Apple failed to check the public records and "bought" the Chinese trademark from a company that did not own it.
Other than that, I don't think that "Apple was in the wrong here". Given that, Apple might be fucked.
I think that Apple may have a good equitable arguement, but legally, they're in deep trouble.
I'm curious how you know that Apple failed to check the public records?
You seem to spend far more time making unfounded accusations than anyone here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast
I'm not sure that would necessarily be the case. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the U.S. at least, but just because a company is a subsidiary doesn't mean a court's ruling can affect one through the other, especially is the mix of ownership is different. If ABC did something illegal, is Viacom always affected, for instance?
I wish it was binding, because the spirit of the law should certainly be on Apple' side.
It's not that simple.
The parent company (ABC in the case you cite) could negotiate to sell some of Viacom's assets. Viacom, OTOH, could not negotiate to sell ABC's (non-Viacom) assets without permission.
If you look at what is Apple's core business, Apple is not in the business of negotiating and purchasing trademarked names. So, it is right and proper for them to hire an outside company with such skills to act as their agent to do so.
I, myself, am an independent agent for several manufacturers. I am not employed by the manufacturers, I an contracted by them to do certain things on their behalf. If I break any laws while going about conducting any business on their behalf, they are not liable; I am.
That's common law.
... And that makes sense. What doesn't make sense to me is companies having sublets that would have to specialize in getting IP.
It makes more sense to hire an outside agency that has more experience doing so.
Apple should change the name of their product, give back the TM and recoup the 55,000$ plus interest. Oh, wait, Proview is in debt for way more than 55,000$. nevermind...
I seem to recall that this happened with Walt Disney & Walt Disney World. Disney and Co wanted to buy a crap-ton of swampland in South Florida, but wanted a fair market price for it, so they purchased it using various pseudonyms. When the sellers found out who had actually purchased the land, they were really kicking themselves.
If this is what Apple and others do, then this could be something to be looked into. However, Proview (Mr. Yang, in charge of all Proview companies) has acted from Day Zero with conspiracy to defraud and injure, which makes anything they say, well, just hilarious at this stage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xsu
The entity that had sold iPad name to Apple's agent was Proview Taiwan, which held all rights to the iPad name for everywhere except China. The entity that did not sell iPad name to Apple's agent was Proview Shenzhen, located in China. Both entities are owned by the same person, but are legally two separate entities. But the original agreement between Proview Taiwan and Apple's agent was ambiguous enough that you can't really tell that Proview Shenzhen was not part of the deal. That gave Proview the opportunity to sue Apple when it started selling iPad in China.
So it's a fine muddled mess as to who was trying to defraud who when they signed the original agreement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
It is refreshing to see a post with so few factual errors.
The only one I spotted was WRT ownership of the two subsidiaries.
Seemingly, Proview Hong Kong had an interest, and perhaps a controlling interest, in each of them. However, we don't know if Hong Kong was the sole owner, or whether each of the three had somewhat different ownership and creditor structures.
Nope, and nope. Standard FUD which seems to be rehashed endlessly. There is no parent, daughter, sister, brother, child, roommate-from-college company. It's all one person, Mr. Yang, who has acted with conspiracy to defraud and injure, who at all times was in charge of all Proview companies. There is also no "ambiguity", Mr. Yang and Proview continually indicated that they were the sole owners of the China Trademarks, no Proview-here or Proview-there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
He may be personally liable. I can't argue with that.
Indeed, Mr. Yang is personally liable for fraud and injury. Additionally, he is acting in a libelious and damaging way to Apple and anyone concerned with fair and regulated global business practices with regard to this matter.
Additionally, the non-China Trademarks have been legitimately transferred to Apple, without a shadow of a doubt. Now Proview is trying to get it back by saying that Apple acted illegally. Which rationally is a possibility but in light of Proview's continued conspiracy to defraud and injure, makes Proview's claims rather... silly.
... And that makes sense. What doesn't make sense to me is companies having sublets that would have to specialize in getting IP.
It makes more sense to hire an outside agency that has more experience doing so.
That's a tricky one, because the outside agency would deal in this for a large variety of companies, including competitors and would-be-competitors. As such, there is much risk of cross-contamination and cross-leaks.
I would bet a lot of money that if Apple's iPad had been DOA, this would be a non-issue. The problem is that Apple is preparing for the iPad 3 release, and the product has been insanely popular.
It is Proview's fault for undervaluing their trademark (if they even owned it due to bankruptcy). If they didn't like the answers to their questions from Apple's shell company purchasing the trademark, than they didn't have to sell it. But Proview came up with a price for the IPAD trademark, and sold it to the shell corporation, which transferred it to Apple.
Proview is simply trying to extort money from Apple because of how big the company is, how much money they have and how successful the iPad product is. Whether it was fair, or ethical is a different question, but Apple did everything by the books, and as many people on here have pointed out, TONS of companies have done this to keep things secret.
Why doesn't Apple make some part of the iPad work with EYE recognition, and then change the name to eyePad ? and these guys can go Fuc%$# themselfs.
NOBODY made them sell the name for $55,000.00. I'll bet they had a meeting after getting that check and said "Man those folks are crazy" "who in their right mind would pay $55,000.00 for that name", as they laughed they're way to the bank, and now boy are they pissed!
I'm curious how you know that Apple failed to check the public records?
You seem to spend far more time making unfounded accusations than anyone here.
Had they checked and seen that the trademark was owned by the Schenzen company, and then proceeded to accept an assignment from the Taiwan company nevertheless, they would be dolts instead of hapless victims.
Had they checked and seen that the trademark was owned by the Schenzen company, and then proceeded to accept an assignment from the Taiwan company nevertheless, they would be dolts instead of hapless victims.
