Proview ready to negotiate on eve of Shanghai court hearing

24

Comments

  • sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    Translation:

    "We know we're going to get our butts kicked and probably face contempt of court charges in Hong Kong, so let's see if Apple will throw us a bone to allow us to save face".



    Yup, I hope the only "settlement" they get is the finger from Tim Cook.
  • digitalclipsdigitalclips Posts: 15,164member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    That's been my prediction for a while now.





    The terms will be secret. Proview will make a bit of money, and it will not cost Apple any huge amount (compared to Apple's China profits).



    One thing to keep in mind: Apple is not necessarily dealing with Proview anymore. IIRC, Proview is in bankruptcy, and is therefore controlled by its creditors. IIRC, Apple will be dealing with big banks.



    Hopefully the merit of the case is not a function of who the participants are since money (as in who can pay lawyers) is taken out of the equation and with Apple that is the case. My point being, if this is a fraudulent case it doesn't matter if it is Proview, i.e. one guy, or an institution such as a bank.
  • sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    That's been my prediction for a while now.





    The terms will be secret. Proview will make a bit of money, and it will not cost Apple any huge amount (compared to Apple's China profits).



    One thing to keep in mind: Apple is not necessarily dealing with Proview anymore. IIRC, Proview is in bankruptcy, and is therefore controlled by its creditors. IIRC, Apple will be dealing with big banks.



    I hope Apple doesn't settle, because to many that will mean that they have aided and abetted a global criminal enterprise.
  • ronboronbo Posts: 669member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    Translation:

    "We know we're going to get our butts kicked and probably face contempt of court charges in Hong Kong, so let's see if Apple will throw us a bone to allow us to save face".



    Or translation:

    "This is where we show Apple just how many corrupt judges are in our pocket, expecting a piece of the final shakedown price. This is where we show these foreigners what 'rule of law' means in mainland China."



    I hope very much that your translation turns out to be more accurate than mine.
  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by hzc View Post




    Doesn't Apple have documents regarding the purchase of the iPad name that the Chinese courts can look at and give a definitive answer as to whether Apple does indeed own the rights to the name 'iPad' in China or not? China states that Taiwan belongs to China so politics aside, either Proview Taiwan had the right to sell the name in the mainland or not. Yeah, it's never that easy, right?








    Right. It is never that easy.



    If the court looks only at the documents, they will conclude that Proview Taiwan did not own the mark in China. They will conclude that Apple did not buy the mark in China from the owner, which was and is Proview Schenzen.



    However, if they look beyond the documents, they will discover that Apple got bamboozled by Proview. It may have been all a huge mistake, or it could have been fraud.



    If Chinese courts use the same equitable principles as we use here, they might conclude that "what should be done will be done" and order the TM registry to change the owner from Proview Schenzen to Apple.



    These things are never cut and dried, because if they were, they would not be going to court. You need disagreements before these things go to court, and you need ambiguous situations.



    Here, the question is whether misconduct and broken promises by Proview Taiwan should cause Proview Schenzen to give up a valuable trademark. Now that Proview is controlled by third-party creditors, the equities of the situation must take them into account.
  • ronboronbo Posts: 669member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hzc View Post


    Soon as Apple realized that the name iPad was being used in China, it should have known to pick another name instead of an uphill battle.



    Absolutely insane. If Apple did this, they'd be tacitly conceding that the name they purchased was still the property of these criminals at Proview. What do you think Proview would do? They'd sell Samsung the use of "iPad" in China, and all Samsung's rip-off products would be the "true" iPad there.
  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    And, so far, all the documents support Apple.



    No. The contract of sale was entered into with the Taiwan subsidiary, who never owned the rights in China.



    The documents are AGAINST Apple.



    They have extraneous documents from which one could infer fraud or mistake. The extraneous documents may be enough to get Apple an equitable decision.



