Chinese Official Says Proview Rightful Owner of iPad Trademark

[Rocketman]

I wonder if this is a parsing of words? If Apple purchased the use of somebody else's trademark this claim of it still being listed to Proview is consistent with Apple's claims.

If Apple purchased it outright and was extorted as claimed and the company never changed the listed owner, that is a trialable issue.

But just saying it is still listed to Proview is not instructive.

Personally I don't have faith in the Chinese legal system as it relates to IP, or foreign persons, at all.

Rocketman

 

[needfx]

No need for that. Worst case the iPad gets renamed to "iPod XL". Then they tell Proview "your trademark is worth zilch now, we'll buy it for $100,000. Offer goes down by $10,000 every day".

fun idea!

 

[Glideslope]

I wonder if this is a parsing of words? If Apple purchased the use of somebody else's trademark this claim of it still being listed to Proview is consistent with Apple's claims.

If Apple purchased it outright and was extorted as claimed and the company never changed the listed owner, that is a trialable issue.

But just saying it is still listed to Proview is not instructive.

Personally I don't have faith in the Chinese legal system as it relates to IP, or foreign persons, at all.

Rocketman

Seriously, out of curiosity, what part of the Chinese legal system would you have faith in?

 

[shartypants]

It would be no surprise to me that the courts would rule that Proview owns the copyright. The ruling I am waiting for is if they are allowed to extort more than they already have from Apple. Apple contends they already paid them, I am waiting for the courts to rule if that is good enough or not.

 

[Windlasher]

Punish all of their Chinese consumers and workers depending upon Apple's business because of ONE silly company's lawsuit?

Right. Brilliant.

You obviously have never done business in China. Having made over 20 trips there for business, you would be amazed at the **** that goes on there. China pretty much says screw you in a lot of cases even if you are on the side of right. The bootleg system there nets several billion dollars a year and the Chinese government does nothing. They wouldn't let us use a different kind of cement in the factory we were building because they said that such buildings only have a life of 20 years and then would need to be rebuilt. Every 2 years we had to replace the cement around the tracks the railroad cars came in on because it would crack. Its not about one silly little lawsuit, its about a screwed up legal system. YOU DONT NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS!

If apple threatened to move 1/2 their production to brazil, you can bet your ass that lawsuit would be settled tomorrow and in apples favor.

 

[Windlasher]

Cannot be done in the US. Foxconn's facility alone has near the population of Atlanta alone... doing nothing but iDevice assembly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/b...zed-middle-class.html?_r=3&hp=&pagewanted=all

China is pretty amazing in that way. I once needed a hold drilled through a cement wall to run power from the factory to the server room I was building. The cement wall was 18 inches thick. THey made one phone call and an hour later a guy showed up on a bike with this HUGE, and I mean HUGE drill strapped to it. less than an hour later I had my hole in the wall. Total cost? About $8. Amazing.

I paid my Microsoft Certified professionals in the US, sixty to seventy grand per year. In china it cost me two or three.

----------

 

[Ashwee]

The most logical thing in my eyes is just to rename it in china to something else. Even utilising Chinese characters or like in Japan AirPort was called AirMac.
Wouldn't cost much too as hy would only need to configure the laser etching software and the website and promo materials.
And you know what they say, all news is good news. If they rename it would cause a bit of media attention

 

[MattaFakt]

Apple BOUGHT the trademark. That means that Proview sold it and it no longer belongs to them. Plain and simple. They received money for this.

 

[jjsheb]

The dummy corp was setup for a few reasons. If they came to Proview as Apple, then Apple would have to pay ridiculous amounts of money. Also it was done to keep confidentiality. You clearly can't trust Chinese officials. They are sneaky, and doubt they would even maintain confidentiality. It also would pretty much be clear that Apple is coming out with a product called iPad.

How is using a dummy corporate fraud. Its a little sneaky, but not against the law. Apple was perfectly with in the law to create a new company, and have them buy the trademark. Again, it is for confidentiality, and to pay a fair price, and not be ripped off by money hungry douche bags (Proview has already proved to be money hungry douche bags.)

