Proview speaks out on US suit, accuses Apple of fraud & unfair competition

245

Comments

  • suddenly newtonsuddenly newton Posts: 13,052member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ Web View Post


    New York based trademark attorney Martin Scwhimmer said Apple's approach was a "level of ruse" he has "never encountered."



    Have to agree with Mr. Schwimmer here... Though I find Apple's penchant for Hollywood style derring do amusing, if true Apple's little charade strikes me as downright deceptive.



    So are you praising Apple for being original and innovative this time?

    Don't because the creative use of shell companies to obfuscate their interests wasn't something Apple invented. This time, they ARE the copyists.
  • suddenly newtonsuddenly newton Posts: 13,052member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by emig647 View Post


    I've had this happen to me. Yahoo used a disguise company to purchase a domain from me. I could have got much more, but you know what? That's how the cookie crumbles. If it was worth more to me, no matter who wanted it, I would have requested a higher number, no matter who is on the other end.



    That's Proview's argument: if we had known it was that rich and famous American company wanting to buy a trademark for a dead product that we no longer make, we would have asked for 10000x the price. They tricked us into selling it for a fair market price!
  • cpsrocpsro Posts: 2,048member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


    Because according to them they were taken by the fraud and the mark is worth much more than they were tricked into taking for it.



    The mark is only worth more because of what Apple subsequently invested in it. Proview accepted what the mark was worth at the time. That's how agreements are made.
  • prof. peabodyprof. peabody Posts: 2,860member
    And this ...

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    ... Robinson allegedly said that IPAD Ltd. sought the trademark because "IPAD" is an abbreviation for IP Application Development Limited. ...



    ... is literally the *only* part of the statements noted that could be characterised as a misrepresentation.



    Note how this part is a "he said.." kind of thing also, and apparently not recorded in email or on paper as far as we know.



    In other words, Proview hasn't got a hope in hell. \
  • bill mbill m Posts: 324member
    I fail to see any fraud on Apple's part here. Although in this case the action was quite clever and elaborate, hiding the identity of a buyer during a commercial transaction through a third party is perfectly legal. It is not as if Proview was forced to sell its TM. They were approached by X company and a deal was done. That is a fact.



    Now, all of a sudden, Proview realized it *could* have asked for an exponentially higher amount of money and is doing all it can to try and void the original transaction. Well, too bad. It is not going to and should not happen.
  • skyweirskyweir Posts: 13member
    Darl? Darl McBride are you in there?
  • charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,068member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post


    The mark is only worth more because of what Apple subsequently invested in it. Proview accepted what the mark was worth at the time. That's how agreements are made.



    As I said 'according to them' which means that what I said is their claim, not my opinion.



    My opinion is that they sold all rights, they have zero claims and should go kick rocks.



    The only group that might have a claim are the banks but they are better off honoring the deal Proview made despite the false pretenses given that they have stayed quiet for two years and could have forfeited any claims of ownership due to their nonprotection
  • applesauce007applesauce007 Posts: 1,242member
    This is pure bull sh*t.

    Apple has the right to change its mind about the subsidiary company.



    The name was bought and paid for.



    Proview should get nothing.



    Proview has been paid.
  • solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    I haven't enjoyed this much stupidity since Psystar.
  • bsgincbsginc Posts: 78member
    Fail to see any valid purpose for the California lawsuit. The transaction took place between a company incorporated in the UK and a company incorporated in Taiwan acting, at it's own admission, on behalf of it's parent company in China.
  • fathertimefathertime Posts: 2member
    I'm pretty sure this is the same maneuver Walt Disney used to acquire the land for Walt Disney World in Florida too so that he wouldn't face artificially raised prices.
  • charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,068member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bsginc View Post


    Fail to see any valid purpose for the California lawsuit. The transaction took place between a company incorporated in the UK and a company incorporated in Taiwan acting, at it's own admission, on behalf of it's parent company in China.



    Proview claims it is valid because iPad ltd was Apple



    Also Proview Taiwan is the parent, not China.
  • nasseraenasserae Posts: 3,134member
    These guys are hilarious! They should include their story in "Trademarks for Idiots" in the "Check the internet before you sell your trademark" section.
  • nasseraenasserae Posts: 3,134member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


    Proview claims it is valid because iPad ltd was Apple



    Also Proview Taiwan is the parent, not China.



    Does the required two weeks refund period in Taiwan include trademark sales as well?!
  • tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 39,991member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rain View Post


    Zealots will try and defend this no doubt - but any way you slice it, its just a bad Apple.



    Thanks for providing an example of the level of intellect and the many and varied valid arguments against Apple that the anti-Apple crowd brings to the table.



    Also, Blue Harvest. Proview's argument is completely invalid.
  • wovelwovel Posts: 949member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rain View Post


    Zealots will try and defend this no doubt - but any way you slice it, its just a bad Apple.



    Point out one thing Apple did that was bad? Does the iPad somehow compete with proview? (It doesn't , not in any way at all). The core of proviews claim seems to be the guy saying it wouldn't compete. It doesn't.
  • eliangonzaleliangonzal Posts: 364member
    Wonder why they didn't file in East Texas.
  • rob55rob55 Posts: 1,180member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    I haven't enjoyed this much stupidity since Psystar.



    +1 on that.
  • rbonnerrbonner Posts: 590member
    Companies do this all the time, Disney used shell companies to purchase the land in Florida, otherwise the price get's jacked up, which they would have done if they had known it was Apple. It sounds like a fair price was agreed upon, no reason that price should change because it was Apple at the table.
  • rbonnerrbonner Posts: 590member
    Was so proud of the group, no feeding of the trolls!!



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wovel View Post


    Point out one thing Apple did hat was bad? Does the iPad somehow compete with proview? (It doesn't , not in any way at all). The core of previews claim seems to be the guy saying it wouldn't compete. It doesn't.



Sign In or Register to comment.