There is no question as to that, but the difference between fraud and mistake is one of intent.
The Taiwan company gave warranties and reps that they owned the Chinese trademark. That most certainly was false, and was either fraud or mistake.
I don't think that has ever been in question.
But tell me this - do you think it is fair to the owners of the Chinese company to make them transfer the trademark when they were not a party to the Taiwan company's contract of sale?
In a word, yes.
Reason being that based on the documents and statements we've seen so far, Wang and his legal council <were> party to the negotiations. This was before the courts froze assets on behalf of the creditors as a result of the bankruptcy. Wang had the authority to make the transaction, and explicit statements were made that the discussions <included> the mainland China "iPad" rights.
To say that the people at the table had the authority to make the deal on behalf of the holding company [parent], offer something that only the parent had rights to offer, then say three years after the the ink has dried ... "Oh, we were just acting on behalf of the subsidiary, not the parent, even though we made the offer and had the authority to." is a load of bull.
This is practically the definition of a fraudulent act.
If you had a document from a con man claiming he owned the Brooklyn Bridge, and you bought it from him in good faith, you would not own the Brooklyn Bridge. Think about it.
The difference is, that the con-man at the table that Apple made a deal with <did> own the Brooklyn Bridge. The fact that he's trying to pull a con with legal slight-of-hand doesn't change that fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
And your understanding of Trademark Law is inaccurate. You are thinking of a trademark becoming a generic term. Waiting a couple of years does not result in your trademark being "yanked" .
Actually, based on the information we've recently seen from the Chinese trademark office (specifically as a result of this ongoing clusterf^&k), a trademark in China which goes unused for 3 years <is> a dead trademark and the 'holder' may lose their claim to it.
Reason being that based on the documents and statements we've seen so far, Wang and his legal council <were> party to the negotiations. This was before the courts froze assets on behalf of the creditors as a result of the bankruptcy. Wang had the authority to make the transaction, and explicit statements were made that the discussions <included> the mainland China "iPad" rights.
To say that the people at the table had the authority to make the deal on behalf of the holding company [parent], offer something that only the parent had rights to offer, then say three years after the the ink has dried ... "Oh, we were just acting on behalf of the subsidiary, not the parent, even though we made the offer and had the authority to." is a load of bull.
This is practically the definition of a fraudulent act.
Check back in the other threads. You are making an equitable argument, and the equities may be on the side of Apple. I have said that more than once.
The thing that I can't get past, however, is the legal argument. IF the Chinese trademark office showed that the Chinese trademark was owned by the Chinese company, then Apple was negligent in not confirming ownership with the Trademark office. If so, then accepting a transfer from the Taiwanese company was negligent, which tips the balance of equities.
At any rate, the owners of the Chinese company never sold the trademark to Apple. They maybe should get screwed because "the one guy" was in bad faith, but that has to be blanced against Apple's failure to do proper due diligence.
I've said it before - Apple might have a good equitable arguement. But as a matter of law, Apple never received any transfer from the owner of the Chinese trademerk, which was the Chinese subsidiary. Instead, they were bamboozled by the the Taiwanese affiliate.
Will Apple win with an equitable argument? Maybe. But as a matter of law, they never bought the Chinese trademark from the company which owned the Chinese trademark.
Check back in the other threads. You are making an equitable argument, and the equities may be on the side of Apple. I have said that more than once.
The thing that I can't get past, however, is the legal argument. IF the Chinese trademark office showed that the Chinese trademark was owned by the Chinese company, then Apple was negligent in not confirming ownership with the Trademark office. If so, then accepting a transfer from the Taiwanese company was negligent, which tips the balance of equities.
At any rate, the owners of the Chinese company never sold the trademark to Apple. They maybe should get screwed because "the one guy" was in bad faith, but that has to be blanced against Apple's failure to do proper due diligence.
I've said it before - Apple might have a good equitable arguement. But as a matter of law, Apple never received any transfer from the owner of the Chinese trademerk, which was the Chinese subsidiary. Instead, they were bamboozled by the the Taiwanese affiliate.
