And you realize that it is also possible that Apple might not have correctly bought the rights because of some simple wordage. There could be something simple as one word in the document or missing from that document that could hose Apple in this case and turn this case on its head. It has happened before, and it can happen again.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple and Proview Face Off in Shanghai Court Over iPad Trademark
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And you realize that it is also possible that Apple might not have correctly bought the rights because of some simple wordage. There could be something simple as one word in the document or missing from that document that could hose Apple in this case and turn this case on its head. It has happened before, and it can happen again.
The thing is Apple has stated that their deal included rights to use the name in China, so basically either Apple is lying or Proview is trying to grab some extra cash because it didn't realize how big the IP would become.
To me, it smells like the latter, because Apple's lawyers wouldn't leave out a huge market when acquiring rights to the name.
My point was countering Tones2 comments about Apple being a "corporate monster" and not needing to adhere to trademark laws. The HK court's ruling, while not controlling for the higher CH courts, suggests there was a basis for Apple's use of the name and NOT being a corporate monster and dissing trademark laws. I understand you point though.
So many possibilities but here is my take:
- Proview's affiliate/subsidiare that sold the rights not really had the legal right to sell it. Easily a crook director could had sold what they didn't own therefore Apple should sue the subsidiare/affiliate for have sold them what they didn't own but this doesn't interest Apple.
- Regarding the iMac comparison, I ask people a question: What about the many TVs out there produced by everyone... don't they look all like the same There was a first TV that was square with buttons etc... everyone produces TVs that looks like each other... so what? Compaq and IBM years prior to Apple made computers that was all in one in a similar format. That is why you can't patent a shape and form.
- Apple lawyers are mainly interested in not settle because this would give money to Proview and not to the lawyers as the case would be done quickly.
- When someone in China tells you $1000 for this you say I will give you 100 and start negotiating from there. The amount of money asked is insane but we don't know if Apple ever made a counter offer or tried to negotiate.
- Apple goes after everyone with their rights, patents etc... but they don't feel anyone can go after them. Its a taste of their own drugs.
- Proview's affiliate/subsidiare that sold the rights not really had the legal right to sell it. Easily a crook director could had sold what they didn't own therefore Apple should sue the subsidiare/affiliate for have sold them what they didn't own but this doesn't interest Apple.
- Regarding the iMac comparison, I ask people a question: What about the many TVs out there produced by everyone... don't they look all like the same There was a first TV that was square with buttons etc... everyone produces TVs that looks like each other... so what? Compaq and IBM years prior to Apple made computers that was all in one in a similar format. That is why you can't patent a shape and form.
- Apple lawyers are mainly interested in not settle because this would give money to Proview and not to the lawyers as the case would be done quickly.
- When someone in China tells you $1000 for this you say I will give you 100 and start negotiating from there. The amount of money asked is insane but we don't know if Apple ever made a counter offer or tried to negotiate.
- Apple goes after everyone with their rights, patents etc... but they don't feel anyone can go after them. Its a taste of their own drugs.
No different than the history of Microsoft, or many other large US companies past and present. I am not defending Apple in this, simply pointing out that the attitude you describe would also be found on websites that follow and support those other brands.
I ask you a question: What about the many TVs out there produced by everyone... don't they look all like the same? There was once a first TV that was square with buttons etc... everyone produces TVs that looks like each other... so what? Compaq and IBM years prior to Apple made computers that was all in one in a similar format. That is why you can't patent a shape and form. You don't see Samsung fighting LG for the bevel size of their TVs or for them all be black, rectangular with gloss finish. If they didn't have a tag in front you would never be able to say which one is a Sony, LG, Samsung ...
Apple and iTV
There is a television network here in the UK whose trade mark is ITV so Apple had better make sure that it's iTV doesn't clash with ITV here although one i is lower case the other is upper case.
I would not want to see then with another trade mark court battle.
There is a television network here in the UK whose trade mark is ITV so Apple had better make sure that it's iTV doesn't clash with ITV here although one i is lower case the other is upper case.
I would not want to see then with another trade mark court battle.
You have to remember that it's in a Chinese court and things are done differently there. In the USA, the lawyers would be arguing who owns the name. In China, they must feel it's a better strategy stressing the implications of an Apple lose (I agree it might be interpreted as extortion but it looks like that's the way things are done over there).
Ipad and China
The Chinese are great at taking the world with their junk and causing a huge problem in the EEC as we import most things that the UK has 2.5 million people unemployed so if Apple looses tell the Chinese to shove the manufacturing base up their shirt and open a manufacturing plant in the UK, we could do with it.
I bet China would have another think about the outcome.
After all Apple could buy China they pay shirt buttons so it would not cost them much.
