PDA

View Full Version : Proview Willing to Discuss Settlement with Apple in iPad Trademark Case




MacRumors
Feb 21, 2012, 09:17 AM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/02/21/proview-willing-to-discuss-settlement-with-apple-in-ipad-trademark-case/)


http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/02/proview_logo-150x49.jpg

AFP reports (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hDtIdhFgsC9gdVK5fUmQORnO2I7w) that Proview Technology has expressed a willingness to work toward a settlement with Apple in the "iPad" trademark dispute in China, even as the company continues to press forward with current lawsuits and plans for new ones seeking as much as $2 billion in damages."We are now preparing for negotiations," Proview's lawyer, Xie Xianghui, told AFP. "The court cases will continue until we reach an agreement."

He declined to give further details, but he added Apple had told Proview it had "peaceful intentions".

Apple did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Analysts expect the companies will reach an out-of-court settlement.Apple has been ramping up its efforts in the dispute, just yesterday sending a warning letter (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/02/20/apple-threatens-to-sue-proview-for-defamation-as-chinese-court-asks-distributors-to-pull-ipads/) to Proview outlining numerous false public statements made by the company and threatening to sue Proview for defamation. Apple had previously won a court case in Hong Kong in which a judge ruled that several Proview subsidiaries had colluded in order to breach an agreement to transfer the trademark rights to Apple and then attempt to extort million (and now billions) of dollars from Apple.

Article Link: Proview Willing to Discuss Settlement with Apple in iPad Trademark Case (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/02/21/proview-willing-to-discuss-settlement-with-apple-in-ipad-trademark-case/)



peteullo
Feb 21, 2012, 09:21 AM
of course they are. :rolleyes:

Mal
Feb 21, 2012, 09:21 AM
Of course they're willing to go for a settlement, they're bankrupt if they lose. I think Apple should just press on and let them decide when to beg for mercy or close up shop. Proview seems to just be a bunch of crooks here.

jW

djrod
Feb 21, 2012, 09:23 AM
shut up and take… oops wrong thread? :p

donniedarko
Feb 21, 2012, 09:41 AM
Apple won't pay them anything... they eventually will win. Foxconn employs over 900,000 people in China. Proview if anything will become a pariah. They got denied in Hong Kong and soon on the mainland. Now they want 2 billion? Idiots

zardoz320
Feb 21, 2012, 09:42 AM
Just another patent troll, the only reason Proview even has a case is because of the utterly corrupt Chinese copyright and patent law system. China has proven again and again that they not only don't care about observing international copyright and patent law, they actually encourage this kind of behavior because of the kickbacks to local corrupt officials.

ironpony
Feb 21, 2012, 09:51 AM
I would like to see decisive action on Apples part.
They have worked hard to attain the power they have.
From what I can tell Proview makes street lights?

batchtaster
Feb 21, 2012, 10:14 AM
Actions > Words

waldobushman
Feb 21, 2012, 10:19 AM
Apple did not go into the purchase of the iPad name with clean hands. They made the purchase through a bogus company.

Apple did not negotiate in good faith in the first place.

It's not only Apple, and but other US companies doing the same unethical things that Apple did to Proview and in the US. Just recently in my town, a large corporation got tax subsidies from multiple government entities, representing they were several different companies -- lying -- in order to stop the governments from coordinating. This is fraud pure and simple.

Rocketman
Feb 21, 2012, 10:27 AM
Interesting, considering Apple's considerable political and commercial power in China, and the "imperfections" in Chinese laws and courts, Apple could squash them like a bug pretty much anytime they ask the right person in China.

The fact they are "setting an example" in rule of law, employment conditions, and ecological impact seems more of a moral action on Apple's part than a commercial/industrial/legal one. It will make some interesting business school cases in the future. They seem to be showing China and its trading partners it is actually possible to transfer aspects of American business ethics to this style of country and market.

I would not disregard Apple's words that their goal is to change the world. The RDF, despite criticism is actually working in practice.

Rocketman

jayducharme
Feb 21, 2012, 10:29 AM
PROVIEW: "We will crush you!"

APPLE: "No you won't."

PROVIEW: "Oh. Okay, in that case can you give us some money?"

