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

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 66
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    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.



    Yang basically says he did not approved his own actions in Taiwan, and because officially China does not recognize Taiwan's government and its laws, Chinese court does not care. Yang knows this very well because he is from Taiwan.
  • Reply 42 of 66
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


    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.



    Ho ho ho. It could be even more complex than we know. Proview owes the Chinese banks a billion dollars?!? That is very serious in China, as others have pointed out. So the state has a complex problem here and are surely looking for money to cover that in some way. Just imagine if there are other entities doing some bribing of officials. Then it becomes more than patents. Methinks MS got involved to bolster the claim for a reason. Do the judges have a 'deal' to pretend to shut down exports just for show for a few weeks? is this corporate politics on the world stage? Playing with fire, them.
  • Reply 43 of 66
    Nationals interest? Sounds like Apple is a bit desperate here.
  • Reply 44 of 66
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    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.



    I never said that Hong Kong made that judgment.



    What I said was that the Hong Kong court had issued a judgment that Proview could not further encumber the trademark nor could they claim any ownership at this point. The suggestion that Proview sell the trademark to Samsung would be a very clear violation of that court order. Even Proview's current public claims are probably a violation.
  • Reply 45 of 66
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    I never said that Hong Kong made that judgment.




    Good. Because no court has ever held that Apple owns the trademark in China. On that, we can agree.
  • Reply 46 of 66
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    Good. Because no court has ever held that Apple owns the trademark in China. On that, we can agree.



    it is absurd that apple lawyer quoted "national interest of china". sound stupid, but threatening. i don't think they would see the result as they want.
  • Reply 47 of 66
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    Good. Because no court has ever held that Apple owns the trademark in China. On that, we can agree.



    Well, let's see:

    http://www.chinabuzz.net/buzz/hong-k...pute-in-china/

    Quote:

    In the court decision, Judge Hon Poon writes that Proview?s conduct smells of conspiracy driven by financial desperation, and that there?s reason to believe that it acted in breach of its agreement with Apple by wrongfully refusing to honor its obligation to hand over the iPad trademark in China.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anakin1992 View Post


    it is absurd that apple lawyer quoted "national interest of china". sound stupid, but threatening. i don't think they would see the result as they want.



    Not the least bit absurd. If that were the only argument Apple used, it might be foolish. But since Apple used plenty of legal arguments, there's nothing foolish about appealing to patriotism, as well.
  • Reply 48 of 66
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    Well, let's see:

    http://www.chinabuzz.net/buzz/hong-k...pute-in-china/












    Wait. Are you trying to say that the Hong Kong court held that Apple owns the Chinese trademark, or not? That question has not even come before them. They made no such decision.



    You seem to be going back and forth on this.
  • Reply 49 of 66
    adamcadamc Posts: 515member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by penchanted View Post


    I'll say it once again. It's time Apple tell Foxconn to get the Brazilian facility up to capacity ASAP and that Foxconn needs to scout alternative,non-Chinese locations for manufacturing. The threat of moving production from China will cause the court to move with great caution. But this should not be a threat- Apple should insist that Foxconn diversify their manufacturing base because it is the prudent thing to do.



    I believe he was saying this when he said China's national interest will be harmed.
  • Reply 50 of 66
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by astra4 View Post


    I would assume these legal arguments were presented as well, but adding this political consideration seems apropriate in a country known for a judicial system that takes politics into consideration...



    Sounds like every country to me....
  • Reply 51 of 66
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    Wait. Are you trying to say that the Hong Kong court held that Apple owns the Chinese trademark, or not? That question has not even come before them. They made no such decision.



    You seem to be going back and forth on this.



    Are you incapable of reading the article? Once again, the article I cited said:

    Quote:

    In the court decision, Judge Hon Poon writes that Proview?s conduct smells of conspiracy driven by financial desperation, and that there?s reason to believe that it acted in breach of its agreement with Apple by wrongfully refusing to honor its obligation to hand over the iPad trademark in China.



