The court order was clear. Proview had agreed to transfer the mark and had been paid to do so and was ordered to follow through.
No, the Hong Kong court did NOT order Proview to transfer the trademark. Never happened.
Instead, they issued injunctions AGAINST any transfer of the the trademarks.
Had they held that the trademarks had already been transferred, such injunctions would be meaningless. If they had ordered Proview to transfer the trademark, the injunction would have been meaningless.
Keep retreating. You will reach reality eventually.
The chief beneficiary of that "SPE" is none other than Apple.
Therefore, Proview has every right to sue Apple directly.
We have to look at Apple's INTENT of using the SPE and the intent was clear: to profit from the acquisition of the trademark for future economical gain.
The chief beneficiary of that "SPE" is none other than Apple.
Therefore, Proview has every right to sue Apple directly.
We have to look at Apple's INTENT of using the SPE and the intent was clear: to profit from the acquisition of the trademark for future economical gain.
Maybe you should learn something about corporate law.
You need a very, very strong reason to break through the corporate veil - and Proview doesn't have a sufficient reason. It is almost unheard of and certainly not going to happen over a completely legal transaction like this one.
The chief beneficiary of that "SPE" is none other than Apple.
Therefore, Proview has every right to sue Apple directly.
Was that even in contention? What do these statements have to do in response to this article?
Quote:
We have to look at Apple's INTENT of using the SPE and the intent was clear: to profit from the acquisition of the trademark for future economical gain.
A trademark is an expense, not a profit item. The reason to purchase by proxy is pretty clear, just look at how much they're asking now. Just for a trademark, no less, which was for a product Proview had abandoned.
No, the Hong Kong court did NOT order Proview to transfer the trademark. Never happened.
Instead, they issued injunctions AGAINST any transfer of the the trademarks.
Had they held that the trademarks had already been transferred, such injunctions would be meaningless. If they had ordered Proview to transfer the trademark, the injunction would have been meaningless.
Keep retreating. You will reach reality eventually.
Read the decision. It is quite clear the the HK court ruled that Apple had the rights to the trademark and told Proview not to make any more fraudulent transactions.
Read the decision. It is quite clear the the HK court ruled that Apple had the rights to the trademark and told Proview not to make any more fraudulent transactions.
Another retreat. Good.
"Had rights" != "The Hong Kong court ruled that the trademark had been transferred to Apple".
"Had rights" != "The Hong Kong court ordered Proview to transfer the trademark to Apple".
Those two things were stated up above by you as facts. Neither of them are true.
Instead, the court issued injunctions preserving the staus quo until those questions recieve a full trial.
If you were to say that the Hong Kong court thought that Apple's allegations deserve a trial, then you would be correct. But you have repeatedly stated that those tow questions had been decided by the Hong Kong court. That is incorrect.
Nothing illegal in what Apple did. Standard practice to ensure a fair deal/price is struck and to prevent the sellers eyes changing into huge glowing dollar bill signs.
Correct. Proview hasn't made a case that the practice is illegal and likely won't be able to.
Proview claiming ownership when they had already signed bankruptcy documents on the other hand., well that is a different game altogether and most likely 100% illegal. The bankruptcy was not common knowledge and apparently Apple has documentation they were dealing with Proview who claimed ownership and struck the deal. If this is true then Proview sold something they had no right to sell and the courts may find they acted in bad faith and side with Apple. Especially when the banks, the true 'owners', still haven't filed a single case to defend their IP rights. THe lack of defense may be seen as the banks agreement that there's nothing wrong with the sale and Apple is the legal owner of all the mentioned trademarks and not Proview
I'm not saying the iPad competes with the now-defunct IPAD, but I believe that's an important detail.
That is THE most important detail. the 'IPAD' was nothing like what Apple created. There was no competition and never has been.
Another very important detail is the claim by Proview that they had no idea they were dealing with Apple. That's BS to a degree. They may not have known but they should have suspected given the rumors that went out the minute after this deal was rumored. Every site out there posed the question that IP Application Development was either a front for Apple or if real working on Apple's behalf because of the whole iThing name game. Either Proview didn't bother to research the buyer (and should pay for their stupidity) or didn't care at the time. And in trademark law, not caring is considered giving up your rights.
As a long-term fanboy, I usually side with apple, but on this one, they overstepped the line. While what Apple did to procure the name may be correct, it ain't right.
They offered money to a failing company on a name they could have argued was for the taking because Proview wasn't using it on any product and hadn't been for a while. What 'ain't right' about that.
