Experts say Proview could benefit from secrecy Apple used to obtain 'iPad' name

124»

Comments

  • mhiklmhikl Posts: 471member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by boredumb View Post


    To me, its simple: Apple told a lie to gain a monetary advantage. . . . Really, you amateur lawyers aren't much better than the real ones. . . . I'm less concerned with what is illegal than with what is dishonest. And Apple was clearly dishonest here.

    . . .



    So because Disney or Apple is huge, it has to pay more than what something is worth on the market of the day.



    So who else was willing to pay $55,000 or more for the letters IPAD at the time of its sale. Doesn't sound like there was a line up of purchasers. Apple has other trade marks it has paid for that it hasn't used and may never use but it is smart business for Apple to keeps its options open.



    We can only speculate where Proview would be today if Apple hadn't purchased the iPad name from them at the time. The company was in dire straights at that point. Maybe without the $55000 they would be but a minor memory, infamous only for its attempt to copy an earlier Apple design.



    If you wish to live by the sword (blatantly copy another), die by the sword. I'd say it was comeuppance.
  • jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    You still here?



    Are you willing to admit your errors of fact?



    The Hong Kong court never ruled that Chinese trademark had been transferred to Apple. You were wrong.



    The Hong Kong court never ordered Proview to transfer the name to Apple. You were wrong.



    What I said was that the Hong Kong court had ruled that Apple bought the trademark and Proview had failed to follow through. They also ordered Proview to stop trying to sell the trademarks and to stop claiming that they owned the trademarks.



    Only in your bizarre little world would you use the Hong Kong decision to claim that Apple was wrong.
  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    What I said was that the Hong Kong court had ruled that Apple bought the trademark and Proview had failed to follow through. They also ordered Proview to stop trying to sell the trademarks and to stop claiming that they owned the trademarks.




    You are starting to get closer! Keep backpedaling.
  • jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    You are starting to get closer! Keep backpedaling.



    I'm not backpedalling at all.



    I am, however, getting tired of pointing out how insane your position is that the Hong Kong decision is somehow a loss for Apple.
  • freediverxfreediverx Posts: 1,340member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    Apple is in big trouble because they did not buy the Chinese trademark from the company who owned it. They should have confirmed ownership with the public trademark registry in each country. For whatever reason, Apple bought the Chinese trademark from a company that did not own it.

    .



    Apple already produced evidence that ProView representatives from both Taiwan and China were involved in the negotiations and that there was no question as to which office had the rights to sell the trademark. If anyone has committed fraud here, it appears to have been ProView.
  • nagrommenagromme Posts: 2,834member
    If it’s illegal to buy a trademark secretly this way (unlikely) then Apple should get busted for it.



    Either way, that seems pretty unrelated to the big case: whether Apple DID buy the trademark in China at all, or whether they did not! (I mean, if Apple didn’t truly obtain the rights at all, then what does it matter what method Apple used to fail to obtain them?)



    I’m still waiting for Proview (the parent company that sold the name) to sue Proview (the subsidiary that changed its mind 2 years later). It would be fittingly absurd.
  • suddenly newtonsuddenly newton Posts: 13,081member
    Quote:

    "I have never encountered this level of ruse," said New York-based trademark attorney Martin Schwimmer of Apple's approach.



    Disney did the same when they went shopping for large tracts of land near Orlando Florida. Had they gone shopping as "The Walt Disney Co", sellers would have quickly figured out their plans to build a new theme park and would have taken them to the cleaners.
  • retiariusretiarius Posts: 142member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post


    In the 1960's Disney bought 20,000 acres of land in Florida (through a differently-named business entity) that became Disneyworld. They used a different business entity to prevent land owners from jacking up the price if they knew it was Disney doing the buying. This was perfectly legal.



    Likely the same way Apple has purchased parcels of property in Cupertino. SOP, I would think.
  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    I'm not backpedalling at all.



    I am, however, getting tired of pointing out how insane your position is that the Hong Kong decision is somehow a loss for Apple.



    I never said that the Hong Kong decision is a loss for Apple.



    You can either quote me on that, or backpedal faster. Or run away.
  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by freediverx View Post


    Apple already produced evidence that ProView representatives from both Taiwan and China were involved in the negotiations and that there was no question as to which office had the rights to sell the trademark. If anyone has committed fraud here, it appears to have been ProView.





    Two out of three ain't bad. Schenzen owned the Chinese trademark. Apple accepted a purported transfer from Taiwan.
  • retiariusretiarius Posts: 142member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by waldobushman View Post


    Great point. Given the importance Apple places on names, I suspect they purchased "iPad" among many other potential names without knowing at the time what name Steve Jobs was going to go with. We should all recall the grief Apple took when this "iPad" name was announced, and the MadTV skit playing on the iPod, iPad name. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lskbO1k9VO0



    Apple's defense should be the prices they paid for all the other "i" names they purchased in anticipation of the actual launch.



    The last sentence reminds me -- how is the Cisco iPhone selling these days ?!?