Your response says everything one has to say. If Apple told the truth, they would have had to pay more. Please remember this all happened before there was an Apple iPad. If they could not have reached an acceptable agreement, Apple could have called it iTablet or iSlate. Instead they used a European corp that had no real other business and misrepresented the use of the acquired asset. This violates multiple laws in multiple jurisdictions. It is not always fraud, but it is usually. IF preview had actually sold all its rights in every territory, they could still sue Apple for fraud and misrepresentation. The following is the definition of securities fraud. The same basic logic covers all types of fraud.

"Rule 10b-5: Employment of Manipulative and Deceptive Practices":
It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities exchange,
(a) To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,
(b) To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or
(c) To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person,
in connection with the purchase or sale of any security."

Now it is also possible/probable that ProView misrepresented what they were selling (i.e. the worldwide rights to the iPad trademark) which is what Apple is claiming, but its a little bold to claim misrepresentation when you admittedely hid behind a false front, straw buyer, to obtain a better deal than you would have if you told the truth about who you really are.

 

[winston1236]

I am generally a fan of everything Apple, however, the simple fact that no one on this board seems to realize is that Apple is the villain here.

Apple acted in bad faith, disguising their ownership of "dummy" corporations in order to obtain world wide rights from ProView. If Apple had come to ProView, demanded a non-disclosure agreement, and then proceeded to negotiate a fair rate for the iPad trademark, there would be no dispute, but that is not what Apple did. They lied about who was buying these rights, and obtained the right to the iPad name everywhere but China. If their lawyers had been thorough, the Chinese rights would also have been obtained through this subterfuge, but they screwed up and now they should pay a hefty price for their lies and oversight.

Making misleading or false statements, or omitting material true statements, that, in light of the circumstances, would be misleading, is fraud. Apple is guilty. Would ProView outside China have sold so cheap if Apple had not disguised itself?

Apple is only in supposed settlement talks because they know they are in the wrong. Apple could crush them in court if they had a case, but they don't.

I agree, they used a dummy corporation because they know their name buying the trademark makes it more valuable to the holder.

 

[jcbauerca]

I am generally a fan of everything Apple, however, the simple fact that no one on this board seems to realize is that Apple is the villain here.

Apple acted in bad faith, disguising their ownership of "dummy" corporations in order to obtain world wide rights from ProView. If Apple had come to ProView, demanded a non-disclosure agreement, and then proceeded to negotiate a fair rate for the iPad trademark, there would be no dispute, but that is not what Apple did. They lied about who was buying these rights, and obtained the right to the iPad name everywhere but China. If their lawyers had been thorough, the Chinese rights would also have been obtained through this subterfuge, but they screwed up and now they should pay a hefty price for their lies and oversight.

Making misleading or false statements, or omitting material true statements, that, in light of the circumstances, would be misleading, is fraud. Apple is guilty. Would ProView outside China have sold so cheap if Apple had not disguised itself?

Apple is only in supposed settlement talks because they know they are in the wrong. Apple could crush them in court if they had a case, but they don't.

You are so naive. If Apple showed up and tried to buy it don't you think Proview would increase the price to a couple of billion and now the Ipad would cost more than it's current price.

When Disney went out to buy the swamp land around Orlando to develop Disney World do you think they approach a land owner and said "Hi I am with the Disney Company and we want to buy your land to develop a giant amusement park", how much would the land owner charge for his swamp land that was worth $10 an acre before.

Get real. That is how business is done.

 

[waldobushman]

Apple should just change the iPad name for the Chinese market. It's not like there aren't other configuration and hardware differences for other markets. Proview's negotiating positions seem quite limited. Buy them off for $1M or get nothing.

At least, that is Apple's best bargaining position with China and Proview.

 

[waldobushman]

You are so naive. If Apple showed up and tried to buy it don't you think Proview would increase the price to a couple of billion and now the Ipad would cost more than it's current price.

When Disney went out to buy the swamp land around Orlando to develop Disney World do you think they approach a land owner and said "Hi I am with the Disney Company and we want to buy your land to develop a giant amusement park", how much would the land owner charge for his swamp land that was worth $10 an acre before.

Get real. That is how business is done.

Apple probably bought up the rights to many names. At the time, iPad was likely not the determined name -- that would have been up to Steve Jobs. Apple paid for the iPad name at the market price, not its value after Apple associated it with their tablet. Proview's position is meritless. And the Disney analogy is far off point; names have no inherent value, unlike land, until a company establishes its value. And what about the companies Apple bought potential names from prior to the tablet introduction. Those names are worth squat now since Apple didn't use them.