Norkusa
Feb 21, 2012, 10:29 AM
Just another patent troll, the only reason Proview even has a case is because of the utterly corrupt Chinese copyright and patent law system.

China actually has a copyright and patent law system? I'd have never guessed.

Ashyukun
Feb 21, 2012, 10:43 AM
China actually has a copyright and patent law system? I'd have never guessed.
Yup- they have the right to copy anything they want, and their law system is patently corrupt...

Mad-B-One
Feb 21, 2012, 11:19 AM
My prediction: Apple with drag it out until Proview folds. As Apple, I would try to sue the managers personally for conspiracy to exploit the company. In many countries, you can do that - don't know about China though. I only read about several cases where the managers in Germany banks (for intentionally missinforming investors) and I believe it was Mannesmann (hostile takeover from Vodaphone) were sued personally for hurting investors' interrests. I know the case is different here but the principle is the same: Managers violated laws bu intentionally trying to harm a third party by either ommiting information they had to disclose or intentionally harming interests of someone they were bound to service by contract. In Apple's case, one of the Proview substaties either knowingly sold rights they didn't have or the managers of the holding did not intervene knowing that this contract was lot legally exhaustive as it was. Just taking common sense: If a substity messes up, the holding would have to "heal" the process if it has the power - and they do: they own the right but want to double-dip.

It would be like having a 5-year-old child sending him to the store to buy milk and he comes back with chocolate. Yea, he is not legally able to do a contract (buying chocolate) and I could bring it back and get my money back. But as a parent, if I knew that this could happen, I am partially resposible for what my child does. If I stay in the car sending him in, I prepared the "chocolate disaster" - the wise thing to do to not get into a conflict with the store owner is to go in and buy the milk myself because in court, the store owner might have to pay me back but then I would have to pay for the damage because I knowingly send my son into the store with the potential to harm the 3rd party by giving my son the money. So, then I have to pay the chocolate afterwards.

surf2snow1
Feb 21, 2012, 11:27 AM
Apple did not go into the purchase of the iPad name with clean hands. They made the purchase through a bogus company.

Apple did not negotiate in good faith in the first place.


So you are saying that Apple should have paid more for the iPad name? Had they not come up with the shell IPADL and used that to buy the iPad name, Proview would have asked for a ton more cash. Shareholders will tell you Apple did the right thing because they saved money doing it this way, maximizing profits of the iPad device.

Ultimately, it wouldn't be fair for Proview to charge different amounts to different customers. It shouldn't matter who is buying the product. The issue at hand is fraud on the part of Proview, not Apple using a shell to buy iPad.

Mad-B-One
Feb 21, 2012, 11:46 AM
Apple did not go into the purchase of the iPad name with clean hands. They made the purchase through a bogus company.

Apple did not negotiate in good faith in the first place.

It's not only Apple, and but other US companies doing the same unethical things that Apple did to Proview and in the US. Just recently in my town, a large corporation got tax subsidies from multiple government entities, representing they were several different companies -- lying -- in order to stop the governments from coordinating. This is fraud pure and simple.

And your legal degree was at WalMart on sale? Boy, you must know it all! All major companies use 3rd parties for future product name rights! Not doing this is like announcing the next product's name. Just think of car producers: A name change or a new name could deterrent current potential customers from buying their current product and let them wait for the next, new one because they know that the comany registered a new name and comes out with a new product.

Don't you think that MacRumors, for example, would have been thrilled to know ahead of Apple's announcement plas that there is a new product coming out called "iPad?" If they would have bought the name as "Apple Inc." it would have been plain stupid.

mw360
Feb 21, 2012, 12:32 PM
Apple did not go into the purchase of the iPad name with clean hands. They made the purchase through a bogus company.

Apple did not negotiate in good faith in the first place.

It's not only Apple, and but other US companies doing the same unethical things that Apple did to Proview and in the US. Just recently in my town, a large corporation got tax subsidies from multiple government entities, representing they were several different companies -- lying -- in order to stop the governments from coordinating. This is fraud pure and simple.

