increased from 4.4% in fiscal 2003 to 18.3% in fiscal 2004. During fiscal 2004, Ciena also expanded its customer base to include a wider range of customers, including communications service providers, cable operators, government agencies, and through strategic distribution channels and relationships, large enterprises. In December 2003, Ciena was awarded a contract by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) to support the United States Defense Information Systems Agency’s Global Information Grid Bandwidth Expansion (GIG-BE) project, the

2

United States Department of Defense’s initiative to transform its global communications infrastructure. During fiscal 2003, AT&T and Qwest each represented more than 10% of Ciena’s total revenue. During fiscal 2004, SAIC was the only customer that represented more than 10% of Ciena’s total revenue.

     Ciena organizes its operations into four separate business segments: the Transport and Switching Group (TSG), the Data Networking Group (DNG), the Broadband Access Group (BBG) and Global Network Services (GNS). These segments, used for financial reporting as well as internal organization, were realigned in 2004 to reflect Ciena’s expanded solutions portfolio and its addressable markets. These business segments provide products and services for applications across the four market segments in which Ciena operates: telco, cable, government and enterprise.

     The matters discussed in this section should be read in conjunction with the Consolidated Financial Statements found under Part II, Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, which includes further financial information about our segments and total assets, revenues, measures of profits and loss and financial information about geographic areas.

INDUSTRY BACKGROUND

     Deregulation in the United States and privatization in many other countries during the 1990’s began a transition from a telecommunications industry characterized by a small number of heavily regulated large communications service providers to one in which many new competitors began to emerge. Rapid traffic growth and readily available capital further fueled growth in the number of service providers, as emerging carriers built new networks and fought to take market share from the incumbent carriers. The rapid adoption of the Internet prompted service providers and enterprises to construct large-scale data networks as overlays to existing legacy voice networks. As a consequence of this rapid build-out, the capital expenditure-to-revenue ratio at most communications service providers rose to an unsustainable level.

     Beginning in late 2000, capital markets tightened. Communications service providers responded by curtailing network build-outs and dramatically reducing their overall capital spending, significantly affecting the revenue and profitability of communications network equipment providers like Ciena. Emerging carriers defaulted on debt, and many went into bankruptcy. Several large communications service providers were caught in financial and other regulatory scandals adding to the overall turmoil in the telecommunications industry.

Competitive Threats Emerge

     The challenges in the telecom industry were further compounded by the emergence of a number of competitive threats that dramatically affected communications service providers’ traditional business models. Worldwide, established and emerging service providers faced brutal price competition for local and long-distance voice services and a deterioration of their businesses due to increasing consumer reliance upon distance-insensitive pricing of wireless carriers. As new technologies and alternatives for broadband access services emerged, the list of credible competitors to traditional carriers grew. Increased availability and reduced consumer cost of broadband access through cable operators resulted in the replacement of second phones as an Internet access medium. In North America, the entry of the regional bell operating companies (RBOCs) into the long distance market led to deteriorating business models and uncertain futures for the IXCs. At the same time, the RBOCs’ business models were threatened by wireless displacement of traditional voice revenues and the emergence of cable operators as broadband service providers.

Focus on Broadband Services

     The emergence of these competitive threats has caused virtually all communications service providers to look for ways to combat them, with the approach taken varying depending on the service provider, the strengths and weaknesses of their existing network and their customer base.

     To combat the loss of local voice revenue, the RBOCs looked to expanding long-distance voice and broadband services including Internet, data and video, within their traditional consumer customer base. However, modernizing the RBOC access networks to support broadband services is costly, and regulatory rulings limiting competitive access to last-mile networks were firmly established. Recent regulatory changes have clarified competitive access rules, encouraging the RBOCs to modernize their access networks. These same regulatory changes, coupled with difficulty in providing competitive bundled services, have caused IXCs to rethink their focus and exit certain traditional business. In 2004, AT&T announced that it would cease to compete for traditional consumer long-distance voice businesses in an effort to focus on higher value and more profitable business services for voice and data.

3

     Cable operators have looked to maximize the value of their existing infrastructure and customer base and expand their service offerings beyond traditional cable subscription. Improved equipment technology enabled cable operators to provide services like video on demand at prices competitive to video or DVD rentals and data services that are speed and price competitive with RBOC offerings. In addition, expanding HDTV programming content and consumer availability of equipment has increased demand for HDTV services.

     With the addition of voice services to the offerings of traditional cable operators and new video services from RBOCs, the competition to provide consumers with new broadband service bundles that include voice, video and data is accelerating.

     Similar trends are also occurring internationally, with competition for customers spreading among traditional voice, wireless and satellite carriers. In parts of Europe and Asia, wireless carriers are looking to hold onto customers by evolving their relatively new 3G wireless networks to meet the growing demand for broadband-enabled services and data-rich applications on mobile devices. Additionally, there is perceived to be vast opportunity in developing geographies in Asia in particular, where country-wide, broadband communication services are being deployed for the first time.

Changing Needs of Enterprise and Government

     At the same time that competition was increasing for traditional communications service providers, the needs of some of their largest enterprise customers were changing. Increased reliance on information technology combined with world events and large regional power outages brought concerns of network reliability and business continuity to the forefront. Simultaneously, increased competition among networking solutions providers and changes in market demand resulted in reduced costs to enterprises for products and services focused on transport of data and voice. As a result, many large enterprises and U.S. Government agencies turned away from relying solely on traditional service providers for their communications needs and took on the challenge of building their own, secure private networks, some on a global scale.