    But the main document, the one that transfers ownership, is NOT in Apple's favor. It was never signed by the owner of the Chinese trademark.
  • omegalinkomegalink Posts: 7member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post


    And for Apple throwing them a bone makes sense. Rather than wasting time even thinking about this shit. I'm serious.



    Maybe pay them double of what Apple originally paid? i.e $55,000 x 2 = $110,000.



    But, for me, I'd rather that Apple not settle this case at all. There is no merit to Proview's claims, and it doesn't deserve a single cent more, after all that has been done to Apple.



    The documents that are released show that Proview Taiwan claimed ownership rights to the trademark in mainland China, and listed it in the schedule of countries included in the trademark sale. Now it is using its subsidiary to claim otherwise.



    It appears to be an outright cheating case, so I think Apple should not give an inch of its ground to such behaviour.
  • fairthropefairthrope Posts: 249member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Omegalink View Post


    Maybe pay them double of what Apple originally paid? i.e $55,000 x 2 = $110,000.



    But, for me, I'd rather that Apple not settle this case at all. There is no merit to Proview's claims, and it doesn't deserve a single cent more, after all that has been done to Apple.



    The documents that are released show that Proview Taiwan claimed ownership rights to the trademark in mainland China, and listed it in the schedule of countries included in the trademark sale. Now it is using its subsidiary to claim otherwise.



    It appears to be an outright cheating case, so I think Apple should not give an inch of its ground to such behaviour.



    Apple wont like it, but theirs are bigger than ours this time.



    Bending over once in a while is necessary to keep your shop open and raking in money. If the settlement worth less than interim loss caused by iPad being pulled out during the court proceeding, I suggest do it.
  • sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    Wow, if I ever am in legal trouble in China I know who to look up...



    Are those big banks that Apple is dealing with suing Apple and blocking iPad sales in China? If so they've been awfully quiet, perhaps doing all this through bankrupt Proview which they now own. Which takes the fraud to even greater (or should I say lower) heights.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    That's been my prediction for a while now.



    The terms will be secret. Proview will make a bit of money, and it will not cost Apple any huge amount (compared to Apple's China profits).



    One thing to keep in mind: Apple is not necessarily dealing with Proview anymore. IIRC, Proview is in bankruptcy, and is therefore controlled by its creditors. IIRC, Apple will be dealing with big banks.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    Right. It is never that easy.



    If the court looks only at the documents, they will conclude that Proview Taiwan did not own the mark in China. They will conclude that Apple did not buy the mark in China from the owner, which was and is Proview Schenzen.



    However, if they look beyond the documents, they will discover that Apple got bamboozled by Proview. It may have been all a huge mistake, or it could have been fraud.



    If Chinese courts use the same equitable principles as we use here, they might conclude that "what should be done will be done" and order the TM registry to change the owner from Proview Schenzen to Apple.



    These things are never cut and dried, because if they were, they would not be going to court. You need disagreements before these things go to court, and you need ambiguous situations.



    Here, the question is whether misconduct and broken promises by Proview Taiwan should cause Proview Schenzen to give up a valuable trademark. Now that Proview is controlled by third-party creditors, the equities of the situation must take them into account.



  • waldobushmanwaldobushman Posts: 774member
    Prediction. The bankrupt CEO of all bankrupt Proview companies involved just wants some personal money. The Proview creditors themselves won't see a penny.



    I think the suit for defamation and fraud put Yang over the line, and the prior statements from China that injunctions would be hard to enforce (which can only be interpreted as "you ain't got no case, but here's face-saving line for you").
  • jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    No. The contract of sale was entered into with the Taiwan subsidiary, who never owned the rights in China.



    The documents are AGAINST Apple.



    They have extraneous documents from which one could infer fraud or mistake. The extraneous documents may be enough to get Apple an equitable decision.



    But the main document, the one that transfers ownership, is NOT in Apple's favor. It was never signed by the owner of the Chinese trademark.