You need to look up what good faith means. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_covenant_of_good_faith_and_fair_dealing)

As you will read, it's about to conduct relating to the deal drawn up and the intentions of all parties to stick to the deal. What happened to the trademarks after Proview got paid was none of Proview's business and not covered by the covenant.

In contract law, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a general presumption that the parties to a contract will deal with each other honestly, fairly, and in good faith, so as to not destroy the right of the other party or parties to receive the benefits of the contract.

If you're considering responding, you might also want to look up 'equivocation' first.

DUSTmurph
Feb 21, 2012, 01:06 PM
Plus they stole their logo from Valve!! :mad:

(sarcasm)

TalonFlyer
Feb 21, 2012, 03:38 PM
Those talking about good faith here apparently have little understanding about business.

Apple did nothing in bad faith. The only bad faith here is Proviews' failure to transfer the trademark according to the agreement with Proview's parent company.

It is common practice to have a proxy acquire property for a company. It happens every day all over the world. To imply Apple was somehow dishonest or did something in bad faith is just plain stupid.

And to have a Chinese company want to enforce a trademark or copyright, that is the most ridiculous thing I've heard. Chinese factories are responsible for about ninety percent of all counterfeit products in the world. They have copied designs from virtually every industry. Infringing of intellectual property is a way of life in China.

Apple should sue Proview for breach of contract and defamation of charater.

waldobushman
Feb 21, 2012, 04:00 PM
So you are saying that Apple should have paid more for the iPad name? Had they not come up with the shell IPADL and used that to buy the iPad name, Proview would have asked for a ton more cash. Shareholders will tell you Apple did the right thing because they saved money doing it this way, maximizing profits of the iPad device.

Ultimately, it wouldn't be fair for Proview to charge different amounts to different customers. It shouldn't matter who is buying the product. The issue at hand is fraud on the part of Proview, not Apple using a shell to buy iPad.

Ultimately Proview shareholders got screwed. Whether Apple should have paid more than it did is a separate question, as I don't know what they paid for it under the agreement in dispute. My guess is that Apple would have had to pay more if Apple had come clean.

"... it wouldn't be fair ..." How naive. Of course it would have been fair for Apple to pay more. They could afford to pay more, and it would have been fair to charge them more. It's called bargaining power. That's how prices are mostly set in capitalist societies, based on willing buyer and willing seller.

There need to be limits based on at minimum unconscionable behavior among parties. Obviously, my position is in the decided minority on this site, at least as it applies to Apple. And, I'm thoroughly disgusted with those on this site whose ethics are so low as to disagree with me on this.

Isaacson's book on Steve Jobs does portray Steve Jobs as behaving in quite unconscionable ways as regards to some founding Apple employees, and toward both his daughter Lisa and her mother.

I find it interesting how those on this site would damn Google for the sleazy dealing of Eric Schmidt while on the Apple's Board citing some moral outrage, while accepting and supporting very similar behavior on the part of Apple.

So, perhaps you should take some time to reflect what kind of people are you really. Moral, and ethical or whatever you can get away with if it benefits you.

lilcosco08
Feb 21, 2012, 04:13 PM
Plus they stole their logo from Valve!! :mad:

(sarcasm)

Saw the resemblance. Opened thread. Saw portal. Was not disappointed.

A+++ would read again

mw360
Feb 21, 2012, 04:29 PM
So, perhaps you should take some time to reflect what kind of people are you really. Moral, and ethical or whatever you can get away with if it benefits you.

What's immoral about it? Proview got paid what the trademarks were worth to *them*. £55K. They considered it a fair price at the time, what changed? Oh that's right, it was Apple's efforts in design, engineering, and marketing which made a relatively worthless trademark suddenly worth billions. Why should Proview shareholders benefit from those efforts? What have they done between the date of the sale and now to earn $2 billion?

zardoz320
Feb 21, 2012, 05:03 PM
There need to be limits based on at minimum unconscionable behavior among parties. Obviously, my position is in the decided minority on this site, at least as it applies to Apple. And, I'm thoroughly disgusted with those on this site whose ethics are so low as to disagree with me on this.

Isaacson's book on Steve Jobs does portray Steve Jobs as behaving in quite unconscionable ways as regards to some founding Apple employees, and toward both his daughter Lisa and her mother.