Broadband Service Bundles Driving Network Convergence

     In the face of this increased competition, the major challenge faced by nearly all service providers is evolving their networks to process a growing range of broadband services efficiently and to deliver them profitably. The networks of most incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs), IXCs and overseas post, telephone and telegraph entities (PTTs) were designed to carry voice traffic and to deliver voice services while the networks of most cable operators were optimized for limited video and data services. As the demand for data services grew, traditional communications service providers built separate data networks and operated them concurrently with their existing voice networks. With the demand shifting to broadband and to complete service bundles, service providers once again face the challenge of how to evolve their networks to profitably support a range of new services such as VoIP, IP television (IPTV) and HDTV. Most service providers have concluded that the only way to offer advanced broadband bundles that include voice, data, video and other services profitably is to consolidate their separate voice and data networks onto a single converged network, one that is capable of delivering multiple broadband services over a single infrastructure.

STRATEGY

     While this vision of network convergence is widely shared, there are divergent perceptions regarding how it will be achieved. Some equipment vendors envision that the converged network will be based on a completely new network infrastructure. We believe, however, that the transition to a converged all-service network will be an evolutionary process, one in which service providers will seek to maximize the value of their existing network investment. Our strategic initiatives, relationships and investments are intended to capitalize on this evolution. In addition, we are focused on leveraging our expertise to address the evolving and emerging needs of large enterprises and government customers whose focus on business continuity, disaster recovery and network reliability have led them to look to networking partners other than traditional service providers.

     In fiscal 2001, nearly 80% of Ciena’s revenue came from a single product category, long-haul optical transport equipment, and from a single customer segment, telco service providers. Since then, through internal development, acquisition and strategic relationships, we have significantly diversified our product portfolio and with it, our customer base. In addition to our historical focus on products and services addressed primarily to applications for telco service providers, Ciena now addresses applications for cable operators, government entities and large enterprises. We intend to continue to focus on these additional market segments and have created a wholly owned subsidiary, CIENA Government Solutions, Inc., for purposes of facilitating our government contracts activity.

4

     Our strategy is based on leveraging our key strengths to capitalize on service providers’ focus on new revenue opportunities and operational savings as they move toward converged voice and data networks as well as on the network efficiencies and reliability we can bring to bear on large enterprise and government networks. We believe our key strengths include our solid base of major customers, our position as an industry technology leader and our experience in successfully introducing economically driven network innovation.

     Since the decline in the communications equipment market began, our strategy has been to enhance our competitive position by continuing to invest in our business. This strategy entails taking steps to:

     We believe restoring sustained profitability to Ciena requires simultaneous revenue growth and an internal transformation of our business and processes. Our efforts toward this transformation are well underway and will continue. They include:

CIENA’S APPLICATION FOCUS

     Ciena focuses its research and development and sales and marketing efforts on developing and selling equipment, software and services that address the networking problems of our customers in the telco, cable, government and enterprise market segments and which enable them to exploit the new, high-value applications that are driving their businesses.

Telco Applications

     Ciena offers equipment, software and services focused on key telco applications including small business and residential services focused on the triple play of voice, video and data. Ciena also provides equipment, software and services to address applications for enterprise and data services, storage connectivity services, Ethernet converged services, Ethernet private line and virtual private line, data services gateway and frame relay, and ATM corporate services.

     Building on our heritage in optical communication and core networking, Ciena also provides a number of products designed to improve network infrastructure, such as IP/MPLS migration and convergence, broadband aggregation, end-to-end automated service provisioning, optical cross-connect, metro fiber buildouts, long-haul transport and switching and wireless aggregation.

Cable Applications

     Ciena offers equipment, software and services focused on cable provider applications including VoIP, video on demand, HDTV, fiber relief, convergence of commercial and residential services over a single optical switching and transport network, residential voice, video and data and wireless backhaul.

5

Government Applications

     Ciena also offers equipment, software and services focused on applications of particular interest to government entities, including research networks, storage extension for business continuance and disaster recovery, network consolidation, SONET/SDH evolution, long-haul transport and switching, and circuit-to-packet voice migration.

Enterprise Applications

     Ciena offers equipment, software and services focused on key enterprise applications including wide area network consolidation, maximizing enterprise fiber, data resource consolidation and storage extension for business continuance and disaster recovery.

BUSINESS SEGMENTS

     Ciena is organized into four separate business segments for both financial reporting and management purposes.

Broadband Access Group (BBG)

     Ciena’s broadband access group supplies customers with products that enable them to deliver next generation broadband access applications. This group was initially formed in May 2004 as a result of Ciena’s acquisition of Catena Networks. The products supported by this group include:

Data Networking Group (DNG)

     Ciena delivers market-leading platforms for metropolitan network multiservice aggregation. Ciena’s DN series multiservice edge switching platform enhances bandwidth efficiency, provisioning, and scalability by converging traditional and emerging data services such as ATM, DSL, Frame Relay, TDM/CES, and IP/MPLS in the network core and at the edge. The platform also offers a safe migration path to IP/MPLS, while simultaneously supporting existing legacy services. The DN series of multiservice edge switches includes four different switches of varying capacity:

     The Data Networking group also manages Ciena’s relationship with Laurel Networks. Under the agreement with Laurel, which is exclusive as to certain designated customers, Ciena markets, sells and supports Laurel Networks’ service edge routers to communications service providers worldwide.

Global Network Services (GNS)

     Ciena provides a comprehensive portfolio of managed and consulting services for its products including:

6

Transport and Switching Group (TSG)

     Ciena’s Transport and Switching Group combines into a consolidated group Ciena’s former core networking and metro and enterprise networking groups, and includes products acquired as a result of our acquisition of Internet Photonics.

PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

     We believe that to be successful and remain technologically competitive in our industry, we must continue to develop new products that meet our customers’ evolving needs. We also must continue to enhance and maintain our existing products to maximize their functionality and commercial acceptance and reduce our overall costs of manufacturing these products. As a result, we have invested and expect to continue to invest in our products and their feature sets. Ciena’s research and development expenses (exclusive of stock compensation cost of $15.7 million, $12.8 million, and $6.5 million) were $239.6 million, $199.7 million and $198.9 million for fiscal 2002, fiscal 2003 and fiscal 2004, respectively. For more information regarding our research and development expenses, see Item 7. “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Conditions and Results of Operations.”

     Our product development process is driven by market demand and a close collaboration among our marketing, sales and product development organizations. We also incorporate feedback from our customers in the product development process. In some cases, we will work with and make strategic investments in partners to develop new or modify existing products. In addition, we participate in industry and standards organizations where appropriate and incorporate information from these contacts throughout the product development process.

MARKETING AND DISTRIBUTION

     We are focused on selling our communications networking equipment, software and services by building long-term relationships with service providers, cable operators, governments, enterprises, and other customers through our direct sales efforts and channel relationships. We maintain a direct sales presence in locations throughout the United States, Latin America, Canada, Europe and Asia. Through these offices we sell and support the products of our business segments. We also maintain a channel program with a dedicated team that works with resellers, systems integrators and service providers to sell and market our solutions to service providers, governments and enterprises.

     In support of its worldwide sales efforts, Ciena conducts marketing communications programs intended to position and promote its equipment, software and services within the communications networking industry. Marketing personnel also coordinate our participation in trade shows and conduct media relations activities with trade and general business publications.

7

MANUFACTURING

     Ciena relies on electronic manufacturing service (EMS) providers that offer full turnkey manufacturing for the assembly and test of the majority of our products. We work closely with these EMS providers to manage material, quality, cost and delivery times. We continue to perform a significant portion of the module assembly and testing of our legacy long-haul wave division multiplexing (WDM) products. For our most recent long-haul WDM product releases, we outsource all module assembly and functional testing. We manufacture in-house all the in-fiber Bragg gratings used in all our long-haul WDM products. While many products undergo final system integration and test prior to shipment from our Maryland facility, we also employ a direct order fulfillment model with some of our EMS providers where they perform final system integration and test prior to direct shipment to our customers from their facilities. We will continue to evaluate the extent to which EMS providers can provide, turnkey manufacturing, testing and value-added services across all of our product lines on a reliable and cost-effective basis, and we expect to increasingly rely upon direct order fulfillment by our EMS providers.

COMPETITION

     Competition among providers of communications networking equipment, software and services is intense, and has become increasingly so as the market for communications networking solutions has declined. Competition in these markets is based on price, functionality, manufacturing capability, installation, services, existing business and customer relationships, scalability and the ability of the products and services to meet customers’ immediate and future network requirements. Competition is dominated by a small number of very large, usually multi-national, vertically integrated companies. Each of these competitors has substantially greater financial, technical and marketing resources, and greater manufacturing capacity as well as better established relationships with the incumbent carriers than Ciena. Included among Ciena’s competitors are: Advanced Fibre Communications, Inc., Alcatel, Cisco Systems, Inc., Ericsson, Fujitsu Group, Hitachi Ltd., Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., Lucent Technologies Inc., Marconi Corporation, NEC Corporation, Nortel Networks, Siemens AG, Tellabs, Inc., UTStarcom Incorporated and ZTE Corporation. There are also several smaller, but established companies, such as ADVA AG Optical Networking, and Sycamore Networks, Inc., that offer one or more products that compete directly or indirectly with our offerings. In addition, there are a variety of earlier-stage companies with products targeted at the communications networking market in some stage of development or deployment, most of them employing advanced technology that could offer advantages over products offered by Ciena.

PATENTS, TRADEMARKS AND OTHER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

     As of October 31, 2004, Ciena held 264 United States patents and 408 pending U.S. patent applications. We also have a number of foreign patents and patent applications. Of the United States patents that have been issued to Ciena, the earliest any will expire is 2015. In addition, Ciena has licensed patents from third parties. Ciena also licenses from third parties certain software components for its network management products. These licenses are perpetual but will generally terminate after an uncured breach of the agreement by Ciena. Ciena also relies on contractual rights, trade secrets and copyrights to establish and protect its proprietary rights in its products.

     Ciena monitors unauthorized use of its products and enforces its intellectual property rights against infringement or misappropriation, including by making assertions of patent infringement and filing patent infringement lawsuits when warranted. We have also been subject to several claims of patent infringement, which in some cases have required us to pay the patent holders substantial sums or enter into license agreements requiring ongoing royalty payments. The frequency of assertions of patent infringement in the field of communications networking equipment is increasing as patent holders seek alternative sources of revenue and competitors utilize such tactics to their competitive advantage. Such actions can be costly and may require Ciena to take patent licenses or to redesign or stop selling products that allegedly infringe patents belonging to others.

     Ciena’s practice is to require its employees and consultants to execute non-disclosure and proprietary rights agreements upon commencement of employment or consulting arrangements with Ciena. These agreements acknowledge Ciena’s exclusive ownership of all intellectual property developed by the individual during the course of his or her work with Ciena. The agreements also require that each person maintain the confidentiality of all proprietary information disclosed to them. In jurisdictions where these agreements are enforceable, Ciena employees of the rank of vice president or higher generally sign an agreement not to compete with Ciena for a period of twelve months following any termination of employment.