Quote:
they should now offer Proview a few million, because the cost of the defending the lawsuit in multiple fora will easily cost that.
Proview sold the rights, Apple has proven this. Proview has basically admitted this. They weren't forced to file the law suits which originally claimed they didn't include China in the sale (which was a lie). They weren't forced when found out in their lie to then claim that such proxy tactics are illegal (which they still haven't turned up a law to back up that claim) and so on. Proview created this cost on themselves and only they are to blame for it. Apple shouldn't pay them anything in that regard.
As for the bully claim. Given that Apple has been able to back up their claims and Proview hasn't, there are few folks, other than perhaps yourself, that are saying that Apple is acting like a bully
To me, its simple: Apple told a lie to gain a monetary advantage.
Several lies, actually.
What about the lies Proview has told. Claiming ownership of rights in China. Going on documented papers to sell something they didn't have the rights to. What about the recently revealed huge lie that they had already going into bankruptcy at that point and perhaps didn't own any of the rights at all at that point, or at least didn't have the legal right to sell them.
Apple used a legally allowed fiction to get an honest price for a trademark being used on a product that was brand new and might or might not sell.
Proview's lies on the other hand were likely not so legal. Or rather the actions accompanying them were not.
Or, as an easier task, find a third-party analysis which states that the Hong Kong court ruled that Apple bought the Chinese trademark. None exist.
In response, jragosta exhibited a quote from the Wall Street Journal:
Quote:
The court said Proview had breached an earlier agreement to transfer the iPad name to Apple
Since the earlier agreement was a purchase and sale agreement, according to my understanding of the word "bought" this third party analysis says the court ruled the trademark was bought but not delivered.
Or any one of a number of other options for China?
You forget simply not selling in China at all. Put it on the government to get off their lazy butts and enforce the restriction as is their duty.
Frankly I think Apple could go that route rather than change the name from what they have already bought and can document. And it wouldn't surprise me if they filed WTO claims against China over the whole deal and pulled all iPad manufacturing out of China at the earliest possible time. China has played some rather nasty games with companies and IP and it's high time someone smack them in the head over it. Apple might be just the company to do it.
What lie did Apple tell? If you're going to accuse Apple of lying, you'd better be able to point to a specific lie - unless you want to deal with libel charges.
IPAD (the company) reached an agreement to pay $55 K to Proview for the rights to the name 'iPad' in 10 countries. They did so. Then they later sold the trademark to Apple. No lies at all.
If anyone's lying, it would be Proview. Read the Hong Kong decision where it is clear that Yang was operating in bad faith and with intent to defraud Apple.
well, the ones about who they were buying it for and why seem pretty clear, and the one about not being in a position of selling similar or competing products too.
good enough for you, or do you still have your hands over your ears and eyes?
Since the earlier agreement was a purchase and sale agreement, according to my understanding of the word "bought" this third party analysis says the court ruled the trademark was bought but not delivered.
No, the earlier agreement was evidenced by a series of emails. There was no P&S.
Instead, there were emails from the Chinese company, followed by a transaction entered into by the Taiwan company.
The Chinese company owned the Chinese trademark. The Taiwan company did not.
The only value came after Apple used the name. Before that it was worth what?? $55,000.
Great point. Given the importance Apple places on names, I suspect they purchased "iPad" among many other potential names without knowing at the time what name Steve Jobs was going to go with. We should all recall the grief Apple took when this "iPad" name was announced, and the MadTV skit playing on the iPod, iPad name. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lskbO1k9VO0
Apple's defense should be the prices they paid for all the other "i" names they purchased in anticipation of the actual launch.
well, the ones about who they were buying it for and why seem pretty clear, and the one about not being in a position of selling similar or competing products too.
good enough for you, or do you still have your hands over your ears and eyes?
First, those statements were not made by Apple. So Apple didn't lie.
Second, were you present at the discussions? Do you know exactly what happened? Keep in mind that you're going on Proview's statements - and they have been shown to be lying on several occasions.
So, once again, what are these obvious lies that you're accusing Apple of?
First, those statements were not made by Apple. So Apple didn't lie.
Second, were you present at the discussions? Do you know exactly what happened? Keep in mind that you're going on Proview's statements - and they have been shown to be lying on several occasions.
So, once again, what are these obvious lies that you're accusing Apple of?
You still here?
Are you willing to admit your errors of fact?
The Hong Kong court never ruled that Chinese trademark had been transferred to Apple. You were wrong.
The Hong Kong court never ordered Proview to transfer the name to Apple. You were wrong.
