Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Proview Sues Apple in U.S. Over Alleged Deception in iPad Trademark Purchase

babyj said:
Did they actually sign a deal with Cisco first? I can't remember the exact timings. But either way they haven't learnt any lessons, if they had they'd have avoided the iPhone issues after the years of legal disputes with Apple Corps.
Click to expand...

Apple PURCHASED the rights to the Trademark before announcing anything. Once the rights were paid for, then they announced it. THEN Proview played the game of "Oh no, we didn't sell you that."

FACTS:
1. Apple's contract signed by Mr. Yang of Proview.Taiwan includes rights for Taiwan, HongKong and China.
2. Mr. Yang, was Chairman of Proview.Taiwan, YOTE, and Proview.China.
3. Proview.China demanded $10,000,000 from Apple shortly after the iPad announcement.
4. Proview.China then filed Bankruptcy
5. Apple is really fighting the Bankruptcy courts of China to get the trademark that they paid for.
 
demodave said:
Joe, I will submit that you don't know that. After all, England's flag is Saint George's Cross. You do know what he did to dragons, don't you?

The England broadcast brand is ITV. Apple's current brand is Apple TV, but I don't see why the distinction between iTV and ITV would not be sufficient.

Thank goodness I am not a trademark lawyer.
Click to expand...

What exactly is your point?
 
This is starting to remind me of the old joke where a man is defending himself in court of returning a borrowed item in a damaged state. His arguments, in order:

1) It was in perfect condition when I returned it
2) It was already damaged when I borrowed it
3) I never borrowed it in the first place.

In any case, this battle seems to be a legal hail-Mary by Proview and its creditors (who have infinitely deep pockets). They have little to lose here, but if they win they could be looking at a possibly gigantic payday.
 
neilw said:
This is starting to remind me of the old joke where a man is defending himself in court of returning a borrowed item in a damaged state. His arguments, in order:

1) It was in perfect condition when I returned it
2) It was already damaged when I borrowed it
3) I never borrowed it in the first place.

In any case, this battle seems to be a legal hail-Mary by Proview and its creditors (who have infinitely deep pockets). They have little to lose here, but if they win they could be looking at a possibly gigantic payday.
Click to expand...

deeper than Apple's pocket you say? :D Apple ain't exactly in the underdog situation like you implied.
 
babyj said:
Did they actually sign a deal with Cisco first? I can't remember the exact timings. But either way they haven't learnt any lessons, if they had they'd have avoided the iPhone issues after the years of legal disputes with Apple Corps.
Click to expand...

Yes, they signed a deal with Cisco first : http://www.pcworld.com/article/198203/with_ios_apple_gets_the_ok_to_borrow_a_cisco_name.html

So, yes, they did learn a lesson. It doesn't matter that they didn't learn it from Apple Corps, they actually learned it from Cisco. They avoided the whole legal issues with iOS after having dealt with them for iPhone.
 
victorvu said:
deeper than Apple's pocket you say? :D Apple ain't exactly in the underdog situation like you implied.
Click to expand...

Never said or implied that. Interesting interpretation.

The point is that Proview is not going to be dropping out of this fight just because they're a little bankrupt company and can't afford to fight big bad Apple. This is a battle of heavyweights. I don't know how far the banks will want to push this, but who knows.
 
peteullo said:
I can't believe this company just won't give up already. There is no way the US court will penalize its most valuable company for a company that is near bankrupt and from a foreign country.
Click to expand...

Um....you are completely wrong. The law is the law. The USA courts do not favor someone due to economic climate or other biases. The law is the law.

We'll see how this all pans out. IMO and WHAT LITTLE DETAILS WE NON-APPLE-LAWYERS know, Apple will lose either way.

1)Apple will lose the suit and end up paying a huge fee (wasn't it like $1.5billion?)
or
2)Apple will lose tens or hundreds of millions of dollars due to legal fees with our without a settlement.

It *seems* Apple didn't buy enough of the trademark or abused its purchase/license of the trademark. Tough break, Apple, if you lose. It doesn't matter if the other company is 1 day from bankruptcy or is a huge conglomerate...they have every right to seek what is (in their eyes) legally theirs.
 
 
CylonGlitch said:
Apple PURCHASED the rights to the Trademark before announcing anything. Once the rights were paid for, then they announced it. THEN Proview played the game of "Oh no, we didn't sell you that."
Click to expand...