I find it interesting how those on this site would damn Google for the sleazy dealing of Eric Schmidt while on the Apple's Board citing some moral outrage, while accepting and supporting very similar behavior on the part of Apple.

So, perhaps you should take some time to reflect what kind of people are you really. Moral, and ethical or whatever you can get away with if it benefits you.

So many inaccuracies, so little time! And seriously dude, you're going to attack people's moral and ethical values based on a forum posting? Here's a quarter, go buy a life. You're obviously a hater out looking for a fight, so I'm not going to say more other than why, if you hate Apple and Steve Jobs so much, wtf are you doing here anyways? Oh yeah, to stir the pot... I get it.

Anywayyyyyssss... I see this whole thing going very badly for Proview, they're a known patent troll and are showing that in their actions. Apple purchased the iPad copyrights 'in good faith' from Proview, and since this whole fiasco started brewing have had a major Hong Kong IP court rule in Apple's favor and even go so far as to write an opinion that Proview was attempting to extort money from Apple when it had no rights to said compensation. Proview isn't even a viable company, if you look into it's history it is failing miserably and this is a last ditch effort to save the company. If China's IP law wasn't such a cluster I'd say this case should have been laughed out of court based on the publicly available facts, but China is China and we all know what that means.

Bottom line, Proview will be the ones getting crushed, and Apple will continue onward.

gnasher729
Feb 21, 2012, 05:28 PM
Apple won't pay them anything... they eventually will win. Foxconn employs over 900,000 people in China. Proview if anything will become a pariah. They got denied in Hong Kong and soon on the mainland. Now they want 2 billion? Idiots

I can't quite see what the number of Foxconn employees has to do with this. The reason that Apple will be winning this is that Proview sold the trademark to Apple, and Apple has email evidence that the subsidiary that claims they knew nothing about the sale actually knew about and agreed to the sale.

----------

Ultimately Proview shareholders got screwed. Whether Apple should have paid more than it did is a separate question, as I don't know what they paid for it under the agreement in dispute. My guess is that Apple would have had to pay more if Apple had come clean

Proview was offered money, and they agreed to the price. So what if they had known about Apple's plans for the iPad? They could have asked for a billion dollars. Apple would have said "in that case, we call it something else in China and you get nothing". And once the ApplePad had been released in China, the chinese iPad trademark wouldn't be worth £55,000, it would be worth zero.

The purpose of a trademark is to be able to have a recognizable name for your products, so that customers know by the name what product they are buying. The purpose of a trademark is _not_ to serve as a lottery.

duffman9000
Feb 21, 2012, 05:41 PM
Ultimately Proview shareholders got screwed. Whether Apple should have paid more than it did is a separate question, as I don't know what they paid for it under the agreement in dispute. My guess is that Apple would have had to pay more if Apple had come clean.

"... it wouldn't be fair ..." How naive. Of course it would have been fair for Apple to pay more. They could afford to pay more, and it would have been fair to charge them more. It's called bargaining power. That's how prices are mostly set in capitalist societies, based on willing buyer and willing seller.

There need to be limits based on at minimum unconscionable behavior among parties. Obviously, my position is in the decided minority on this site, at least as it applies to Apple. And, I'm thoroughly disgusted with those on this site whose ethics are so low as to disagree with me on this.

Isaacson's book on Steve Jobs does portray Steve Jobs as behaving in quite unconscionable ways as regards to some founding Apple employees, and toward both his daughter Lisa and her mother.

I find it interesting how those on this site would damn Google for the sleazy dealing of Eric Schmidt while on the Apple's Board citing some moral outrage, while accepting and supporting very similar behavior on the part of Apple.

So, perhaps you should take some time to reflect what kind of people are you really. Moral, and ethical or whatever you can get away with if it benefits you.

All I have to say is... HAHAHAHA...

Why should Apple, or anyone really, pay more than an agreed upon price. That isn't a separate question and shouldn't be a question at all. I can afford to pay $20 for a double cheese burger, but why the hell should I?

merliner
Feb 21, 2012, 06:02 PM
apple will set a precedent. totally agree with zardoz.
bring some of that manufacturing love back home! hehe

noripwr
Feb 21, 2012, 07:35 PM
meanwhile in a back alley somewhere in China ....