  • Reply 52 of 66
    Interesting argument: Proview adds nothing to China's economy.
  • Reply 53 of 66
    galbigalbi Posts: 968member
    So Apple's lawyers want to strong hold the court into dishing out cost benefit analysis instead of interpreting the laws.



    Its okay to infringe on others' products as long as it contributes to the local economy.



    If that is the case, what is the point of having a court system in the first place?
  • Reply 54 of 66
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    I randomly wonder if it would be considered a personal attack to say someone isn't the sharpest tool in the shed but note that they are the biggest.
  • Reply 55 of 66
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    I randomly wonder if it would be considered a personal attack to say someone isn't the sharpest tool in the shed but note that they are the biggest.



    "randomly wonder"



  • Reply 56 of 66
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    Are you incapable of reading the article? Once again, the article I cited said:



    And you take that to mean that the Hong Kong court held that Apple owns the trademark in China? Or not?



    Keep in mind that ultimate ownership of the trademark was not even on the table in Hong Kong.
  • Reply 57 of 66
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Galbi View Post


    So Apple's lawyers want to strong hold the court into dishing out cost benefit analysis instead of interpreting the laws.



    Its okay to infringe on others' products as long as it contributes to the local economy.



    If that is the case, what is the point of having a court system in the first place?



    Naw. They were arguing the balance of harm if the injunction were to be ordered vs. being denied.
  • Reply 58 of 66
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    I randomly wonder if it would be considered a personal attack to say someone isn't the sharpest tool in the shed but note that they are the biggest.



    That would not get you a demerit around here, but it would be childish nevertheless.



    A grown up would cite the particular places where the big tool missed the mark, or would keep quiet.
  • Reply 59 of 66
    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.



    Since you seem to be following this rather closely, I'm curious what your personal opinion is about whether Apple owns the trademarks (whether they were transferred by Proview or not).



    It seems to me, and I am not a legal expert by any means, that Yang was in fact in direct control of all Proview's subsidiaries, and that assertion was also made by the Hong Kong court:



    "Proview Holdings, Proview Electronics and Proview Shenzhen, all clearly under Yang's control, have refused to take any steps to ensure compliance ..." and "as the chairman and chief executive officer of Proview Holdings and the responsible person and director of Proview Electronics as the legal representative, general manager, and chairman of both Proview Shenzhen and Yoke Technology, he had at the material time management and control over them;"



    The fact that the emails from Proview's Legal Department negotiating the deal contain the footer "PROVIEW TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) CO., LTD" and Shenzhen address, at least to me, imply that Proview Shenzhen was driving the deal from their side.



    In my opinion, I feel that Proview (in all of it's manifestations) sold the trademark to Apple (visa vie IP Applications) but then failed to execute the paperwork to actually execute the transfer. Again, I'm curious as to what your opinion is having read (presumably) the same documents I have.
  • Reply 60 of 66
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by austingaijin View Post


    Since you seem to be following this rather closely, I'm curious what your personal opinion is about whether Apple owns the trademarks (whether they were transferred by Proview or not).



    It seems to me, and I am not a legal expert by any means, that Yang was in fact in direct control of all Proview's subsidiaries, and that assertion was also made by the Hong Kong court:



    "Proview Holdings, Proview Electronics and Proview Shenzhen, all clearly under Yang's control, have refused to take any steps to ensure compliance ..." and "as the chairman and chief executive officer of Proview Holdings and the responsible person and director of Proview Electronics as the legal representative, general manager, and chairman of both Proview Shenzhen and Yoke Technology, he had at the material time management and control over them;"



    The fact that the emails from Proview's Legal Department negotiating the deal contain the footer "PROVIEW TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) CO., LTD" and Shenzhen address, at least to me, imply that Proview Shenzhen was driving the deal from their side.



    In my opinion, I feel that Proview (in all of it's manifestations) sold the trademark to Apple (visa vie IP Applications) but then failed to execute the paperwork to actually execute the transfer. Again, I'm curious as to what your opinion is having read (presumably) the same documents I have.



    You've pretty well summed it up.
Sign In or Register to comment.