Comments
The court order was clear. Proview had agreed to transfer the mark and had been paid to do so and was ordered to follow through.
No, the Hong Kong court did NOT order Proview to transfer the trademark. Never happened.
Instead, they issued injunctions AGAINST any transfer of the the trademarks.
Had they held that the trademarks had already been transferred, such injunctions would be meaningless. If they had ordered Proview to transfer the trademark, the injunction would have been meaningless.
Keep retreating. You will reach reality eventually.
Therefore, Proview has every right to sue Apple directly.
We have to look at Apple's INTENT of using the SPE and the intent was clear: to profit from the acquisition of the trademark for future economical gain.
The chief beneficiary of that "SPE" is none other than Apple.
Therefore, Proview has every right to sue Apple directly.
We have to look at Apple's INTENT of using the SPE and the intent was clear: to profit from the acquisition of the trademark for future economical gain.
Maybe you should learn something about corporate law.
You need a very, very strong reason to break through the corporate veil - and Proview doesn't have a sufficient reason. It is almost unheard of and certainly not going to happen over a completely legal transaction like this one.
The chief beneficiary of that "SPE" is none other than Apple.
Therefore, Proview has every right to sue Apple directly.
Was that even in contention? What do these statements have to do in response to this article?
We have to look at Apple's INTENT of using the SPE and the intent was clear: to profit from the acquisition of the trademark for future economical gain.
A trademark is an expense, not a profit item. The reason to purchase by proxy is pretty clear, just look at how much they're asking now. Just for a trademark, no less, which was for a product Proview had abandoned.
No, the Hong Kong court did NOT order Proview to transfer the trademark. Never happened.
Instead, they issued injunctions AGAINST any transfer of the the trademarks.
Had they held that the trademarks had already been transferred, such injunctions would be meaningless. If they had ordered Proview to transfer the trademark, the injunction would have been meaningless.
Keep retreating. You will reach reality eventually.
Read the decision. It is quite clear the the HK court ruled that Apple had the rights to the trademark and told Proview not to make any more fraudulent transactions.
Read the decision. It is quite clear the the HK court ruled that Apple had the rights to the trademark and told Proview not to make any more fraudulent transactions.
Another retreat. Good.
"Had rights" != "The Hong Kong court ruled that the trademark had been transferred to Apple".
"Had rights" != "The Hong Kong court ordered Proview to transfer the trademark to Apple".
Those two things were stated up above by you as facts. Neither of them are true.
Instead, the court issued injunctions preserving the staus quo until those questions recieve a full trial.
If you were to say that the Hong Kong court thought that Apple's allegations deserve a trial, then you would be correct. But you have repeatedly stated that those tow questions had been decided by the Hong Kong court. That is incorrect.
Nothing illegal in what Apple did. Standard practice to ensure a fair deal/price is struck and to prevent the sellers eyes changing into huge glowing dollar bill signs.
Correct. Proview hasn't made a case that the practice is illegal and likely won't be able to.
Proview claiming ownership when they had already signed bankruptcy documents on the other hand., well that is a different game altogether and most likely 100% illegal. The bankruptcy was not common knowledge and apparently Apple has documentation they were dealing with Proview who claimed ownership and struck the deal. If this is true then Proview sold something they had no right to sell and the courts may find they acted in bad faith and side with Apple. Especially when the banks, the true 'owners', still haven't filed a single case to defend their IP rights. THe lack of defense may be seen as the banks agreement that there's nothing wrong with the sale and Apple is the legal owner of all the mentioned trademarks and not Proview
I'm not saying the iPad competes with the now-defunct IPAD, but I believe that's an important detail.
That is THE most important detail. the 'IPAD' was nothing like what Apple created. There was no competition and never has been.
Another very important detail is the claim by Proview that they had no idea they were dealing with Apple. That's BS to a degree. They may not have known but they should have suspected given the rumors that went out the minute after this deal was rumored. Every site out there posed the question that IP Application Development was either a front for Apple or if real working on Apple's behalf because of the whole iThing name game. Either Proview didn't bother to research the buyer (and should pay for their stupidity) or didn't care at the time. And in trademark law, not caring is considered giving up your rights.
And in trademark law, not caring is considered giving up your rights.
But that's not the case in patent law, which bugs the heck out of me.
As a long-term fanboy, I usually side with apple, but on this one, they overstepped the line. While what Apple did to procure the name may be correct, it ain't right.
They offered money to a failing company on a name they could have argued was for the taking because Proview wasn't using it on any product and hadn't been for a while. What 'ain't right' about that.
they should now offer Proview a few million, because the cost of the defending the lawsuit in multiple fora will easily cost that.
