Apple accuses Proview of 'misleading Chinese courts' over iPad name

2

Comments

  • suddenly newtonsuddenly newton Posts: 13,115member
    Quote:

    "The fact is that Apple's former lawyer made a silly mistake," Xiao said. "Proview still thinks both sides can solve the dispute by peaceful talks."



    Is "peaceful talks" the new term for extortion scheme?
  • minnesota_steveminnesota_steve Posts: 109member
    The interesting piece to me is if they sold something they did not own. Not meaning the foolery of which subsidiary owned what. But was the Chinese subsidiary selling something even they did not own because they were legally bankrupt? It's the only argument that remotely makes sense for the creditors who lost a lot of $.



    Either way, a nuisance for Apple. They have 100 times the cash of the worst case scenario.
  • jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zeromeus View Post


    True! But Proview is already in trouble with creditors as some of them aren't willing to wait... only way is for SOME of the creditors to pay off other creditors to drag this on and on.... and that's a risk they can't take because it's likely Proview will lose.



    That's not the way bankruptcy works.



    There are no other assets. The creditors lose nothing by keeping the bankruptcy case open as long as it takes. It doesn't matter whether Proview is in trouble or not. Nor does it matter if the creditors are impatient or not. There's no money to divide, so no reason to force the issue now.



    And even if there were money to divide, they could divide the existing money and still keep the case open in case Proview wins.



    The statement that Proview can't survive long enough for this to be settled is just plain wrong. Proview 'surviving' is no more than getting the judge to not close the bankruptcy case - and any judge in his right mind would agree to that.
  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    The entire universe aside from you and Proview knows that what you have said is wrong.



    Again, try to keep up.



    What have I said which is wrong? Be specific.
  • omegalinkomegalink Posts: 7member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    What have I said which is wrong? Be specific.



    You are wrong about too many things, and I think it's not worth the effort to list them here.
  • chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,519member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    What have I said which is wrong? Be specific.



    Specifically? Every post you have made here at AI is wrong.
  • jollypauljollypaul Posts: 328member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    The creditors certainly have the ability to keep it going.



    The creditors in this case are large Chinese banks (AKA the Chinese government). So yes, the Chinese government has the ability and motive to keep this going. I would not be surprised if the zombie/puppet company is kept alive on paper to extract ongoing rent from Apple for use of the trademark.



    Such is life in a country without rule of law.
  • ggfggf Posts: 41member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by GregInPrague View Post


    This is such a badly reported story that it's pointless to keep regurgitating it in a way that lends some suggestion of credence to Proview. It's like covering a trial against evolution or global climate change, and taking islamic and christian "scientists" seriously as sources

    Um, it's really quite uninformed and bigoted to claim that a scientist with a Christian (or Islamic) worldview shouldn't be taken seriously on a subject they may be well educated in simply because you disagree with their worldview...



    I have a different objection

    Equating skepticism about global climate change with Christians who don't believe in evolution is silly.



    The predictions of the IPCC have clearly been wrong - they do not stand up to basic scientific scrutiny - see the following submission to the British Parliament

    http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...s_2148505a.pdf



    What the poster should have done is placed climate change alarmists in the same category as the the christian anti evolutionists - that would have been a more logical connection
  • winstein2010winstein2010 Posts: 401member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    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?



    The same officer was representing both the Chinese and Taiwanese entity. It was a common practice to go around the political systems where Chinese and Taiwanese governments "technically" don't recognize each other. In fact, Foxconn is setup the same way. All contracts and negotiations are done via Taiwan affiliate, while the actual manufacturing is done in China.



    I really don't believe Apple made a mistake or not knowing what was really going on. It is most likely Proview's creditors are pushing to get as much money from Apple as possible.
  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by Omegalink View Post


    You are wrong about too many things, and I think it's not worth the effort to list them here.



    Just as I suspected.