(and this is just me joking around)

a Government Official is secretly selling recently confiscated iPad 2s to his buddies for personal gain.


:p

tbrinkma
Feb 21, 2012, 07:50 PM
All I have to say is... HAHAHAHA...

Why should Apple, or anyone really, pay more than an agreed upon price. That isn't a separate question and shouldn't be a question at all. I can afford to pay $20 for a double cheese burger, but why the hell should I?

To be fair, I've been a few places where I would have deemed that a fair price for the burger. (Yes, it was that good!) To be equally fair, they were only charging about $9 for it, a side of fries and a drink.

gnasher729
Feb 21, 2012, 08:02 PM
All I have to say is... HAHAHAHA...

Why should Apple, or anyone really, pay more than an agreed upon price. That isn't a separate question and shouldn't be a question at all. I can afford to pay $20 for a double cheese burger, but why the hell should I?

Since someone doubted the morals of paying "only" £55,000 for this trademark, I think the question isn't whether that was the agreed price, but the question is how much the trademark would have been worth if Apple didn't use the name "iPad". The value of the trademark is 100% created by Apple. If Apple hadn't decided to use the name "iPad", nobody would have paid even £55,000 for the trademark. So why should Apple pay any more?

This is similar to a great artist selling a picture for ten million dollars; that doesn't mean the shop selling him the canvas and the paint deserves any big payout.


You need to look up what good faith means. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_covenant_of_good_faith_and_fair_dealing)

As you will read, it's about to conduct relating to the deal drawn up and the intentions of all parties to stick to the deal. What happened to the trademarks after Proview got paid was none of Proview's business and not covered by the covenant.

I just read the Wikipedia article, and it seems that it is actually Proview not acting in good faith. The contract was about Proview selling the trademarks for £55,000. Any action by Apple to keep Proview from receiving the £55,000 would have been in bad faith; no such thing happened. Any action by Proview to keep Apple from using the trademark would be in bad faith, and that is _exactly_ what happened.

Glideslope
Feb 21, 2012, 08:38 PM
Ultimately Proview shareholders got screwed. Whether Apple should have paid more than it did is a separate question, as I don't know what they paid for it under the agreement in dispute. My guess is that Apple would have had to pay more if Apple had come clean.

"... it wouldn't be fair ..." How naive. Of course it would have been fair for Apple to pay more. They could afford to pay more, and it would have been fair to charge them more. It's called bargaining power. That's how prices are mostly set in capitalist societies, based on willing buyer and willing seller.

There need to be limits based on at minimum unconscionable behavior among parties. Obviously, my position is in the decided minority on this site, at least as it applies to Apple. And, I'm thoroughly disgusted with those on this site whose ethics are so low as to disagree with me on this.

Isaacson's book on Steve Jobs does portray Steve Jobs as behaving in quite unconscionable ways as regards to some founding Apple employees, and toward both his daughter Lisa and her mother.

I find it interesting how those on this site would damn Google for the sleazy dealing of Eric Schmidt while on the Apple's Board citing some moral outrage, while accepting and supporting very similar behavior on the part of Apple.

So, perhaps you should take some time to reflect what kind of people are you really. Moral, and ethical or whatever you can get away with if it benefits you.

Waldo,

One does not obtain a position of dominance by holding hands and singing "Kumbaya." You may think you occupy the high ground with a brief statement of Self Righteousness, but it's opinion. Nothing else. The same as this.

In fact your passive approach involving perceived intellectual bombardment is the problem. Entities like Proview need to be killed quickly, and violently.
Precedent in NO TERMS can be set.

What Erik did was not about stealing ideas. It was betraying the trust of one who let him into a very private mind. What Apple is doing to Proview is simply removing a parasitic Tick.

As for Lisa Nicole Brennan-Jobs, yes it was wrong to try and say he was without Sperm. However, they did reconnect, he put her through Harvard, and she is a successful writer living a very comfortable life in Europe.