8

     CIENA®, LightWorks ON-Center®, MULTIWAVE®, CoreDirector®, COREDIRECTOR CL®, MULTIWAVE METRO®, MULTIWAVE SENTRY® and SMARTSPAN® are federally registered trademarks of Ciena Corporation. CORESTREAM™, FASTMESH™, FLEXIBLE CONCATENATION™, LIGHTWORKS™, LIGHTWORKS eOS™, LIGHTWORKS iOS™, LIGHTWORKS OS™, LIGHTWORKS TOOLKIT™, METRODIRECTOR K2™, MULTIWAVE METRO ONE™, ON-CENTER™, ONLINE™; ONWAVE™; OPTX™; OSRP™, SIMPLY SMARTER LIGHT™, SMARTSUPPORTSM, SMARTTOOLSSM, VLSR™, WAVEDIRECTOR™; WAVELOCK™, WAVELOGIC™, AND WAVEWATCHER™ are trademarks and service marks of Ciena Corporation. Unauthorized use of any Ciena trademark, service mark or logo is prohibited.

EMPLOYEES

     As of October 31, 2004, Ciena and its subsidiaries employed 1,651 persons. None of Ciena’s employees are currently represented by a labor union and Ciena considers its relations with its employees to be good.

9

DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

     The table below sets forth certain information concerning each of the directors and executive officers of Ciena:

     Patrick H. Nettles, Ph.D. has served as Executive Chairman of the Board of Directors since May 2001. From October 2000 to May 2001, Dr. Nettles was Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, and he was President, Chief Executive Officer and Director from April 1994 to October 2000. Dr. Nettles serves as a Trustee for the California Institute of Technology and also serves on the Advisory Board to the President at Georgia Institute of Technology. Dr. Nettles also serves on the board of directors of Axcelis Technologies, Inc., Carrius Technologies, Inc. and The Progressive Corporation.

     Gary B. Smith has served as Chief Executive Officer since May 2001 and as President, Chief Operating Officer and a Director of Ciena since October 2000. Mr. Smith served as Senior Vice President, Chief Operating Officer from August 1999 to October 2000. Mr. Smith served as Senior Vice President, Worldwide Sales from September 1998 to August 1999, and he was previously Vice President of International Sales since joining Ciena in November 1997. Mr. Smith currently serves on the board of directors for CommVault Systems, Inc. and the American Electronics Association, and also serves as a commissioner for Global Information Infrastructure Commission.

     Stephen B. Alexander joined Ciena in 1994 and has served as Senior Vice President and Chief Technology Officer of Ciena since January 2000 and General Manager of Transport and Switching since October 2004. Mr. Alexander served as Ciena’s Vice President and Chief Technology Officer from September 1998 to January 2000.

     Steve W. Chaddick joined Ciena in 1994 and has served as Chief Strategy Officer since May 2001 and served as Senior Vice President, Corporate Marketing and Strategy from January 2002 to October 2004. Mr. Chaddick served as Senior Vice President, Systems and Technology from February 2000 to May 2001. Between July 1999 and February 2000, Mr. Chaddick served as President of Ciena’s Core Switching Division. From August 1998 to July 1999, Mr. Chaddick served as Ciena’s Senior Vice President, Strategy and Corporate Development. Mr. Chaddick serves on the board of directors of VistaScape Security Systems Corp.

10

     Joseph R. Chinnici joined Ciena in 1994 and has served as Ciena’s Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer since August 1997. Mr. Chinnici serves on the board of directors for Guilford Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Brix Networks, Inc.

     James F. Collier III has served as Senior Vice President, World Wide Sales since May 2004. Mr. Collier served as Senior Vice President, Corporate Development from June 2003 to May 2004. Mr. Collier served as Ciena’s Vice President, North American Sales between May 2002 and May 2003. Prior to joining Ciena, Mr. Collier was employed by Nortel as Vice President of Major Accounts from April 2001 to April 2002 and as Vice President of Business Management, Wireless Networks Division from January 1997 to April 2001.

     James Frodsham has served as Senior Vice President, General Manager of the Broadband Access Group since October 2004 and served Senior Vice President, General Manager of Ciena’s former Metro and Enterprise Solutions Group from May 2004 to October 2004. From August 2000 to January 2003, Mr. Frodsham served as chief operating officer and as a member of the board of directors of Innovance Networks, an optical networking company. Prior to that, Mr. Frodsham was employed for 13 years with Nortel Networks in optical networking at the component and systems level, lastly as Vice President, PLM Optical Networking Group, from December 1998 to June 2000. Mr. Frodsham serves on the board of directors of Innovance Networks.

     Jim Hjartarson has served as Senior Vice President, Broadband Architecture and Market Development since October 2004. Mr. Hjartarson previously served as Senior Vice President, General Manager, Broadband Access Group from May 2004 to October 2004. From January 1999 to May 2004, Mr. Hjartarson served in numerous positions, including President, Chief Executive Officer, Director, Executive Vice President of Engineering, and Chief Technical Officer, for Catena Networks, a company that Mr. Hjartarson co-founded that was acquired by Ciena in May 2004. Prior to founding Catena, Mr. Hjartarson was Vice President and General Manager at Cadence Design Systems and served in numerous positions during a 16 year career at Nortel, including Director of Global Loop and Access Technology. Mr. Hjartarson serves on the board of directors of the Telecommunications Industry Association.