    Mindless, spineless insults, with no basis in fact.
  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by winstein2010 View Post


    The same officer was representing both the Chinese and Taiwanese entity. It was a common practice to go around the political systems where Chinese and Taiwanese governments "technically" don't recognize each other. In fact, Foxconn is setup the same way. All contracts and negotiations are done via Taiwan affiliate, while the actual manufacturing is done in China.



    I really don't believe Apple made a mistake or not knowing what was really going on. It is most likely Proview's creditors are pushing to get as much money from Apple as possible.



    The sales contract was signed on behalf of the Taiwanese entity. But they did not own the Chinese trademark.
  • adonissmuadonissmu Posts: 1,723member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    The sales contract was signed on behalf of the Taiwanese entity. But they did not own the Chinese trademark.



    Try to keep up. These guys are on the take.
  • charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,081member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    Apple has no documents proving that the Taiwan company owned the Chinese trademark. None exist.



    They have documents that the company made that claim to them. Apple, or rather IP App Develop Ltd, acted on those claims in good faith.



    What is interesting to me is that Proview or even the creditors didn't act right off when they found out it was Apple behind this IPAD company. Clearly they didn't care about the trademark at that point because they didn't know if the device would be a success. I don't know what IP law in Chinese is like but in the US that stunt would run the risk of back firing due to them not caring for almost two years. US law says you defend from day one or you can find it yanked from you.
  • cferrycferry Posts: 22member
    Is there any way to block comments from another user on this site. I feel an increasingly desperate need to do so.



    Anyone who isn't a monomaniacal troglodyte should understand the need.



    Thanks for any tips you might be able to offer and thanks in general to all the folks who contribute useful information and sane, well-considered, reality-based opinions here.
  • realisticrealistic Posts: 1,111member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    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?



    You are nothing but a pain in the ass troll, YOU JERK. Considering the same guy was in charge of both companies obviously ProView was being dishonest at 'best'.
  • solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by GregInPrague View Post


    Um, it's really quite uninformed and bigoted to claim that a scientist with a Christian (or Islamic) worldview shouldn't be taken seriously on a subject they may be well educated in simply because you disagree with their worldview...



    When talking about science I don't see how non-scientific views should be lumped in there. Nothing in post stated that a belief system was wrong. Personally, I don't care if one believes in a flying spaghetti monster but if they tell me that we all evolved from macaroni I'm not going to give credence to that in a scientific sense without something to back it up.
  • realisticrealistic Posts: 1,111member
    Is there a way to get I am a Zither Zather Zuzz banned from AI? He spouts his slanted BS to incent the same arguments over and over.
  • uguysrnutsuguysrnuts Posts: 459member
    Hardly. These sites rely on eyeballs and traffic to lure advertisers. Spin doctoring, sensationalism and of course, recalcitrants or self-proclaimed "devil's advocate" or self-appointed messiahs tend to bump up those precious numbers.



    So who really cares about providing news? (sarcasm) It is all about the ads.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Realistic View Post


    Is there a way to get I am a Zither Zather Zuzz banned from AI? He spouts his slanted BS to incent the same arguments over and over.



  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


    They have documents that the company made that claim to them. Apple, or rather IP App Develop Ltd, acted on those claims in good faith.



    What is interesting to me is that Proview or even the creditors didn't act right off when they found out it was Apple behind this IPAD company. Clearly they didn't care about the trademark at that point because they didn't know if the device would be a success. I don't know what IP law in Chinese is like but in the US that stunt would run the risk of back firing due to them not caring for almost two years. US law says you defend from day one or you can find it yanked from you.



    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.



    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" .
  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by Realistic View Post


    You are nothing but a pain in the ass troll, YOU JERK. Considering the same guy was in charge of both companies obviously ProView was being dishonest at 'best'.



    "The same guy" may be guilty of fraud. The Taiwanese company is most certainly in breach of their warranty of ownership.



    But the Chinese company never signed any bill of sale, and they still own the trademark.
Sign In or Register to comment.