Apple tells court banning iPad sales would 'hurt China's national interest'

24

Comments

  • solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Foxconn needs to get involved with this case for their own benefit.
  • haarhaar Posts: 503member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post


    ... ever since they took over from the Egyptians...







    except those pyramids required precision that is only possible by using skilled craftsmen in the arts of brick laying...
  • wigginwiggin Posts: 2,060member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    Weak. Very weak.



    What happenend to "We bought it fair and square"?



    What happened to "Look at these emails"?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bageljoey View Post


    The reporting on this issue has been strange. I don't know the finer legal points, though I see the logic in each side's claims. It really comes down to legal details on the transaction that few of us here are qualified to speak on. (I happen to fall into the category that thinks that the seller is trying to break the contract because they realize they WAY underpriced their product, but I cannot be certain that they don't have a legal point in their favor.)



    Nevertheless, I find it odd that Apple's lawyers talk about the impact of the verdict on China. It also seems strange that the judge would say that iPad sales could not be stopped because it is popular. Seems to me, the case should be decided based on points of law and not what is difficult or most profitable...



    As others have pointed out, we have to keep in mind that the China is, after all, a Communist country and the judicial system is not necessarily an independent entity like in other countries. Also, being an Asian culture, "saving face" and "apologies" are very powerful concepts. Apple's threat of filing a defamation lawsuit and arguing that Proview's actions are hurting the country as a whole are probably very valid arguements to be making in such a venue.
  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    Foxconn needs to get involved with this case for their own benefit.



    If Apple had the choice to ditch Foxcon, then why is it currently putting up with the damage to their brand that Foxcon is creating?



    ISTM that Apple is in deep and would have significant trouble changing its entire worldwide production system.



    Such a move would likely take significant amounts of time, and even more significant amounts of money.
  • pk22901pk22901 Posts: 84member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    Weak. Very weak.



    What happenend to "We bought it fair and square"?



    What happened to "Look at these emails"?



    Just guessing: Maybe they've also argued that.



    What's your thinking, Zuzz?
  • anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 16,834member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by drobforever View Post


    It's silly to try to fight this, they've $100B, they can easily bribe a few officials' sons and be done with it.



    Wow. You do need to educate yourself, son. See: http://www.fcpa.us/
  • citycity Posts: 521member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by williamh View Post


    The argument about hurting the Chinese national interest is only about the question of banning iPad sales, not about the underlying trademark dispute. Proview wants a ban on iPad sales before the trademark dispute is finally settled. Since Proview has no product, no sales, no competing "iPad" product, no nothing, they are not harmed by continued sale of the iPad. Obviously Apple would be harmed, but Apple's alleging also a harm to China from a ban on the sale of Apple's iPad.



    That makes sense.
  • flaneurflaneur Posts: 3,786member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    If Apple had the choice to ditch Foxcon, then why is it currently putting up with the damage to their brand that Foxcon is creating?



    ISTM that Apple is in deep and would have significant trouble changing its entire worldwide production system.



    Such a move would likely take significant amounts of time, and even more significant amounts of money.



    Deleted. Zither seems to be trying this morning, except for his first post, which was a "weak, very weak" attempt at trouble-making.
  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by pk22901 View Post


    Just guessing: Maybe they've also argued that.



    What's your thinking, Zuzz?



    I originally missed that this was another local "ban sales" hearing, rather than the higher court appeal, which is still pending.



    In the higher court, the subject is whether or not there was a transfer of ownership. In this court, the subject seems to rightly include the larger effects of banning sales, pending a (more?) final decision that Apple does not own the trademark.



    The ultimate question is under appeal. This court decides what to do in the meantime, in one area. Likely, because the question is different, the arguments too need to be different.
  • matrix07matrix07 Posts: 1,993member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bageljoey View Post


    Nevertheless, I find it odd that Apple's lawyers talk about the impact of the verdict on China. It also seems strange that the judge would say that iPad sales could not be stopped because it is popular. Seems to me, the case should be decided based on points of law and not what is difficult or most profitable...



    You have to understand. Apple is fighting Chinese company in Chinese court. It has to remind Chinese judge how important iPad is to China.
  • nexttechnocratinexttechnocrati Posts: 74member
    Proview doesn't negotiate and offers to sell the "iPad" name to SAMEsung for use in China for a hefty sum? I'm sure SAMEsung will not think twice knowing that it loves to taunt Apple all the time.
  • tshorttshort Posts: 32member
    s/iPad/MacPad/g



    Or any other name they care to. It's not uncommon to use different names in different places. ProView owns the trademark in China, I don't see how they could prevent someone from building a product for explicit export into another country where they don't own the trademark.
  • tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 39,987member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NextTechnocrati View Post


    Proview doesn't negotiate and offers to sell the "iPad" name to SAMEsung for use in China for a hefty sum? I'm sure SAMEsung will not think twice knowing that it loves to taunt Apple all the time.



