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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'.
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.
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
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.
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" .
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.
Comments
"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?
Either way, a nuisance for Apple. They have 100 times the cash of the worst case scenario.
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.
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.
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.
What have I said which is wrong? Be specific.
Specifically? Every post you have made here at AI is wrong.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'.
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.
So who really cares about providing news? (sarcasm) It is all about the ads.
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.
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" .
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.