     Laura Howard has served as Senior Vice President, Marketing and Corporate Development since September 2004. Prior to joining Ciena, Ms. Howard served as Chief Marketing Officer for ProQuent Systems, a wireless network solutions company, from January 2004 to September 2004. From February to May of 2003, Ms. Howard served as Chief Marketing Officer for Enterasys Networks. From May 2000 until June of 2002, Ms. Howard served as Senior Vice President of Marketing, Product Management and Business Development for communications equipment start-up, Gotham Networks. From November 1998 to May 2000, Ms. Howard served as Senior Vice President of Marketing for Ericsson Data Networking, an operating division of Ericsson, AB. Ms. Howard has also previously held executive positions in marketing, product management and business development for, 3Com Corporation, Shiva Corporation and Sun Microsystems.

     Jesús León has served as Senior Vice President, Chief Development Officer since August 2002. Mr. León served as Senior Vice President, Metro Transport and Metro Switching from August 2001 to August 2002, Senior Vice President, Metro Transport from May 2001 to August 2001, Senior Vice President, Products and Technology between March 1999 and May 2001, and Vice President, Products and Technology between September 1998 and March 1999.

     Robert A. O’Neil has served as Senior Vice President, General Manager of Data Networking since November 2003. Mr. O’Neil served as Vice President of Data Networking for Ciena from June 2003 to November 2003. From November 2002 until he joined Ciena, Mr. O’Neil served as Vice President of Sales of WaveSmith Networks, which was acquired by Ciena in June 2003. From January 2001 to November 2002, Mr. O’Neil was a Venture Partner of Bessemer Venture Partners, a venture capital firm. From April 1998 to December 2002, Mr. O’Neil served as the Vice President of Sales, Network Access Division of Nortel.

     Arthur Smith, Ph.D. has served as Senior Vice President, Global Operations since September 2003. Previously, Dr. Smith served as Senior Vice President, Worldwide Customer Services and Support from June 2002 to September 2003 and as Senior Vice President, Core Transport Division from May 2001 through June 2002. Prior to May 2001, Dr. Smith held engineering management positions in Ciena’s Transport Division since joining Ciena in May 1997.

     Russell B. Stevenson, Jr. has served as Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary since joining Ciena in August 2001. From March 2000 to August 2001, he was Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary of ARBROS Communications, Inc., an integrated communications provider. From 1996 to 2000, Mr. Stevenson was Executive Vice President and General Counsel of CyberCash, Inc.

11

     Andrew C. Petrik joined Ciena in 1996 and has served as Vice President, Controller and Treasurer of Ciena since August 1997.

     Stephen P. Bradley, Ph.D. has served as a Director of Ciena since April 1998. Professor Bradley is the William Ziegler Professor of Business Administration and teaches Competitive and Corporate Strategy in the Advanced Management Program at the Harvard Business School. A member of the Harvard faculty since 1968, Professor Bradley is also Chairman of Harvard’s Executive Program in Competition and Strategy: Building and Sustaining Competitive Advantage. Professor Bradley serves on the board of directors of the Risk Management Foundation of the Harvard Medical Institutions and Ameriss Corporation.

     Harvey B. Cash has served as a Director of Ciena since April 1994. Mr. Cash is a general partner of InterWest Partners, a venture capital firm in Menlo Park, California that he joined in 1985. Mr. Cash serves on the board of directors of i2 Technologies Inc., Silicon Laboratories, Inc., First Acceptance Corp., Airspan Networks, Inc., Staktek Holdings, Inc., Voyence Inc. and Resolution EBS Inc.

     Don H. Davis, Jr. has served as a Director of Ciena since March 2002. Mr. Davis has been Chairman of Rockwell Automation, Inc. since 1998 (Rockwell International Corporation changed its name to Rockwell Automation, Inc. on June 29, 2001) and served as Chief Executive Officer from 1998 to February 2004. Mr. Davis previously served as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer with responsibility for Rockwell International’s automation and former semiconductor systems and automotive components businesses. Mr. Davis also serves on the boards of Illinois Tool Works, Inc. and Journal Communications, Inc. and is a member of the Business Council, the Business Roundtable, and The Conference Board. Mr. Davis is also a past chairman of the Board of Governors of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Washington, DC.

     John R. Dillon has served as Director of Ciena since October 1999. Mr. Dillon has served in a variety of positions at The Coca-Cola Company, Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. and Fuqua National. Mr. Dillon joined Cox Enterprises in 1980 and, until his retirement in 1996, served as Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and director.

     Lawton W. Fitt has served as a Director of Ciena since November 2000. Ms. Fitt has served as Director of the Royal Academy of Arts in London since October 2002. Ms. Fitt resigned from the Royal Academy of Arts in December 2004 and anticipates departing in the first half of 2005. Ms. Fitt was an investment banker with Goldman Sachs & Co. from 1979 to October 2002, where she was a partner from 1994 and a managing director from 1996 to October 2002. Ms. Fitt is a trustee of the Darden School Foundation and a director of Reuters PLC.

     Judith M. O’Brien has served as a Director of Ciena since July 2000. Since February 2001, Ms. O’Brien has been a Managing Director at Incubic L.L.C., a venture capital firm in Mountain View, California. From February 1984 until February 2001, Ms. O’Brien was a partner with Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, where she specialized in corporate finance, mergers and acquisitions and general corporate matters. Ms. O’Brien serves on the board of directors of Arcturus Bioscience, Inc., GeoVector Corporation, Grandis Inc., Memec Group Holdings Limited and Mistletoe Technologies, Inc.