Will Apple win with an equitable argument? Maybe. But as a matter of law, they never bought the Chinese trademark from the company which owned the Chinese trademark.
This glosses over the fact that Wang (owner of Proview International, a.k.a. 'the parent') at the time <did> have the authority to make a deal to cause the Proview Shenzhen subsidiary to transfer the rights to Apple (or IP Application Development, technically). He was party to the talks, and assertions were made that the Shenzhen-held rights were included.
Again, this is an after-the-fact claim that Wang (and/or his authorized representatives) were only acting on behalf of Proview Taiwan, not Proview International (which could have properly affected the trademark transfer from Proview Shenzhen). The problem is that they made an offer that could only be legitimate of they were acting on behalf of the Proview International - which they had the authority to - the offer itself implies it.
Apple bought the trademark from the <people> who had the legal authority to cause the trademark holder to transfer the rights to Apple.
Assertions of corruption in the courts, 'saving face' or whatever else aside, the court just needs time to wade through the legal smoke-screen that Proview is spewing.
Not saying he is right or wrong, but as adamantly as I am a Zither Zather Zuzz has defended ProView's ownership of the Chinese trademark, if they are found to have legitimately transferred the ownership to Apple and guilty of deception, will I am a Zither Zather Zuzz admit he was wrong, or just move on without ever mentioning the issue ever again?
[QUOTE=GoodGrief;2071640]This glosses over the fact that Wang (owner of Proview International, a.k.a. 'the parent')
Ah. That's your misunderstanding. The Hong Kong company is publicly owned. It was traded on the Hong Kong stock market.
Wang is NOT the owner. There are many owners. Wang was a director and an officer. But the owners include many different people and entities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodGrief
at the time <did> have the authority to make a deal
We have no idea what authority he had, if any.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodGrief
to cause the Proview Shenzhen subsidiary to transfer the rights to Apple (or IP Application Development, technically). He was party to the talks, and assertions were made that the Shenzhen-held rights were included.
Yes, he was party to negotiations. But when the time came to sign the papers, Shenzen, the owner, never signed them. They were instead signed by the Taiwan company, who did NOT own the Chinese Trademark.
Maybe that was fraud. But shoud the owners of the Schenzen company get screwed because of it? Maybe, but likely not. It depends a lot on the overlap, if any, in the ownership and creditor structure.
Quote:
Again, this is an after-the-fact claim that Wang (and/or his authorized representatives) were only acting on behalf of Proview Taiwan, not Proview International (which could have properly affected the trademark transfer from Proview Shenzhen). The problem is that they made an offer that could only be legitimate of they were acting on behalf of the Proview International - which they had the authority to - the offer itself implies it.
Maybe, but in fact, at the closing, no transfer of the Chinese trademark was signed by the company who owned it.
Quote:
Apple bought the trademark from the <people> who had the legal authority to cause the trademark holder to transfer the rights to Apple.
No. Apple bought it from a company which did not own it, and had no ability to transfer it. They negotiated with the owner, maybe, but never bought it from the owner.
I read an interesting twist on this sorry tale today. According to Apple, IPAD originally approached Proview Shenzhen to purchase the trademark, and Proview Shenzhen directed them to Proview Taiwan in order to avoid possibly having to turn over the payment to mainland China creditors. If true, it seems like it would then be hard for Proview Shenzhen to claim they weren't involved.
Not saying he is right or wrong, but as adamantly as I am a Zither Zather Zuzz has defended ProView's ownership of the Chinese trademark, if they are found to have legitimately transferred the ownership to Apple and guilty of deception, will I am a Zither Zather Zuzz admit he was wrong, or just move on without ever mentioning the issue ever again?
I'm thinking the latter...
<Boggle>
If you think that I have been "defending Proview's ownership of the Chinese Trademark", then you have understood less than half of what I have said.
I have been correcting massive misunderstandings of fact. Look to past threads to see how I think the ultimate verdict should be pronounced by the court.
Here's the Reader's Digest Condensed version: Apple MIGHT have a good equitable argument, depending on some facts that none of us know. Proview Schenzen most definitely has a solid legal argument.
