Proview Willing to Discuss Settlement with Apple in iPad Trademark Case

[merliner]

apple will set a precedent. totally agree with zardoz.
bring some of that manufacturing love back home! hehe

[noripwr]

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.

[tbrinkma]

Originally Posted by duffman9000

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]

Originally Posted by duffman9000

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.

Originally Posted by mw360

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.

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]

Originally Posted by waldobushman

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]

Originally Posted by Mad-B-One

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/...led-this-week/

arn

[Peace]

Originally Posted by arn

We did anyway.

http://www.macrumors.com/2010/01/19/...led-this-week/

arn

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

Ahh.. Too funny.

[krigsmakten]

Originally Posted by waldobushman

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]

Originally Posted by arn

We did anyway.

http://www.macrumors.com/2010/01/19/...led-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]

Originally Posted by waldobushman

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]

Originally Posted by waldobushman

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]

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!!!

[scoobydoo99]

Originally Posted by waldobushman

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]

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:



From Bloomberg.

[Ray Brady]

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]

Originally Posted by gnasher729

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/...emark-dispute/

[SlugBlanket]

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.