     Michael J. Rowny has served as a Director of Ciena since August 2004. Mr. Rowny has been Chairman of Rowny Capital, a private equity firm, since 1999. From 1994 to 1999, and previously from 1983 to 1986, Mr. Rowny was with MCI Communications in positions including President and Chief Executive Officer of MCI’s International Ventures, Alliances and Correspondent group, acting Chief Financial Officer, Senior Vice President of Finance, and Treasurer. Mr. Rowny serves on the board of directors of Intelliden Corporation, Llamagraphics, Inc. and is chairman of Step 9 Software Corporation.

     Gerald H. Taylor has served as a Director of Ciena since January 2000. Mr. Taylor serves as a Managing Member of MortonsGroup, LLC and serves on the board of directors of Lafarge North America Inc. From 1996 to 1998, Mr. Taylor was Chief Executive Officer of MCI Communications Corporation.

Item 2. Properties

     As of October 31, 2004, all of Ciena’s properties are leased. Ciena’s principal executive offices are located in Linthicum, Maryland. We lease nine facilities related to ongoing operations of our four business segments and related functions. These include four buildings located at various sites near Linthicum, Maryland, one as an engineering facility, two as manufacturing facilities, and one as an administrative and sales facility. Ciena also has engineering and/or service facilities located in Alpharetta, Georgia; Shrewsbury, New Jersey; Durham, North Carolina; Acton, Massachusetts; and Kanata, Ontario. Ciena also leases various small offices in the United States and abroad to support its sales and services. We believe the facilities we are now using are adequate and suitable for business requirements.

12

     Ciena leases a number of properties that we no longer occupy. As part of its restructuring costs, Ciena provides for the estimated cost of the net lease expense for these facilities. The cost is based on the fair value of the future minimum lease payments under contractual obligations offset by the fair value of the estimated future sublease payments. As of October 31, 2004, Ciena’s accrued restructuring liability related to these properties was $79.9 million. If actual market conditions are less favorable than those projected by management, additional restructuring costs associated with these facilities may be required. For additional information regarding Ciena’s lease obligations, See Item 8. “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.”

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

     On October 3, 2000, Stanford University and Litton Systems filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging that optical fiber amplifiers incorporated into Ciena’s products infringe U.S. Patent No. 4,859,016 (the “‘016 Patent”). The complaint seeks injunctive relief, royalties and damages. We believe that we have valid defenses to the lawsuit and intend to defend it vigorously. On October 10, 2003, the court stayed the case pending final resolution of matters before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “PTO”), including a request for and disposition of a reexamination of the ‘016 Patent. On October 16, 2003 and November 2, 2004, the PTO granted reexaminations of the ‘016 Patent, thus resulting in a continuation of the stay of the case.

     On July 19, 2000, Ciena and CIENA Properties, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary that was merged into Ciena on October 29, 2004, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware requesting damages and injunctive relief against Corvis Corporation, which was renamed Broadwing Corporation (“Broadwing”) in October 2004. The suit charged Broadwing with infringing four patents relating to Ciena’s optical networking communication systems and technology. A jury trial to determine whether Broadwing is infringing these patents commenced on February 10, 2003. On February 24, 2003, the jury decided that Broadwing was infringing on Ciena’s U.S. Patent No. 5,938,309 (the “‘309 Patent”), relating to inverse multiplexing. The jury decided that Broadwing was not infringing on two other Ciena patents and was deadlocked with respect to Broadwing’s infringement on the fourth patent, U.S. Patent No. 5,504,609 (the “‘609 Patent”), relating to wave division multiplexing. This trial was immediately followed by a trial on Broadwing’s affirmative defenses based on the validity of the ‘309 Patent and the U.S. Patent No. 5,557,439, one of the patents that the jury found was not infringed by Broadwing. On February 28, 2003, the jury in this trial determined that the patents were valid. In April 2003, following a third trial, another jury decided that Broadwing was infringing Ciena’s ‘609 Patent, on which the previous jury had deadlocked. Based on these favorable verdicts collectively holding that Broadwing is infringing two valid Ciena patents, Ciena moved for an injunction to prohibit the sale by Broadwing of the infringing products. On September 9, 2004, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware entered judgment on the jury verdicts and granted Ciena’s motion for an injunction against Broadwing relating to the ‘309 Patent and denied Ciena’s motion for an injunction relating to the ‘609 Patent. On September 17, 2004, Ciena filed a motion requesting that the Court reconsider its injunction ruling relating to the ‘609 Patent and, on the same date, the Court indicated by order its intent to reconsider the denial of an injunction with respect to the ‘609 Patent. The parties await the Court’s ruling on the ‘609 Patent injunction issue. On November 15, 2004, the parties completed briefing on motions for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial filed by both Ciena and Broadwing with respect to certain aspects of the jury verdicts. On October 7, 2004, Broadwing’s counsel filed a request for ex parte re-examination of the ‘309 Patent with the PTO.