Here's the Reader's Digest Condensed version: Apple MIGHT have a good equitable argument, depending on some facts that none of us know. Proview Schenzen most definitely has a solid legal argument.
And that is based on -YOUR- understanding of what has made it to press. I seriously doubt you have been made privy to any information than the rest of us who have read into this case. "Depending on some facts that none of us know", NO ONE outside of the legal teams and courts in China know just how solid of a legal argument Proview (in any of it's incarnations) really have.
I'm just saying that based on the usual tone of your posts, if this case is decided in Apple's favor no one here will read an 'I was wrong guys' from you concerning this matter.
And that is based on -YOUR- understanding of what has made it to press. I seriously doubt you have been made privy to any information than the rest of us who have read into this case. "Depending on some facts that none of us know", NO ONE outside of the legal teams and courts in China know just how solid of a legal argument Proview (in any of it's incarnations) really have.
I'm just saying that based on the usual tone of your posts, if this case is decided in Apple's favor no one here will read an 'I was wrong guys' from you concerning this matter.
Insert "Based upon currently available facts" before each of my sentences. I thought that much would have been understood.
And if you can point to a single error I have made, have at it.
Insert "Based upon currently available facts" before each of my sentences. I thought that much would have been understood.
And if you can point to a single error I have made, have at it.
But you haven't inserted "based upon currently available facts" before every statement you've said. Quite the contrary: you have said your opinion as if it were fact. Without further knowledge, neither you nor any of us know the intricate details of this case. Your claims of who owns and/or transferred what marks is based on your biased interpretation of the case as presented in the court, and your interpretations and $5 will buy a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
I'm going out on a limb to assume that you are neither a lawyer for Apple nor ProView, nor a member of the Chinese court in which this case is being heard. Therefor you are relying on translated bits of information about a case for which you don't have all the evidence. Because of that, your biggest error is assuming your belief is the only possible outcome of this case.
As I've said, I am merely interested in seeing that if Apple wins this case, you will man-up and post an "I was wrong, I didn't know what I was talking about." There are long odds on that happening, though.
But you haven't inserted "based upon currently available facts" before every statement you've said.
As I said, I thought that much should have been understood.
Quote:
Because of that, your biggest error is assuming your belief is the only possible outcome of this case.
You have no idea what I have been saying, much less what I assume.
I have said repeatedly that the case could go either way, depending on various factors, including whether the equitable or the legal arguments prevail.
Comments
There is no question as to that, but the difference between fraud and mistake is one of intent.
The Taiwan company gave warranties and reps that they owned the Chinese trademark. That most certainly was false, and was either fraud or mistake.
I don't think that has ever been in question.
But tell me this - do you think it is fair to the owners of the Chinese company to make them transfer the trademark when they were not a party to the Taiwan company's contract of sale?
In a word, yes.
Reason being that based on the documents and statements we've seen so far, Wang and his legal council <were> party to the negotiations. This was before the courts froze assets on behalf of the creditors as a result of the bankruptcy. Wang had the authority to make the transaction, and explicit statements were made that the discussions <included> the mainland China "iPad" rights.
To say that the people at the table had the authority to make the deal on behalf of the holding company [parent], offer something that only the parent had rights to offer, then say three years after the the ink has dried ... "Oh, we were just acting on behalf of the subsidiary, not the parent, even though we made the offer and had the authority to." is a load of bull.
This is practically the definition of a fraudulent act.
If you had a document from a con man claiming he owned the Brooklyn Bridge, and you bought it from him in good faith, you would not own the Brooklyn Bridge. Think about it.
The difference is, that the con-man at the table that Apple made a deal with <did> own the Brooklyn Bridge. The fact that he's trying to pull a con with legal slight-of-hand doesn't change that fact.
And your understanding of Trademark Law is inaccurate. You are thinking of a trademark becoming a generic term. Waiting a couple of years does not result in your trademark being "yanked" .
Actually, based on the information we've recently seen from the Chinese trademark office (specifically as a result of this ongoing clusterf^&k), a trademark in China which goes unused for 3 years <is> a dead trademark and the 'holder' may lose their claim to it.
