Proview Willing to Discuss Settlement with Apple in iPad Trademark Case

of course they are.

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

shut up and take… oops wrong thread?

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

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.

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?

Actions > Words

Apple should pay something

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.

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

PROVIEW: "We will crush you!"

APPLE: "No you won't."

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

zardoz320 said:

Just another patent troll, the only reason Proview even has a case is because of the utterly corrupt Chinese copyright and patent law system.

Click to expand...

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

Norkusa said:

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

Click to expand...

Yup- they have the right to copy anything they want, and their law system is patently corrupt...

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.

waldobushman said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

waldobushman said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

waldobushman said:

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.

Click to expand...

You need to look up what good faith means. Wikipedia

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.

Click to expand...

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

Plus they stole their logo from Valve!!

(sarcasm)

Proviews' Bad Faith not Apple

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.

surf2snow1 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

DUSTmurph said:

Plus they stole their logo from Valve!!

(sarcasm)

Click to expand...

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

A+++ would read again

waldobushman said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

waldobushman said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

donniedarko said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

----------

waldobushman said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

waldobushman said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?