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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.