The Chinese are great at taking the world with their junk and causing a huge problem in the EEC as we import most things that the UK has 2.5 million people unemployed so if Apple looses tell the Chinese to shove the manufacturing base up their shirt and open a manufacturing plant in the UK, we could do with it.
I bet China would have another think about the outcome.
After all Apple could buy China they pay shirt buttons so it would not cost them much.
Last edited:
You have to love internet forums
- we don't have access to either sides arguments
- yet people happily argue who's right
- people quote the law as seen from their perspective and country
- people are critical of Apples approach in the Chinese court stating aspects have no relevance
- surely interpretation of laws and methods of acting here have no relevance or less relevance in the Chinese Court
I assume Apple's Chinese Lawyers are well versed in the ways of the Chinese court system.
At this point we can't say wh's right. Proview argue that the company that sold their IP had no legal right to. That argument would hold in any court if it can be proved I would think. However the passage of time would count against that argument in our courts. Although when did Proview first act. It may well be at the beginning.
These two need to go to court. If Apple loses it goes to Plan B.
Likes
- Proviews iPad had a picture of an eye on the screen. Nice touch.
- Folks arguing over whose right when they have no detailed information.
I wonder what would be a good name to rename the product in China if Apple lose?
Where's the reality distortion field when you need it?
- we don't have access to either sides arguments
- yet people happily argue who's right
- people quote the law as seen from their perspective and country
- people are critical of Apples approach in the Chinese court stating aspects have no relevance
- surely interpretation of laws and methods of acting here have no relevance or less relevance in the Chinese Court
I assume Apple's Chinese Lawyers are well versed in the ways of the Chinese court system.
At this point we can't say wh's right. Proview argue that the company that sold their IP had no legal right to. That argument would hold in any court if it can be proved I would think. However the passage of time would count against that argument in our courts. Although when did Proview first act. It may well be at the beginning.
These two need to go to court. If Apple loses it goes to Plan B.
Likes
- Proviews iPad had a picture of an eye on the screen. Nice touch.
- Folks arguing over whose right when they have no detailed information.
I wonder what would be a good name to rename the product in China if Apple lose?
Where's the reality distortion field when you need it?
Last edited:
Leave China
Time to move all manufacturing to India, Brazil, or Alabama. I think Apple is the only product I buy from China, two years ago we began looking at all labels. I will gladly pay more for a product built by the USA, Canada, India, or Europe than China.
Time to move all manufacturing to India, Brazil, or Alabama. I think Apple is the only product I buy from China, two years ago we began looking at all labels. I will gladly pay more for a product built by the USA, Canada, India, or Europe than China.
Should be required reading before anyone can post here: http://www.hklii.hk/cgi-bin/sinodisp/eng/hk/cases/hkcfi/2011/1375.html
No, the HK case does not apply in China. But after reading the facts of the case and the HK judge's ruling, it seems pretty clear that Apple can make a valid case in China on the same grounds.
No, the HK case does not apply in China. But after reading the facts of the case and the HK judge's ruling, it seems pretty clear that Apple can make a valid case in China on the same grounds.
Why Apple is wrong here
Apple is being a corporate bully.
They got the name before Apple did, and so Apple's iPad is popular and Proview's IPAD is not? Is that really enough reason to kill another company's products?
This is the true legacy of Steve Jobs and his ******* attitude towards things. Got him far indeed, but still largely reprehensible.
Apple is being a corporate bully.
They got the name before Apple did, and so Apple's iPad is popular and Proview's IPAD is not? Is that really enough reason to kill another company's products?
This is the true legacy of Steve Jobs and his ******* attitude towards things. Got him far indeed, but still largely reprehensible.
All these reports about Chinese factory workers making long shifts. I feel for the Apple lawyers... Those poor guys are making 90 hours a week!
I wonder if the Lawyers are making $1.70 an hour?
yes but they were actually talking about Apple's product
----------
Apple bought the name from them, they did not steal it. Yeah, you're right only *******s involve lawyers, buy the rights and then operate under the assumption they own them. Seriously, what kind of jerks are those Apple folks.
It angers me that Apple is trying to ride on the good name and fame of Proview's IPAD. I wonder how many consumers were confused on which product they were actually buying?
I could just imagine a customer sitting at home, waiting for their IPAD to arrive in a 63 lbs 24" cube, only to see a little 3lbs box arrive containing a product they did not want.
I could just imagine a customer sitting at home, waiting for their IPAD to arrive in a 63 lbs 24" cube, only to see a little 3lbs box arrive containing a product they did not want.
errr.... no. Did you not follw the law suit about it? The Taiwaneese Proview substity sold it to Apple without Proview holding's "consent" is what they argue. Nevertheless, a Proview company sold it to Apple. If Proview doesn't know what is going on internally, it might be their own problem.
We will see this one in due time, but with a real keyboard , detachable and voice commands.
Samsung is already at it or Asus or or or...........