 

[photographypro]

Why should Apple OVERPAY for the rights to the name iPad?

I am generally a fan of everything Apple, however, the simple fact that no one on this board seems to realize is that Apple is the villain here.

Apple acted in bad faith, disguising their ownership of "dummy" corporations in order to obtain world wide rights from ProView. If Apple had come to ProView, demanded a non-disclosure agreement, and then proceeded to negotiate a fair rate for the iPad trademark, there would be no dispute, but that is not what Apple did. They lied about who was buying these rights, and obtained the right to the iPad name everywhere but China. If their lawyers had been thorough, the Chinese rights would also have been obtained through this subterfuge, but they screwed up and now they should pay a hefty price for their lies and oversight.

Making misleading or false statements, or omitting material true statements, that, in light of the circumstances, would be misleading, is fraud. Apple is guilty. Would ProView outside China have sold so cheap if Apple had not disguised itself?

Apple is only in supposed settlement talks because they know they are in the wrong. Apple could crush them in court if they had a case, but they don't.

If you are buying something, or selling something, you should pay a price based on the value to you, not of the company selling it to you. Apple disguised themselves so that the seller would sell for a FAIR price, not for an inflated price.

It is a well known fact that Disney set up dummy corporations to buy up all the acreage of land in Florida when they bought the land for Walt Disney World. By setting up multiple corporations, no one was aware of the huge amount of land being purchased.

Corporations are successful if they are financially smart, not stupid. If people agree to your price, then it's fair.

I sold a domain name a few years ago. I would have sold it for $1000. I had had MANY people offer me $300, which was too little. I had offered it to one company for $1200, who turned me down. Well, I received an anonymous email asking my price for the domain. I thought I might use the domain in the future, but figured if I could get $5000 for it, I would sell. I went and replied with a figure of $6000 just to give myself room for negotiation. The sender accepted my offer and paid me $6000. My ex-wife was mad and said I should have asked for more. Honestly, I would have been happy with $5000, or maybe even $2000. The point is I threw out a figure and the buyer accepted it, and we were both happy. If I had found out later that it was Disney, or Apple, then maybe I would be upset I didn't ask for more, but if I agreed to the price, then I should be happy.

Apple didn't rip off anyone. The seller agreed to the price.

 

[CodeJingle]

Your response says everything one has to say. If Apple told the truth, they would have had to pay more. Please remember this all happened before there was an Apple iPad. If they could not have reached an acceptable agreement, Apple could have called it iTablet or iSlate. Instead they used a European corp that had no real other business and misrepresented the use of the acquired asset. This violates multiple laws in multiple jurisdictions. It is not always fraud, but it is usually. IF preview had actually sold all its rights in every territory, they could still sue Apple for fraud and misrepresentation. The following is the definition of securities fraud. The same basic logic covers all types of fraud.

"Rule 10b-5: Employment of Manipulative and Deceptive Practices":
It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities exchange,
(a) To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,
(b) To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or
(c) To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person,
in connection with the purchase or sale of any security."

Now it is also possible/probable that ProView misrepresented what they were selling (i.e. the worldwide rights to the iPad trademark) which is what Apple is claiming, but its a little bold to claim misrepresentation when you admittedely hid behind a false front, straw buyer, to obtain a better deal than you would have if you told the truth about who you really are.

Right, and setting up a dummy company to buy a trademark (and then actually buying it through the dummy company and transfering in back to the origin company) doesn't violate any part of that rule / law, nor does it violate any of the clauses of the rule / law.

 

[Erwin-Br]

If apple threatened to move 1/2 their production to brazil, you can bet your ass that lawsuit would be settled tomorrow and in apples favor.

No. The reason Apple is in China is not only because of cheap labor, which you'll also find in Brazil and other countries.

The important reason is that China currently controls 95 to 97 percent of the world's supply of the rare earth materials that Apple uses to make the iPad. China exports these materials in very small numbers. Companies can only be exempt from China's rare earth export quotas by manufacturing within China.

In other words, China has Apple by the balls.

 

[mttbsstt]

Ultimately who is at fault?