In a word, yes.
Reason being that based on the documents and statements we've seen so far, Wang and his legal council <were> party to the negotiations. This was before the courts froze assets on behalf of the creditors as a result of the bankruptcy. Wang had the authority to make the transaction, and explicit statements were made that the discussions <included> the mainland China "iPad" rights.
To say that the people at the table had the authority to make the deal on behalf of the holding company [parent], offer something that only the parent had rights to offer, then say three years after the the ink has dried ... "Oh, we were just acting on behalf of the subsidiary, not the parent, even though we made the offer and had the authority to." is a load of bull.
This is practically the definition of a fraudulent act.
Check back in the other threads. You are making an equitable argument, and the equities may be on the side of Apple. I have said that more than once.
The thing that I can't get past, however, is the legal argument. IF the Chinese trademark office showed that the Chinese trademark was owned by the Chinese company, then Apple was negligent in not confirming ownership with the Trademark office. If so, then accepting a transfer from the Taiwanese company was negligent, which tips the balance of equities.
At any rate, the owners of the Chinese company never sold the trademark to Apple. They maybe should get screwed because "the one guy" was in bad faith, but that has to be blanced against Apple's failure to do proper due diligence.
I've said it before - Apple might have a good equitable arguement. But as a matter of law, Apple never received any transfer from the owner of the Chinese trademerk, which was the Chinese subsidiary. Instead, they were bamboozled by the the Taiwanese affiliate.
Will Apple win with an equitable argument? Maybe. But as a matter of law, they never bought the Chinese trademark from the company which owned the Chinese trademark.
Check back in the other threads. You are making an equitable argument, and the equities may be on the side of Apple. I have said that more than once.
The thing that I can't get past, however, is the legal argument. IF the Chinese trademark office showed that the Chinese trademark was owned by the Chinese company, then Apple was negligent in not confirming ownership with the Trademark office. If so, then accepting a transfer from the Taiwanese company was negligent, which tips the balance of equities.
At any rate, the owners of the Chinese company never sold the trademark to Apple. They maybe should get screwed because "the one guy" was in bad faith, but that has to be blanced against Apple's failure to do proper due diligence.
I've said it before - Apple might have a good equitable arguement. But as a matter of law, Apple never received any transfer from the owner of the Chinese trademerk, which was the Chinese subsidiary. Instead, they were bamboozled by the the Taiwanese affiliate.
Will Apple win with an equitable argument? Maybe. But as a matter of law, they never bought the Chinese trademark from the company which owned the Chinese trademark.
This glosses over the fact that Wang (owner of Proview International, a.k.a. 'the parent') at the time <did> have the authority to make a deal to cause the Proview Shenzhen subsidiary to transfer the rights to Apple (or IP Application Development, technically). He was party to the talks, and assertions were made that the Shenzhen-held rights were included.
Again, this is an after-the-fact claim that Wang (and/or his authorized representatives) were only acting on behalf of Proview Taiwan, not Proview International (which could have properly affected the trademark transfer from Proview Shenzhen). The problem is that they made an offer that could only be legitimate of they were acting on behalf of the Proview International - which they had the authority to - the offer itself implies it.
Apple bought the trademark from the <people> who had the legal authority to cause the trademark holder to transfer the rights to Apple.
Assertions of corruption in the courts, 'saving face' or whatever else aside, the court just needs time to wade through the legal smoke-screen that Proview is spewing.
I'm thinking the latter...
Ah. That's your misunderstanding. The Hong Kong company is publicly owned. It was traded on the Hong Kong stock market.
Wang is NOT the owner. There are many owners. Wang was a director and an officer. But the owners include many different people and entities.
at the time <did> have the authority to make a deal
We have no idea what authority he had, if any.
to cause the Proview Shenzhen subsidiary to transfer the rights to Apple (or IP Application Development, technically). He was party to the talks, and assertions were made that the Shenzhen-held rights were included.
Yes, he was party to negotiations. But when the time came to sign the papers, Shenzen, the owner, never signed them. They were instead signed by the Taiwan company, who did NOT own the Chinese Trademark.