It appears though that when Apple announced the iPad they weren't actually the legal owners of the trademark in China. I'm still a bit bemused as to why they wouldn't have ensured they were before proceeding.

I don't get the argument that this was all a big scam from the beginning on the part of Proview. If it was it would suggest they knew who was purchasing the trademarks in which case they would have asked for a lot more money. At worst it appears Proview (Taiwan) sold Apple something they didn't legally own, which means they screwed them for £7,000 (2 of the 10 trademarks purchased for £35,000).

Maybe Proview acted in good faith, then realised that the sale wasn't valid and are now trying to profit from it. Either way, surely Apple have to take some of the blame for not ensuring they were the legal owner of the trademarks before proceeding - seems a rookie mistake to make.
 
You are right

SteveSparks said:
I believe it was $60 in additional labor costs, which I believe is highly unlikely since the academics who wrote the article had no knowledge of the manufacturing process. We just found out part of the process and number of steps to assemble and iPad, not all the steps to manufacture all the components.

The speculated cost of $60 more dollars in my opinion does not include the facility, and operational costs for a series of facilities.

As fas as supporting US jobs, you do support jobs at Apple, FedEx, UPS, and many others in the chain. The CPU I believe right now is made in Austin, Tx which has many US workers.
Click to expand...

To quote the NY Times article:
"In part, Asia was attractive because the semiskilled workers there were cheaper. But that wasn’t driving Apple. For technology companies, the cost of labor is minimal compared with the expense of buying parts and managing supply chains that bring together components and services from hundreds of companies.

For Mr. Cook, the focus on Asia “came down to two things,” said one former high-ranking Apple executive. Factories in Asia “can scale up and down faster” and “Asian supply chains have surpassed what’s in the U.S.” The result is that “we can’t compete at this point,” the executive said. "
 
Proview ran their company into the ground, went into bankruptcy, and now are trying to shake down Apple (and who knows who else) for cash to save them from their own mismanagement.
 
Larger companies do this all the time when buying rel estate, patents, etc. Look at walmart, and Quiktrip for example. They each have seperate entities or "shell companies" when buying real estate. Theres a reason for it, and its legal. Whats the problem? To the people saying Apple was deceptive is BS. They are playing the game, and the game is legal. Game over.
 
They are going to bankrupt themselves and in a few years no one will remember them.

----------

My company deals with Chinese manufacturers every day. It's their nature to steal and deceive.

CylonGlitch said:
Apple PURCHASED the rights to the Trademark before announcing anything. Once the rights were paid for, then they announced it. THEN Proview played the game of "Oh no, we didn't sell you that."

FACTS:
1. Apple's contract signed by Mr. Yang of Proview.Taiwan includes rights for Taiwan, HongKong and China.
2. Mr. Yang, was Chairman of Proview.Taiwan, YOTE, and Proview.China.
3. Proview.China demanded $10,000,000 from Apple shortly after the iPad announcement.
4. Proview.China then filed Bankruptcy
5. Apple is really fighting the Bankruptcy courts of China to get the trademark that they paid for.
Click to expand...
 
SMacDuff said:
So Proview, in complaining to the courts that Apple deceived them when they signed the deal, is actually admitting that they signed it. Therefore, upon that admission, they are legally bound to uphold the agreement with Apple. At least, in my books, that's an admission.
Click to expand...

To be fair, Proview's story is that there are two Proview companies, Proview 1 and Proview 2. Proview 1 sold the iPad trademark to Apple. Proview 1 claims that Apple now owns the trademark, but got it through deception, so Apple should give billions to Proview 1. Proview 2 claims that Proview 1 had no right to sell the trademark, that Proview 2 owns the trademark, and Apple should give billions to Proview 2. Both companies can make these claims. Obviously both cannot be right, but they can both make the claim.

I sell you a car for $10,000. Next thing I sue you for deceiving me about the value of the car, which was really worth $20,000, while someone else sues you claiming I stole the car from them and you should return it to the rightful owner.
 
babyj said:
It appears though that when Apple announced the iPad they weren't actually the legal owners of the trademark in China. I'm still a bit bemused as to why they wouldn't have ensured they were before proceeding.
Click to expand...

Did you read the documents? The sale paperwork specifically calls out what is sold. All rights in Hong Kong, Taiwan and CHINA. This is signed off by the Proview (Taiwan) Chairman. The claim is that Proview.Taiwan did not have the rights to sell the Proview.China Trademark. BUT, there are documents from Proveiw.China that specifically tell Apple's shell that Proview.Taiwan owns the rights.