    I guess you never read the documents. Please review the Hong Kong court decision, for example. And then review the documents on AllThingsD.
  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by Omegalink View Post


    The documents that are released show that Proview Taiwan claimed ownership rights to the trademark in mainland China, and listed it in the schedule of countries included in the trademark sale. Now it is using its subsidiary to claim otherwise.



    It appears to be an outright cheating case, so I think Apple should not give an inch of its ground to such behaviour.



    Proview Taiwan is NOT using its subsidiary to say otherwise. The owner of the mark is an affilliate, not a subsidiary.



    It is like your brother selling me your car. He cannot effectively pass title, because he has no right to your car.



    Apple claims that the father was involved, and made the decision for both sons. They have some emails that tend to support that. But the situation is far from clear.
  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by sunilraman View Post


    Wow, if I ever am in legal trouble in China I know who to look up...






    Normally I ignore these trolls, but this is getting tiresome. Personal attacks are not on topic here. Please either focus on the topic at hand or refrain from posting personal attacks.
  • sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    Proview Taiwan is NOT using its subsidiary to say otherwise. The owner of the mark is an affilliate, not a subsidiary.



    It is like your brother selling me your car. He cannot effectively pass title, because he has no right to your car.



    Apple claims that the father was involved, and made the decision for both sons. They have some emails that tend to support that. But the situation is far from clear.



    There is no father and son, no affiliate, sister, mom, daughter, partner, associate, or roommate from college. It's all the same one guy that's in charge of all Proview companies.



    It's a guy that owns a car that sells you the car, then says, oh, you bought it from my left hand, sorry, actually my right hand owns the car, so you paid for, I dunno, the fuzzy dice because that's all the left hand was authorised to sell.



    And with that, time for bed.
  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    I guess you never read the documents. Please review the Hong Kong court decision, for example. And then review the documents on AllThingsD.



    I read them all. The Hong Kong court did not decide the case on the merits. It merely said some issues were appropriate for trial, and preserved the status quo in the meantime.



    Prove me wrong.
  • sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    Normally I ignore these trolls, but this is getting tiresome. Personal attacks are not on topic here. Please either focus on the topic at hand or refrain from posting personal attacks.



    I don't think that can be considered a personal attack. A light hearted jibe, perhaps. Plus above you call me trolling, which I did not say about you. Goodnight...
  • waldobushmanwaldobushman Posts: 774member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post




    But the main document, the one that transfers ownership, is NOT in Apple's favor. It was never signed by the owner of the Chinese trademark.



    The main agreement was hammered out, but the lack of signing was a breach of the agreement. It was fraud on the part of Yang. Period. Such behavior in US courts would subject Yang to contempt, and order for specific performance.



    Apple's mistake may have been assuming Yang would act in good faith, and Apple did not follow up prior to iPad release to ensure follow-through.



    On the other hand, because Apple purchased the iPad name through a bogus company setup to hide Apple's involvement, it seems quite right that Apple now be forced to pay.



    Fraudulent representations in the US has become pandemic also. Businesses and business folks simply have no morals, ever. There is nothing honest or moral about what Apple did to purchase the iPad name.
  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by sunilraman View Post


    There is no father and son, no affiliate, sister, mom, daughter, partner, associate, or roommate from college. It's all the same one guy that's in charge of all Proview companies.








    That "one guy" is not the sole owner of all the assets. Likely he never was.
  • jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,015member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by waldobushman View Post




    On the other hand, because Apple purchased the iPad name through a bogus company setup to hide Apple's involvement, it seems quite right that Apple now be forced to pay.



    Fraudulent representations in the US has become pandemic also. Businesses and business folks simply have no morals, ever. There is nothing honest or moral about what Apple did to purchase the iPad name.



    Apple did not create a shell company to hide money. They created one to purchase trademarks while not being extorted. If Apple was the name of the buyer, it would be asked for millions of dollars because it's Apple and not some minor party. Nothing illegal there.
Sign In or Register to comment.