    First, they don't have rights to the name, Apple does.



    Second, don't do that. You know what I'm talking about; it's just childish.
  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by NextTechnocrati View Post


    Proview doesn't negotiate and offers to sell the "iPad" name to SAMEsung for use in China for a hefty sum? I'm sure SAMEsung will not think twice knowing that it loves to taunt Apple all the time.



    The Hong Kong court enjoined Proview from further encumbering the trademark. They did that because they decided that there were significant questions that each needed a full trial to decide, and that in the meantime, the status quo should be preserved.
  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    First, they don't have rights to the name, Apple does.








    No court has ever made that judgement, and the official Chinese trademark registry says otherwise.



    Apple has a claim that in all fairness, the trademark should be transferred to them. But that is all Apple has at this point.



    I don't think that the current ownership is in question, but rather, the question is whether whether ownership should be transferred from Proview to Apple.
  • jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    No court has ever made that judgement, and the official Chinese trademark registry says otherwise.



    Apple has a claim that in all fairness, the trademark should be transferred to them. But that is all Apple has at this point. I don't think that the current ownership is in question, but rather, the question is whether whether ownership should be transferred from Proview to Apple.



    You are incorrect. The Hong Kong court has already made that judgment. Proview would be in contempt of that court if they try to sell the trademark before everything is resolved.



    Apple made another argument which has so far been ignored. They argued that Proview has not used the iPad trademark for years and therefore they have lost the rights to the trademark.



    I can't see any way that Proview can win this - since Yang (who runs all the different Proviews) was involved in the transaction. He can not claim that the subsidiary acted without his approval - since he controls the subsidiary and was involved with the deal.
  • charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,068member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    Weak. Very weak.



    What happenend to "We bought it fair and square"?



    What happened to "Look at these emails"?



    They aren't talking about that at this point. THey are talking about banning import and especially export of the product until it is settled. Remember they are possibly about to release an new iPad. If the government bans exports then that kills that release everywhere. So that's the first concern.



    Then once that is covered they will deal with the whole 'we already bought it' issue. Which might come down to Apple agreeing to pay for China but not at the current value. After all they acted in good faith, it was Proview that didn't. So why should they make billions for 'cheating' so let them have a second payment of $50k which was the value of the 'mark when the sale was taking place.
  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    You are incorrect. The Hong Kong court has already made that judgment.







    If you can quote language from the Hong Kong decision in which they have reached a final judgement that Apple owns the trademark in China, please do so.



    I did not see any such language. If I missed it, please quote it.



    The Hong Kong decision can be accessed at All Things D. Look at the Appendix, which lists the actual decisions made. Also check out Paragraph 1, which states that the decision relates to an application for an interlocutory injunction.



    No decision was made with respect to the ultimate ownership of the Chinese trademark. No such decision was asked for. Instead, the decision relates to Apple's request for certain injunctions, pending a trial on the issue of ownership.



    This stuff is complicated, but it isn't THAT complicated. There are 5 players, and so far, 3 or 4 major venues.
  • elrothelroth Posts: 1,201member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    Weak. Very weak.



    What happenend to "We bought it fair and square"?



    What happened to "Look at these emails"?



    I'm sure that's part of it also.
  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bageljoey View Post


    The reporting on this issue has been strange. I don't know the finer legal points, though I see the logic in each side's claims. It really comes down to legal details on the transaction that few of us here are qualified to speak on. (I happen to fall into the category that thinks that the seller is trying to break the contract because they realize they WAY underpriced their product, but I cannot be certain that they don't have a legal point in their favor.)




    The fine legal details likely matter less than some broad legal principles.



    Apple is arguing fraud or mistake. The emails that have recently come to light support that. Broadly, nobody should benefit or get hurt by fraud or a mistake.



    The problem that Apple has, in my view, is that the trademark registry showed that the the registered owner of the trademark was never a party to the actual sales contract. Broadly, registered owners are not liable for third parties selling their stuff. That is one hugely important reason why public registries exist.



    The fact that the seller and the registered owner are affiliates under common ownership is the only "fine point" that I see here. It may come down to whether or not the three Proview entities have identical ownership, or whether "that one guy" merely had an interest in each of the three. At any rate, they seem to be controlled by creditor's committees in the Bankruptcy courts at this point in time, which may also throw more "fine points" into the mix.





    But it can be seen, at its heart, as a battle between the two broad principles outlined above.
Sign In or Register to comment.