So, it could be worse, ya know what I'm saying Waldo? ;)

arn
Feb 21, 2012, 09:19 PM
Don't you think that MacRumors, for example, would have been thrilled to know ahead of Apple's announcement plas that there is a new product coming out called "iPad?" If they would have bought the name as "Apple Inc." it would have been plain stupid.

We did anyway.

http://www.macrumors.com/2010/01/19/will-apples-tablet-actually-be-called-the-ipad-new-trademarks-filed-this-week/

arn

Peace
Feb 21, 2012, 09:30 PM
We did anyway.

http://www.macrumors.com/2010/01/19/will-apples-tablet-actually-be-called-the-ipad-new-trademarks-filed-this-week/

arn

Funny you linked that just now. when I clicked on the link this ad popped up.

Ahh.. Too funny.

krigsmakten
Feb 22, 2012, 07:37 AM
Apple did not go into the purchase of the iPad name with clean hands. They made the purchase through a bogus company.

Apple did not negotiate in good faith in the first place.

It's not only Apple, and but other US companies doing the same unethical things that Apple did to Proview and in the US. Just recently in my town, a large corporation got tax subsidies from multiple government entities, representing they were several different companies -- lying -- in order to stop the governments from coordinating. This is fraud pure and simple.


Not a "bogus" company - they used an intermediary company - common practice when big name companies with market driving power buy things, file for patents etc. They don't want to tip their hand.

China is the unethical entity here - they want it two ways with Hong Kong - it's China, but then again, it's not. Please make up your mind... Copyrights and patents don't need further fragmentation across regions, it's already a mess.

Mad-B-One
Feb 22, 2012, 08:09 AM
We did anyway.

http://www.macrumors.com/2010/01/19/will-apples-tablet-actually-be-called-the-ipad-new-trademarks-filed-this-week/

arn

Spot on! And +1... though that was a week before presentation? I guess that deal buying the name rights from Proview happened a little earlier though and if Apple would have been directly involved, that would not been a secret up until then - or did they really wait until a week before announcement to set what they call it? ;)

snowmoon
Feb 22, 2012, 08:16 AM
Apple did not go into the purchase of the iPad name with clean hands. They made the purchase through a bogus company.

Apple did not negotiate in good faith in the first place.

So every antiques dealer that does yard sales are not negotiating in good faith? "Hey, that dresser you are selling for $50 is a priceless antique from the civil war, I'll pay you $40 if you load it into my truck too?" - No, for the most part they will look at it and gladly pay, possibly even barter the person selling it. Bad faith would be telling them you will split the profits from selling it and then taking off with the item never to be seen again. Bad faith would also be the seller seeing the buyer on Antiques Roadshow with the dresser and then suing them to split the profits.

It's not only Apple, and but other US companies doing the same unethical things that Apple did to Proview and in the US. Just recently in my town, a large corporation got tax subsidies from multiple government entities, representing they were several different companies -- lying -- in order to stop the governments from coordinating. This is fraud pure and simple.

unethical != illegal last I checked. Depending on how the programs were structured the company need not lie, they may have omitted some facts which were not in their favor, but often times these programs do not require that level of disclosure. ( personal rant that local governments need to wise up to this crap and stop expecting companies to be their BFF ).

LorenK
Feb 22, 2012, 09:54 AM
Apple did not go into the purchase of the iPad name with clean hands. They made the purchase through a bogus company.

Apple did not negotiate in good faith in the first place.

It's not only Apple, and but other US companies doing the same unethical things that Apple did to Proview and in the US. Just recently in my town, a large corporation got tax subsidies from multiple government entities, representing they were several different companies -- lying -- in order to stop the governments from coordinating. This is fraud pure and simple.

And you know this how? They didn't make it through a bogus company, they made it through a strawman, which is legally acceptable. Do you think that Apple should tell everyone its business plans before it is able to execute them? Apple would no longer exist. Apple has done nothing wrong, except perhaps use attorneys who weren't quite as careful in dealing with a Chinese company as they should have been. It doesn't help that the rule of law has its limitations in China due the corruption of a communist system slowly making its way to capitalism.

reekster
Feb 22, 2012, 01:07 PM
I worked for a company owned by a billionaire. It's typical for companies or wealth individuals to go after something anonymously as to not get gouged and simply pay fair market value. I agree with one of the comments that is' ludicrous that the Chinese government is trying to enforce a copy write dispute. Hello!!!:cool::apple::cool:

scoobydoo99
Feb 22, 2012, 02:54 PM
Ultimately Proview shareholders got screwed. Whether Apple should have paid more than it did is a separate question, as I don't know what they paid for it under the agreement in dispute. My guess is that Apple would have had to pay more if Apple had come clean.

