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.