     As a result of our merger with ONI Systems Corp. in June 2002, we became a defendant in a securities class action lawsuit. Beginning in August 2001, a number of substantially identical class action complaints alleging violations of the federal securities laws were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. These complaints name ONI, Hugh C. Martin, ONI’s former chairman, president and chief executive officer; Chris A. Davis, ONI’s former executive vice president, chief financial officer and administrative officer; and certain underwriters of ONI’s initial public offering as defendants. The complaints were consolidated into a single action, and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on April 24, 2002. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the underwriter defendants violated the securities laws by failing to disclose alleged compensation arrangements (such as undisclosed commissions or stock stabilization practices) in the initial public offering’s registration statement and by engaging in manipulative practices to artificially inflate the price of ONI’s common stock after the initial public offering. The amended complaint also alleges that ONI and the named former officers violated the securities laws on the basis of an alleged failure to disclose the underwriters’ alleged compensation arrangements and manipulative practices. No specific amount of damages has been claimed. Similar complaints have been filed against more than 300 other issuers that have had initial public offerings since 1998, and all of these actions have been included in a single coordinated proceeding. Mr. Martin and Ms. Davis have been dismissed from the action without prejudice pursuant to a tolling agreement. In July 2004, following mediated settlement negotiations, the

13

plaintiffs, the issuer defendants (including Ciena), and their insurers entered into a settlement agreement, whereby the plaintiffs’ cases against the issuers are to be dismissed. This settlement is subject to court approval and will not require Ciena to pay any fees or other amounts. The settling parties have moved the court for approval of the settlement, which motion has been opposed by the underwriter defendants.

     Ciena and ONI Systems were previously defendants in two separate lawsuits filed by Nortel Networks in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The suits alleged, among other things, infringement of Nortel patents by ONI and Ciena products. In January 2003, Ciena agreed to make a one-time payment of $25 million to Nortel and in exchange Nortel granted Ciena a license under the patents that were the subject of the lawsuit and certain related patents. Both lawsuits above were dismissed and Nortel and Ciena agreed not to sue each other for patent infringement for a two year period that expires on January 17, 2005. During the two year period, Ciena and Nortel Networks have sought to negotiate an acceptable cross-license arrangement but no such agreement has been reached.

Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders

     No matters were submitted to a vote of security holders in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2004.

14

PART II

Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Stock and Related Stockholder Matters

     Ciena’s Common Stock is traded on the NASDAQ National Market under the symbol “CIEN”. The following table sets forth for the fiscal periods indicated the high and low sales prices of the Common Stock, as reported on the NASDAQ National Market.

     The market price of Ciena’s Common Stock has fluctuated significantly and may be subject to significant fluctuations in the future. See Item 7. “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.”

     As of December 6, 2004, there were approximately 2,677 holders of record of Ciena’s Common Stock and 571,762,211 shares of Common Stock outstanding.

     Ciena has never paid cash dividends on its capital stock. If and when we return to profitability, we intend to retain earnings for use in our business, and we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future.

Item 6. Selected Consolidated Financial Data

     The following selected consolidated financial data should be read in conjunction with Item 7. “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and the consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto included in Item 8. “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.” Ciena has a 52 or 53 week fiscal year, which ends on the Saturday nearest to the last day of October in each year. For purposes of financial statement presentation, each fiscal year is described as having ended on October 31. Fiscal 2000, fiscal 2002, fiscal 2003, and fiscal 2004 comprised 52 weeks and fiscal 2001 comprised 53 weeks.

Balance Sheet Data:

15

Statement of Operations Data:

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

     The following discussion and analysis should be read in conjunction with “Selected Consolidated Financial Data” and Ciena’s consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included elsewhere in this report on Form 10-K.

Overview

     In early 2001, the telecommunications industry began a severe decline, and our dominant historical customer base, communications carriers, responded by curtailing network build-outs and reducing their overall capital expenses. As a result, the market for our core networking products and our revenue declined sharply. While we expect that most major carriers will hold their aggregate capital spending flat for the next several years, we believe that communications service providers, cable operators, governments and enterprises will make significant investments in next-generation equipment, particularly equipment that resides at the edge of communications networks and enables the creation and delivery of new high-bandwidth data services.

16

     During the past three years, we have undertaken a number of significant efforts to position Ciena to realize these market opportunities and leverage our historical focus and expertise in core networking. Through acquisitions, strategic relationships with equipment suppliers and internal development, we have sought to expand our addressable market, diversify our customer base and broaden our networking solutions portfolio. During fiscal 2002, we acquired ONI Systems Corp., which provided our customers with a broader and more comprehensive set of optical transport and access products for metropolitan networks and enterprises. Through our acquisitions of WaveSmith Networks and Akara Corporation during fiscal 2003, we bolstered our presence in the telco and enterprise markets and added multi-service switching and extended storage solutions. In May 2004, we completed our acquisitions of Catena Networks and Internet Photonics. Through the Catena acquisition, we added broadband access solutions that enable the delivery of traditional “plain old telephone service” (POTS), DSL, video services, and VoIP from a single, integrated platform. Through the Internet Photonics acquisition, we added carrier-grade optical Ethernet transport and switching solutions for deployment of Ethernet private-line services by cable operators and carriers. We believe the broadband access market is positioned to benefit as service providers shift spending to target the access portions of their networks to enable increased residential access to high-bandwidth services such as DSL, video on demand and HDTV.

     We have taken steps to expand our sales channels beyond direct sales to service providers, developing a growing number of distribution arrangements and other strategic relationships that target enterprise and government customers. One of the results of the expansion of our product portfolio and increase in our sales channels has been the diversification of our customer base. During fiscal 2002, AT&T and Sprint each represented more than 10% of Ciena’s total revenue. During fiscal 2003, AT&T and Qwest each represented more than 10% of Ciena’s total revenue. During fiscal 2004, SAIC was the only customer that represented more than 10% of Ciena’s total revenue.