"... it wouldn't be fair ..." How naive. Of course it would have been fair for Apple to pay more. They could afford to pay more, and it would have been fair to charge them more. It's called bargaining power. That's how prices are mostly set in capitalist societies, based on willing buyer and willing seller.

There need to be limits based on at minimum unconscionable behavior among parties. Obviously, my position is in the decided minority on this site, at least as it applies to Apple. And, I'm thoroughly disgusted with those on this site whose ethics are so low as to disagree with me on this.

Isaacson's book on Steve Jobs does portray Steve Jobs as behaving in quite unconscionable ways as regards to some founding Apple employees, and toward both his daughter Lisa and her mother.

I find it interesting how those on this site would damn Google for the sleazy dealing of Eric Schmidt while on the Apple's Board citing some moral outrage, while accepting and supporting very similar behavior on the part of Apple.

So, perhaps you should take some time to reflect what kind of people are you really. Moral, and ethical or whatever you can get away with if it benefits you.

wow. this is a joke, right? either that or perhaps you are 12 years old? I can't even begin to explain basic business principles to you in a way you could understand. Concealing the identity of a buyer or seller is a normal, legal, and ethical business practice. Corporations do it with proxy companies, individuals do it with trusts. Sorry you are "disgusted" with those who disagree with you. LOL. Please tell me you don't vote or procreate.

100LL
Feb 23, 2012, 05:38 AM
I am not sure if this has been posted before, but I just find it too funny not to post it.

Ladies and gentlemen, let me show you the company that is taking Apple to court for 10 billion yuan:

http://www.bloomberg.com/image/ixws9ReYiWlA.jpg

From Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-23/apple-s-ipad-trademark-battle-reveals-bank-of-china-as-backer-of-proview.html).

Ray Brady
Feb 23, 2012, 11:52 AM
What amuses me most about this case is how thoroughly mocked Apple was when they introduced a product called "iPad". All we heard for months before the device's actual release were jokes comparing it to a feminine hygiene product.

It's funny how a name that was so roundly dismissed as ludicrous just a few years ago is now being fought over.

donniedarko
Feb 23, 2012, 02:57 PM
I can't quite see what the number of Foxconn employees has to do with this. The reason that Apple will be winning this is that Proview sold the trademark to Apple, and Apple has email evidence that the subsidiary that claims they knew nothing about the sale actually knew about and agreed to the sale.

----------



Proview was offered money, and they agreed to the price. So what if they had known about Apple's plans for the iPad? They could have asked for a billion dollars. Apple would have said "in that case, we call it something else in China and you get nothing". And once the ApplePad had been released in China, the chinese iPad trademark wouldn't be worth £55,000, it would be worth zero.

The purpose of a trademark is to be able to have a recognizable name for your products, so that customers know by the name what product they are buying. The purpose of a trademark is _not_ to serve as a lottery.

Well a day later, and seems I was right. Money is king. period. End of story. Nearly a million employees and that company's main vendor is getting sweated being told it can't sell a product with its #2 high grossing potential and profit? Foxconn apparently is China's biggest employer next to the military, that has weight.

thus this http://www.macrumors.com/2012/02/23/shanghai-court-denies-injunction-against-ipad-sales-in-proview-trademark-dispute/

SlugBlanket
Feb 28, 2012, 07:37 AM
It all hinges on the Court's interpretation on the practice of creating shell companies for the purpose of purchasing assets for a hidden parent company.

If it thinks that's ok then Apple will win. If they also take into account the fact that Apple has a product and manufacturing base that benefits China, that's also a good outcome.

The outcome could also be determined by the Court's interpretation of Proview's little scam. Apple has a lot going for it but there's just that little nagging feeling regarding Apple's shell company.

Sill more fun to be had from this yet.