Maybe that was fraud. But shoud the owners of the Schenzen company get screwed because of it? Maybe, but likely not. It depends a lot on the overlap, if any, in the ownership and creditor structure.
Again, this is an after-the-fact claim that Wang (and/or his authorized representatives) were only acting on behalf of Proview Taiwan, not Proview International (which could have properly affected the trademark transfer from Proview Shenzhen). The problem is that they made an offer that could only be legitimate of they were acting on behalf of the Proview International - which they had the authority to - the offer itself implies it.
Maybe, but in fact, at the closing, no transfer of the Chinese trademark was signed by the company who owned it.
Apple bought the trademark from the <people> who had the legal authority to cause the trademark holder to transfer the rights to Apple.
No. Apple bought it from a company which did not own it, and had no ability to transfer it. They negotiated with the owner, maybe, but never bought it from the owner.
Not saying he is right or wrong, but as adamantly as I am a Zither Zather Zuzz has defended ProView's ownership of the Chinese trademark, if they are found to have legitimately transferred the ownership to Apple and guilty of deception, will I am a Zither Zather Zuzz admit he was wrong, or just move on without ever mentioning the issue ever again?
I'm thinking the latter...
<Boggle>
If you think that I have been "defending Proview's ownership of the Chinese Trademark", then you have understood less than half of what I have said.
I have been correcting massive misunderstandings of fact. Look to past threads to see how I think the ultimate verdict should be pronounced by the court.
Here's the Reader's Digest Condensed version: Apple MIGHT have a good equitable argument, depending on some facts that none of us know. Proview Schenzen most definitely has a solid legal argument.
Here's the Reader's Digest Condensed version: Apple MIGHT have a good equitable argument, depending on some facts that none of us know. Proview Schenzen most definitely has a solid legal argument.
And that is based on -YOUR- understanding of what has made it to press. I seriously doubt you have been made privy to any information than the rest of us who have read into this case. "Depending on some facts that none of us know", NO ONE outside of the legal teams and courts in China know just how solid of a legal argument Proview (in any of it's incarnations) really have.
I'm just saying that based on the usual tone of your posts, if this case is decided in Apple's favor no one here will read an 'I was wrong guys' from you concerning this matter.
And that is based on -YOUR- understanding of what has made it to press. I seriously doubt you have been made privy to any information than the rest of us who have read into this case. "Depending on some facts that none of us know", NO ONE outside of the legal teams and courts in China know just how solid of a legal argument Proview (in any of it's incarnations) really have.
I'm just saying that based on the usual tone of your posts, if this case is decided in Apple's favor no one here will read an 'I was wrong guys' from you concerning this matter.
Insert "Based upon currently available facts" before each of my sentences. I thought that much would have been understood.
And if you can point to a single error I have made, have at it.
Insert "Based upon currently available facts" before each of my sentences. I thought that much would have been understood.
And if you can point to a single error I have made, have at it.
But you haven't inserted "based upon currently available facts" before every statement you've said. Quite the contrary: you have said your opinion as if it were fact. Without further knowledge, neither you nor any of us know the intricate details of this case. Your claims of who owns and/or transferred what marks is based on your biased interpretation of the case as presented in the court, and your interpretations and $5 will buy a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
I'm going out on a limb to assume that you are neither a lawyer for Apple nor ProView, nor a member of the Chinese court in which this case is being heard. Therefor you are relying on translated bits of information about a case for which you don't have all the evidence. Because of that, your biggest error is assuming your belief is the only possible outcome of this case.
As I've said, I am merely interested in seeing that if Apple wins this case, you will man-up and post an "I was wrong, I didn't know what I was talking about." There are long odds on that happening, though.
But you haven't inserted "based upon currently available facts" before every statement you've said.
As I said, I thought that much should have been understood.
Because of that, your biggest error is assuming your belief is the only possible outcome of this case.
You have no idea what I have been saying, much less what I assume.
I have said repeatedly that the case could go either way, depending on various factors, including whether the equitable or the legal arguments prevail.
Bye bye, Kreskin.
<Plonk>