NEXT, and this is the BIG point. Proview.China's chairman is the SAME PERSON as the Proview.Taiwan's. In otherwords, he authorized the sale in BOTH countries.

Proview.China's Chairman authorized and signed off on the sale.
Proview.China TOOK the money.
Proview.China refused to transfer the trademark.

Read the documents, they are online and posted all over the place. This is NOT the case of Apple overstepping their bounds. It's a case of clear cut deception and extortion.

I'm all for slapping Apple if they did something out of line, but in THIS specific case, there appears to be NOTHING that they did that was incorrect.

----------
gnasher729 said:
To be fair, Proview's story is that there are two Proview companies, Proview 1 and Proview 2. Proview 1 sold the iPad trademark to Apple. Proview 1 claims that Apple now owns the trademark, but got it through deception, so Apple should give billions to Proview 1. Proview 2 claims that Proview 1 had no right to sell the trademark, that Proview 2 owns the trademark, and Apple should give billions to Proview 2. Both companies can make these claims. Obviously both cannot be right, but they can both make the claim.
Click to expand...

To be fair, Proview 1 and Proview 2 have the same chairman! He signed off on the sale, and being chairman he is allowed to sell company assets. So how is it that they can now claim that Proview 2 didn't intend to sell it? It was sold, a little too late there.
 
CylonGlitch said:
To be fair, Proview 1 and Proview 2 have the same chairman! He signed off on the sale, and being chairman he is allowed to sell company assets. So how is it that they can now claim that Proview 2 didn't intend to sell it? It was sold, a little too late there.
Click to expand...

What I was saying is that it is quite possible to be sued by two parties for two different reasons that cannot both be correct at the same time. In this case, Proview 2's chairman knows that he is lying through his teeth, while Proview 1's chairman knows that his case only makes sense if Proview 2's chairman is wrong, and since they are the same person it is like killing your parents and asking for mitigating circumstances because you just became an orphan.
 
Makosuke said:
I'm glad I'm not the only one who's been thinking that the ProView logo looked an awful lot like the original Portal logo. Maybe they're an Aperture Science subsidiary?

Actually, that would explain a lot about their recent legal dealings.

Question: Doesn't it undermine their case that the party that sold the trademark for China wasn't authorized to do so when you're simultaneously suing over the trademark in another country claiming that Apple owns it, you just didn't charge them enough because you didn't do the background checks.

I said elsewhere that if Apple had been asked for millions of dollars for the iPad trademark they probably would have just called it something else equally silly-sounding that would have seemed equally natural after hearing it for a couple months. "iPad" was widely mocked, and MacBook sounded ridiculous, but nobody thinks anything of either now, so the iTab iSlate or iSlab or whatever would seem normal now. Even country-specific--Japan got used to the Airport being called AirMac.
Click to expand...

You make some good points here. The name IPAD was worthless until Apple bought it and named a soon to be successful product "iPad".
 
gnasher729 said:
What I was saying is that it is quite possible to be sued by two parties for two different reasons that cannot both be correct at the same time. In this case, Proview 2's chairman knows that he is lying through his teeth, while Proview 1's chairman knows that his case only makes sense if Proview 2's chairman is wrong, and since they are the same person it is like killing your parents and asking for mitigating circumstances because you just became an orphan.
Click to expand...

In the US he will get slapped down. Proview is prevented from presenting two conflicfing sets of evidence and Apple has many remedies including promissory estoppel as well as detrimental reliance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel#Equitable_estoppel_.28American_law.29

Estoppel in its broadest sense is a legal term referring to a series of legal and equitable[1] doctrines that preclude "a person from denying or asserting anything to the contrary of that which has, in contemplation of law, been established as the truth, either by the acts of judicial or legislative officers, or by his own deed, acts, or representations, either express or implied."[2]
Click to expand...
 
Where did that Macrumor Post go?

What happened to the "Proview says they'll talk settlement" post that was here this morning?





thomas
 
Only in Proviews hometown have the Chinese local courts favored them, as I'm sure you also know. What is really confusing is how they waited SO long - to a time of them going bankrupt, to finally sue for something that should've been apparent from the get-go. I wouldn't be surprised if their next claim stated that they are going bankrupt because of what Apple has done to them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back