Quite the opposite. Given Apple's results, their legal endurance, and their measured yet aggressive offensives, they appear to have the most competent legal team in tech today. Of course, it also helps to have billions floating around.
I think Valve should sue ProView for stealing their Portal blue "O"
Orly, is that why they keep loosing???
Actually, Proview misrepresented who the seller was and who the owner was. Apple did not openly declare itself as the buyer, but this is not misrepresentation, but standard operating procedure in business, attempting to avoid paying a premium above the market value for a purchase. It was probably fairly evident who the buyer was, in any case, given Apple's penchant for iNames.
This same crap was said in the 90s. As a Mechanical Engineer and Computer Science recipient I noticed a lot of Asians in the first two years and a considerable drop in the senior year curriculum.
Whether or not Proview knew that IPADL was associated with Apple, its criminal intent was clear, given that the contract was signed by the subsidiary that did not own the Chinese trademark, even though the correspondence was with the subsidiary that did own the trademark (and falsely claimed that its sister company owned it). What difference does it make whether Proview intended to defraud IPADL or defraud Apple? In any case, I fail to see the point of attempting to defraud IPADL unless it was obvious that IPADL was working for Apple.Well, we have Proview 1 (which supposedly sold the trademark to Apple) and Proview 2 (which supposedly owns the trademark). Importantly, not only did Proview 1 claim to be Proview 2, but Apple claims to have email evidence that Proview 2 knew all about it and agreed to it.
Now there are several possibilities: The most likely one is that Proview was quite happy to sell a trademark for an attempt at an iMac clone ten years ago to some British company for £55,000. (The name of the company was something like Intellectual Property Advanced Design Limited, or IPADL, so it seemed reasonably that they would want the IPAD trademark). Later they found it was Apple behind it, so they changed their story.
The second most likely is that they figured out that it was Apple and planned this extortion from the start. This is less likely, because in that case they could have just asked for a lot more money.