    More seriously, did Apple have to pay Cisco a huge sum for that particular trademark?
  • realisticrealistic Posts: 1,111member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jcsegenmd View Post


    As a long-term fanboy, I usually side with apple, but on this one, they overstepped the line. While what Apple did to procure the name may be correct, it ain't right. The right thing?in my view, for what it's worth, because Apple needed to maintain secrecy before the product was launched?they should now offer Proview a few million, because the cost of the defending the lawsuit in multiple fora will easily cost that. Everybody walks away happy and Apple won't look like a bully?for the moment.



    BS on your viewpoint. You sell things for what you can get at the time and be happy with that or you don't sell it. It shouldn't matter who you are selling it to.
  • macky the mackymacky the macky Posts: 4,621member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post


    I mean really, how thick are Proview??



    If a random company lacking in history was looking to buy any name which began with a small 'i' from me, I'm pretty sure I would suspect it might be Apple.



    True! However, at the time this "other company" was buying the iPad name from Proview, it was also securing the name from other entities. If it were known that Apple was interested in the iPad name, before it could secure all the needed rights, people would have been camping on all sorts of web site names that would have had iPad as part of the name.

    The cost of doing business for Apple would have been high and people like Proview trying to extort money like crazy. I have to gove it to Proview for having the balls to go after Apple even after selling the name.to this other company that did business for Apple to secure the name. If Apple did pay this other company even $1 for the name, then Apple is the rightful owner and Proview needs to pick a fight with the intermediary... not Apple.
  • tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by boredumb View Post


    I'm less concerned with what is illegal than with what is dishonest. And Apple was clearly dishonest here.







    So you are telling me if my step dad who is extremely wealthy has me (who is not wealthy) go buy something at the local pawn shop for him (where they tend to make prices up on the spot), we have been dishonest? Please people buy things for other people. Companies buy things for other companies. There is no dishonestly in having a proxy purchase something for you. It happens in the world of real estate all thing time. Do you think when Warren Buffet started gobbling up Intel stock, the parties he was buying it from knew it was Buffet buying the stock? They aren't. Why aren't investors like Buffet required to disclose when they are buying large amounts of public stock before they buy the stock? Shouldn't sellers like me be required to know who is buying it? Yet, it isn't until after the stock is bought that we the public know who bought it all.



    What made the iPad name valuable was what Apple did with the name. Further, in the US you can only own a trademark for a product or service actually in use. Proview wasn't continuing to use the trademark. Apple was just tying up possible loose ends when in reality it probably could have used the mark and not been in trouble. Moreover, any company that put an "i" in front of the name after the iPod and iMac was looking to capitalize off Apple's trademarks. Just like when Cisco went and trademarked the name iPhone after the press for years before where calling Apple's unannounced product the iPhone. Cisco wouldn't have trademarked that name had it not been for Apple's association and use of "i" in its trademarks. Same here with Proview. Proview selected the name because of Apple.



    Apple shouldn't have to pay a premium for something that is worthless to any party other than Apple.
  • tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by retiarius View Post


    The last sentence reminds me -- how is the Cisco iPhone selling these days ?!?

    More seriously, did Apple have to pay Cisco a huge sum for that particular trademark?



    I am willing to bet Apple paid Cisco nothing. If it was something, it was close to nothing. Years before Cisco trademarked the name iPhone people had been calling Apple's unannounced phone an iPhone. Cisco was trading off the goodwill of Apple's use of "i" in it's other products names. Apple likely would have beat Cisco in Court.
  • sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    [In reference to the "experts"]



    What rubbish. So anyone that is looking to buy a trademark has to tell the seller what their plans are? I don't see anything wrong with Apple using a "front company", they've acted legally and reasonably in purchasing the trademark.



    Please.



    What case does Proview have? They sold the iPad trademark to a company. Whether that company is ACME, Apple, IP Applications or ASuperDuperSecretProjectYouShouldChargeMoreForThis Trademark, it doesn't matter. They sold it, and they didn't transfer it, and since then they've been up to funny business (or "conspiracy to defraud and injure" in legal parlance).



    Edit: Yes, Apple's proxy company providing a false name and a false motivation for purchasing the trademark could be rationally looked at as a legitimate issue. But as I mention in the other thread, in light of Proview's track record, it is hard for them to be pointing the finger.
  • sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    You don't know it was fraud. It could have been a mistake.



    The fact remains that Mr. Yang, acting for all Proview companies, entered a written contract to sell the China Trademark, and didn't do so. Now he claims that Apple didn't buy the non-China Trademarks because Apple was so on and so forth, despite the records showing the non-China Trademarks being transferred to Apple.



    If there was a mistake, he was given ample opportunity to rectify it, and he didn't, and now is launching all these crazy lawsuits and engaging the corrupt China dictatorship.



    I think it's quite clear that it is conspiracy to defraud and injure, there has no mistake by Mr. Yang, unless the mistake has occured due to an illness, of which I would empathise with, but have not heard about.
  • "I have never encountered this level of ruse," said New York-based trademark attorney Martin Schwimmer of Apple's approach."



    LOL.



    Martin must be separated at birth from Alan Greenspan. I wouldn't say this too loudly, Mr. Schwimmer, some of your clients might not like that you fell off the turnip truck just yesterday.



    Maybe we can introduce him to holding companies, subsidiaries and blind trusts as well.
  • You are right, not letting people know how rich you are would mean that Rush Limbaugh has to go back and pay more for those OxyContin tablets he had his maid purchase...
Sign In or Register to comment.