While it is true that there is fault on both sides, there is a difference between fault/oversight and illegality. Of course Apple isn't the squeaky clean company so many assume or hope it is, but in this case it has done nothing illegal or even morally reprehensible. Proview on the other hand is clearly on the make, when Apple bought what they were told were the worldwide rights to the iPad trademark they did so in good faith and used a business tactic to protect themselves from being unfairly overcharged and potentially 'outed' in their desire to secure this name for their new product. If this was a genuine oversight on Proview (or their parent/sister company's part) then it should have been sorted immediately with Proview admitting the mistake, it is clear however in light of Proview (and the Chinese authority's) reaction that this was the plan from the beginning. Proview are acting dishonourably and are not doing themselves or their nation any favours in the international business world.

 

[Michael Scrip]

I sold a domain name a few years ago. I would have sold it for $1000. I had had MANY people offer me $300, which was too little. I had offered it to one company for $1200, who turned me down. Well, I received an anonymous email asking my price for the domain. I thought I might use the domain in the future, but figured if I could get $5000 for it, I would sell. I went and replied with a figure of $6000 just to give myself room for negotiation. The sender accepted my offer and paid me $6000. My ex-wife was mad and said I should have asked for more. Honestly, I would have been happy with $5000, or maybe even $2000. The point is I threw out a figure and the buyer accepted it, and we were both happy. If I had found out later that it was Disney, or Apple, then maybe I would be upset I didn't ask for more, but if I agreed to the price, then I should be happy.

Apple didn't rip off anyone. The seller agreed to the price.

Just curious... how much did you pay for the domain in the first place?

 

[iHateMacs]

Punish all of their Chinese consumers and workers depending upon Apple's business because of ONE silly company's lawsuit?

Right. Brilliant.

I would. How small would that make Pro-view look then?

 

[harlex]

Why doesn't Apple tell Foxcomm & China to stuff it and pull out and make the equipment in America and in the UK, both countries are begging for business and there are plenty of unemployment and it would help the countries deficit and probably put both countries back into the black within months. Why do we have to import everything from China, industrially they are winning and putting all of us financially into the red.

 

[whitedragon101]

But Proview later argued that the Chinese right could not have been included in the deal because they were controlled by Proview's Shenzhen arm, despite the fact that officers participating in the deal were aligned with both companies.

A Hong Kong court ruled that Proview and its subsidiaries had conspired to extort additional money out of Apple once it became known that it was the ultimate purchaser of the rights, but Chinese courts are continuing to weigh the matter.

This last bit really sums it up.

Proview sold Apple the rights. Then when they realise it is Apple they try and extort huge amounts of cash out of them. The legal system in China being about as honest and lawful as a bank robbery side with Proview. Proview is Chinese, the Chinese legal system will side with Proview. The Hong Kong ruling really drives the point home, once Proview knew they could extort money they did so.

ps
Apple like others use dummy corporations to buy up rights so they pay a fair price. If the other company knows what you are worth they will take you to the cleaners on price. The corporation Apple owned did buy the rights, Apple own the rights. In any real court Apple would get the case kicked out in a day. But this is a Chinese court on the side of a Chinese company asking for billions of American money to be sent to China.

 

[dfuerpo]

I try to be an open-minded person, but this is one of many examples of why we cannot trust the Chinese. They simply do not adhere to Western standards of business conduct.

 

[logandzwon]

If I was Apple I would simply put big white stickers over part of the iPad box that says iPad and just sell as "gen" IE; instead of "Apple iPad" they call it "Apple 3rd Gen" but only in mainland China. HK and the rest of the world go on as usual.

 

[Luckybobby]

The Chinese legal system is BS.
That's all I have to say about it.

 

[MUCKYFINGERS]

You obviously have never done business in China. Having made over 20 trips there for business, you would be amazed at the **** that goes on there. China pretty much says screw you in a lot of cases even if you are on the side of right. The bootleg system there nets several billion dollars a year and the Chinese government does nothing. They wouldn't let us use a different kind of cement in the factory we were building because they said that such buildings only have a life of 20 years and then would need to be rebuilt. Every 2 years we had to replace the cement around the tracks the railroad cars came in on because it would crack. Its not about one silly little lawsuit, its about a screwed up legal system. YOU DONT NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS!

If apple threatened to move 1/2 their production to brazil, you can bet your ass that lawsuit would be settled tomorrow and in apples favor.

you learn something new everyday.