I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt.
IOW, you're making things up because you have no idea what the real facts of the matter are.
Does ProView make tablet computers? Or anything remotely resembling any Apple products or services?
Yep, Proview only has a machine looks like 1st generation iMac with CRT monitor, a shoddy copy of it. And, Proview really called it iPAD, not iPad. After fail in the market, Proview just made a LCD Monitor with IPAD trademark, still fail.
Comments
Apple failed to check the public records and "bought" the Chinese trademark from a company that did not own it.
Other than that, I don't think that "Apple was in the wrong here". Given that, Apple might be fucked.
I think that Apple may have a good equitable arguement, but legally, they're in deep trouble.
I'm curious how you know that Apple failed to check the public records?
You seem to spend far more time making unfounded accusations than anyone here.
I'm not sure that would necessarily be the case. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the U.S. at least, but just because a company is a subsidiary doesn't mean a court's ruling can affect one through the other, especially is the mix of ownership is different. If ABC did something illegal, is Viacom always affected, for instance?
I wish it was binding, because the spirit of the law should certainly be on Apple' side.
It's not that simple.
The parent company (ABC in the case you cite) could negotiate to sell some of Viacom's assets. Viacom, OTOH, could not negotiate to sell ABC's (non-Viacom) assets without permission.
If you look at what is Apple's core business, Apple is not in the business of negotiating and purchasing trademarked names. So, it is right and proper for them to hire an outside company with such skills to act as their agent to do so.
I, myself, am an independent agent for several manufacturers. I am not employed by the manufacturers, I an contracted by them to do certain things on their behalf. If I break any laws while going about conducting any business on their behalf, they are not liable; I am.
That's common law.
... And that makes sense. What doesn't make sense to me is companies having sublets that would have to specialize in getting IP.
It makes more sense to hire an outside agency that has more experience doing so.
I seem to recall that this happened with Walt Disney & Walt Disney World. Disney and Co wanted to buy a crap-ton of swampland in South Florida, but wanted a fair market price for it, so they purchased it using various pseudonyms. When the sellers found out who had actually purchased the land, they were really kicking themselves.
If this is what Apple and others do, then this could be something to be looked into. However, Proview (Mr. Yang, in charge of all Proview companies) has acted from Day Zero with conspiracy to defraud and injure, which makes anything they say, well, just hilarious at this stage.
The entity that had sold iPad name to Apple's agent was Proview Taiwan, which held all rights to the iPad name for everywhere except China. The entity that did not sell iPad name to Apple's agent was Proview Shenzhen, located in China. Both entities are owned by the same person, but are legally two separate entities. But the original agreement between Proview Taiwan and Apple's agent was ambiguous enough that you can't really tell that Proview Shenzhen was not part of the deal. That gave Proview the opportunity to sue Apple when it started selling iPad in China.
So it's a fine muddled mess as to who was trying to defraud who when they signed the original agreement.
It is refreshing to see a post with so few factual errors.
The only one I spotted was WRT ownership of the two subsidiaries.
Seemingly, Proview Hong Kong had an interest, and perhaps a controlling interest, in each of them. However, we don't know if Hong Kong was the sole owner, or whether each of the three had somewhat different ownership and creditor structures.
Nope, and nope. Standard FUD which seems to be rehashed endlessly. There is no parent, daughter, sister, brother, child, roommate-from-college company. It's all one person, Mr. Yang, who has acted with conspiracy to defraud and injure, who at all times was in charge of all Proview companies. There is also no "ambiguity", Mr. Yang and Proview continually indicated that they were the sole owners of the China Trademarks, no Proview-here or Proview-there.
He may be personally liable. I can't argue with that.
Indeed, Mr. Yang is personally liable for fraud and injury. Additionally, he is acting in a libelious and damaging way to Apple and anyone concerned with fair and regulated global business practices with regard to this matter.
... And that makes sense. What doesn't make sense to me is companies having sublets that would have to specialize in getting IP.
It makes more sense to hire an outside agency that has more experience doing so.
That's a tricky one, because the outside agency would deal in this for a large variety of companies, including competitors and would-be-competitors. As such, there is much risk of cross-contamination and cross-leaks.
It is Proview's fault for undervaluing their trademark (if they even owned it due to bankruptcy). If they didn't like the answers to their questions from Apple's shell company purchasing the trademark, than they didn't have to sell it. But Proview came up with a price for the IPAD trademark, and sold it to the shell corporation, which transferred it to Apple.
Proview is simply trying to extort money from Apple because of how big the company is, how much money they have and how successful the iPad product is. Whether it was fair, or ethical is a different question, but Apple did everything by the books, and as many people on here have pointed out, TONS of companies have done this to keep things secret.
NOBODY made them sell the name for $55,000.00. I'll bet they had a meeting after getting that check and said "Man those folks are crazy" "who in their right mind would pay $55,000.00 for that name
Skip
He who laughs last ?
I'm curious how you know that Apple failed to check the public records?
You seem to spend far more time making unfounded accusations than anyone here.
Had they checked and seen that the trademark was owned by the Schenzen company, and then proceeded to accept an assignment from the Taiwan company nevertheless, they would be dolts instead of hapless victims.
I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Had they checked and seen that the trademark was owned by the Schenzen company, and then proceeded to accept an assignment from the Taiwan company nevertheless, they would be dolts instead of hapless victims.
I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt.
IOW, you're making things up because you have no idea what the real facts of the matter are.
Does ProView make tablet computers? Or anything remotely resembling any Apple products or services?
Yep, Proview only has a machine looks like 1st generation iMac with CRT monitor, a shoddy copy of it. And, Proview really called it iPAD, not iPad. After fail in the market, Proview just made a LCD Monitor with IPAD trademark, still fail.