     We are focused on reducing our ongoing operating expenses and realigning our resources to better reflect our market opportunities and changing product mix. As part of this strategy we have reduced staff from 3,778 employed on October 31, 2001 to 2,118 employed on October 31, 2002 to 1,816 employed as of October 31, 2003 to 1,651 employed as October 31, 2004 and closed several facilities, including the closure of our San Jose, California facility on September 30, 2004. While our operating expenses have fluctuated due to acquisitions, restructuring and asset impairments, we have taken significant steps to reduce on-going operating expenses. Consistent with our overall strategy, we plan to continue to seek a reduction in operating expenses in fiscal 2005, in order to strike an appropriate balance between ongoing strategic investment in our business, careful expense control and prudent cash management.

     During 2004, we reorganized the internal structure of our sales and engineering functions to better align these operations with our expanded product portfolio and to better support our new markets. We reorganized our operations effective as of the second quarter of fiscal 2004 into multiple operating segments for the purpose of making operating decisions and assessing performance. Those operating segments were the following: Core Networking Group (CNG); Metro and Enterprise Solutions Group (MESG); Data Networking Group (DNG); and Global Network Services (GNS). During the third quarter of fiscal 2004 the Broadband Access Group (BBG) was organized from the operations of Catena. In October 2004, in order improve operational efficiencies, operating decisions and assess performance, we combined the operations of CNG and MESG and formed the Transport and Switching Group (TSG).

     The decline and shift in our customers’ spending patterns, and our efforts to reposition Ciena, including the acquisitions we made, have had a number of significant effects on our business during the last three fiscal years including the following:

17

     Ciena’s net losses of $1,597.5 million, $386.5 million and $789.5 million, in fiscal 2002, fiscal 2003 and fiscal 2004, respectively, were primarily attributable to the factors listed above.

Results of Operations

Fiscal 2003 compared to fiscal 2004

Revenue, cost of goods sold and gross profit

     Cost of goods sold consists of component costs, direct compensation costs, warranty and other contractual obligations, training costs, royalties, license fees, direct technical support costs, cost of excess and obsolete inventory and overhead related to manufacturing, technical support and engineering, furnishing and installation operations.

     The table below (in thousands, except percentage data) sets forth the changes in revenue, cost of goods sold and gross profit from the fiscal 2003 to fiscal 2004.

     The table below (in thousands, except percentage data) sets forth the changes in product revenue, product cost of goods sold and product gross profit from fiscal 2003 to fiscal 2004.

18

     The table below (in thousands, except percentage data) sets forth the changes in service revenue, service cost of goods sold and service gross profit (loss) from fiscal 2003 to fiscal 2004.

     The table below (in thousands, except percentage data) sets forth the changes in geographic distribution of revenues from fiscal 2003 to fiscal 2004.

     Historically, we have relied on a limited number of customers for a substantial portion of our revenue. During fiscal 2003 and fiscal 2004, certain customers each accounted for at least 10% of our revenues during the respective periods as follows (in thousands, except percentage data):

Revenue

19

Gross profit

Operating expenses

     The table below (in thousands, except percentage data) sets forth the changes in operating expenses from fiscal 2003 to fiscal 2004.

20

Other items

     The table below (in thousands, except percentage data) sets forth the changes in other items from fiscal 2003 to fiscal 2004.

21

Fiscal year 2002 compared to fiscal 2003

Revenue, cost of goods sold and gross profit (loss)

     The table below (in thousands, except percentage data) sets forth the changes in revenue, cost of goods sold and gross profit (loss) from fiscal 2002 to fiscal 2003.

     The table below (in thousands, except percentage data) sets forth the changes in product revenue, product cost of goods sold and product gross profit (loss) from fiscal 2002 to fiscal 2003.

     The table below (in thousands, except percentage data) sets forth the changes in service revenue, service cost of goods sold and service gross profit (loss) from fiscal 2002 to fiscal 2003.

22

     The table below (in thousands, except percentage data) sets forth the changes in geographic distribution of revenues from fiscal 2002 to fiscal 2003.

     Historically, we have relied on a limited number of customers for a substantial portion of our revenue. During fiscal 2002 and fiscal 2003, certain customers each accounted for at least 10% of our revenues during the respective periods as follows (in thousands, except percentage data):

Revenue

Gross profit (loss)

23

Operating expenses

     The table below (in thousands, except percentage data) sets forth the changes in operating expenses from fiscal 2002 to fiscal 2003.

24

Other items

     The table below (in thousands, except percentage data) sets forth the changes in other items from fiscal 2002 to fiscal 2003.

Summary of Operating Segments

     The table below (in thousands, except percentage data) sets forth the changes in our operating segment revenues for the fiscal 2003 to fiscal 2004.

25

     The table below (in thousands, except percentage data) sets forth the changes in our operating segment revenues for fiscal 2002 to fiscal 2003.

Segment Profit (Loss)

     Segment profit (loss) is determined based on internal performance measures used by the Chief Executive Officer to assess the performance of each operating segment in a given period. In connection with that assessment, the Chief Executive Officer excludes the following other non-performance items: corporate selling and marketing; corporate general and administrative costs; stock compensation costs; amortization of intangible assets; in-process research and development; restructuring costs; goodwill impairment; long-lived asset impairment; recovery of sales; export and use taxes; provisions or recovery of doubtful accounts; accelerated amortization of leaseholds; interest income, interest expense, equity investment gains or losses, gains or losses on extinguishment of debt, and provisions for income taxes.

     The table below (in thousands, except percentage data) sets forth the changes in our segment profit (loss) and the reconciliation to consolidated net loss for the fiscal 2003 to fiscal 2004.

26