Proview sold the rights, Apple has proven this. Proview has basically admitted this. They weren't forced to file the law suits which originally claimed they didn't include China in the sale (which was a lie). They weren't forced when found out in their lie to then claim that such proxy tactics are illegal (which they still haven't turned up a law to back up that claim) and so on. Proview created this cost on themselves and only they are to blame for it. Apple shouldn't pay them anything in that regard.
As for the bully claim. Given that Apple has been able to back up their claims and Proview hasn't, there are few folks, other than perhaps yourself, that are saying that Apple is acting like a bully
To me, its simple: Apple told a lie to gain a monetary advantage.
Several lies, actually.
What about the lies Proview has told. Claiming ownership of rights in China. Going on documented papers to sell something they didn't have the rights to. What about the recently revealed huge lie that they had already going into bankruptcy at that point and perhaps didn't own any of the rights at all at that point, or at least didn't have the legal right to sell them.
Apple used a legally allowed fiction to get an honest price for a trademark being used on a product that was brand new and might or might not sell.
Proview's lies on the other hand were likely not so legal. Or rather the actions accompanying them were not.
Or, as an easier task, find a third-party analysis which states that the Hong Kong court ruled that Apple bought the Chinese trademark. None exist.
In response, jragosta exhibited a quote from the Wall Street Journal:
The court said Proview had breached an earlier agreement to transfer the iPad name to Apple
Since the earlier agreement was a purchase and sale agreement, according to my understanding of the word "bought" this third party analysis says the court ruled the trademark was bought but not delivered.
Or any one of a number of other options for China?
You forget simply not selling in China at all. Put it on the government to get off their lazy butts and enforce the restriction as is their duty.
Frankly I think Apple could go that route rather than change the name from what they have already bought and can document. And it wouldn't surprise me if they filed WTO claims against China over the whole deal and pulled all iPad manufacturing out of China at the earliest possible time. China has played some rather nasty games with companies and IP and it's high time someone smack them in the head over it. Apple might be just the company to do it.
What lie did Apple tell? If you're going to accuse Apple of lying, you'd better be able to point to a specific lie - unless you want to deal with libel charges.
IPAD (the company) reached an agreement to pay $55 K to Proview for the rights to the name 'iPad' in 10 countries. They did so. Then they later sold the trademark to Apple. No lies at all.
If anyone's lying, it would be Proview. Read the Hong Kong decision where it is clear that Yang was operating in bad faith and with intent to defraud Apple.
well, the ones about who they were buying it for and why seem pretty clear, and the one about not being in a position of selling similar or competing products too.
good enough for you, or do you still have your hands over your ears and eyes?
Since the earlier agreement was a purchase and sale agreement, according to my understanding of the word "bought" this third party analysis says the court ruled the trademark was bought but not delivered.
No, the earlier agreement was evidenced by a series of emails. There was no P&S.
Instead, there were emails from the Chinese company, followed by a transaction entered into by the Taiwan company.
The Chinese company owned the Chinese trademark. The Taiwan company did not.
At least Apple stay true to form.
The only value came after Apple used the name. Before that it was worth what?? $55,000.
Great point. Given the importance Apple places on names, I suspect they purchased "iPad" among many other potential names without knowing at the time what name Steve Jobs was going to go with. We should all recall the grief Apple took when this "iPad" name was announced, and the MadTV skit playing on the iPod, iPad name. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lskbO1k9VO0
Apple's defense should be the prices they paid for all the other "i" names they purchased in anticipation of the actual launch.
well, the ones about who they were buying it for and why seem pretty clear, and the one about not being in a position of selling similar or competing products too.
good enough for you, or do you still have your hands over your ears and eyes?
First, those statements were not made by Apple. So Apple didn't lie.
Second, were you present at the discussions? Do you know exactly what happened? Keep in mind that you're going on Proview's statements - and they have been shown to be lying on several occasions.
So, once again, what are these obvious lies that you're accusing Apple of?
First, those statements were not made by Apple. So Apple didn't lie.
Second, were you present at the discussions? Do you know exactly what happened? Keep in mind that you're going on Proview's statements - and they have been shown to be lying on several occasions.
So, once again, what are these obvious lies that you're accusing Apple of?
You still here?
Are you willing to admit your errors of fact?
The Hong Kong court never ruled that Chinese trademark had been transferred to Apple. You were wrong.
The Hong Kong court never ordered Proview to transfer the name to Apple. You were wrong.