or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Shanghai court sides with Apple in iPad trademark dispute, sales to continue
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Shanghai court sides with Apple in iPad trademark dispute, sales to continue - Page 2

post #41 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post

Proview should get nothing and Apple should not settle.

If anything Apple should sue them for defamation and wipe them off the map.
I understand that they have some investment banks behind them, perhaps Apple can sue them too.

Just look at the evidence...

http://allthingsd.com/20120216/take-...-ipad-dispute/

Proview sold the name globally including China and got paid for it.

You probably don't run a multinational corporation - companies don't make emotional decisions in cases like this. Apple may have been willing to pay a few million for the name in the beginning, and may decide do so now. Information is prety sketchy in all this - there's a claim that Proview was in receivership at the time of the sale, so it legally needed the banks' approval to go through with it.
post #42 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth View Post

You probably don't run a multinational corporation - companies don't make emotional decisions in cases like this. Apple may have been willing to pay a few million for the name in the beginning, and may decide do so now. Information is prety sketchy in all this - there's a claim that Proview was in receivership at the time of the sale, so it legally needed the banks' approval to go through with it.

AppleSauce007 has a point. Apple's best interest could be in making an example of Proview for trying to defraud them. That isn't emotion, that's calculated.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #43 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

The problem is that NONE of the Proview organizations had the legal right to sell the name without the bank's approval. The banks had seized Proview's assets as much as 9 months before Yang signed the agreement and Yang's authority to sell assets was no longer valid. The banks did not approve the transfer, so there is a strong argument (by the banks, not Yang) that the trademark was not legally transferred.

Cool. Now you're starting to get it. The news about the timing is something new.

That was exactly what I said yesterday, before we knew for sure about the timing:

[QUOTE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

I think that the court should order the registry to change the official record to show that Apple owns the name but only if the 3 different Proview companies have basically the same creditor structure. This is the "Proview's all the same one guy" argument.

If the 3 companies are NOT controlled by the same creditors, it would not be fair to the creditors of the Schenzen company to let the trademark be transferred. That would favor the Taiwan creditors.

If taking the equitable route would serve to hurt some creditors while helping others, I'd take the purely legalistic route and rely on the fact that Proview Schenzen was the registered owner, and Proview Schenzen never signed any sales contract.
/QUOTE]
post #44 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

Cool. Now you're starting to get it. The news about the timing is something new.

That was exactly what I said yesterday, before we knew for sure about the timing

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


The problem is that NONE of the Proview organizations had the legal right to sell the name without the bank's approval. The banks had seized Proview's assets as much as 9 months before Yang signed the agreement and Yang's authority to sell assets was no longer valid. The banks did not approve the transfer, so there is a strong argument (by the banks, not Yang) that the trademark was not legally transferred.


it does not make sense. if what you said were correct, how come apple's shill company still tried to make a deal with YANG instead of its creditors? didn't they understand that YANG's proviewS are in banks' hand?
post #45 of 63
There was an article in the Vancouver Sun about a business woman in China that is facing the death penalty after being accused of corrupt financial dealings. Maybe Chan has something to worry about.
post #46 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

It's probably too late for them to get even millions. The only deal they're likely to get now is a deal for Apple not to sue them for defamation if they drop all further proceedings.


I think they could get a little money if they could prove that they had no idea that the big boys in the company sold the rights to Apple without their knowledge. But it would be based on the value of the mark at the time of the sale, not now. So no more than the same $55k Apple already paid as that was the value Proview had put on the mark.

I think that Apple is taking a good tact here. They are going after the areas where they would be selling the iPad themselves and getting the local courts to side with them. They get enough of those and it would be harder for the higher courts to dispute their claims. Not impossible since the high courts are the higher knowledge and jurisdiction but the press would kill the courts with the negative backlash.

I still maintain that Apple should move iPad and even iPhone production out of China at least somewhat (say no more than 50% of it remains) that way the export threats aren't as great of a threat because they can still produce units even if it means another reservation etc mess to sort out like last year. People proved they would still come and buy even if they had to wait up to a month. If Apple is very clear about the reasons why the delay must happen and put in a system where folks could put down their name, what they want and where they want to pick it up (or have it shipped) then Apple could leverage online and the whole in store pickup systems. When your name comes up you have say 24 hours to complete your order and then it is sent to your chosen pickup spot. Arrives in 3-5 days already paid for. That could also handle the whole bulk buyers to resell issue as well. They could have checks on your apple id, credit cards etc.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #47 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by anakin1992 View Post

it does not make sense. if what you said were correct, how come apple's shill company still tried to make a deal with YANG instead of its creditors? didn't they understand that YANG's proviewS are in banks' hand?

That may not have been public knowledge at that point and Yang may have committed fraud by indicating that he was solvent.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #48 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

The problem is that NONE of the Proview organizations had the legal right to sell the name without the bank's approval. The banks had seized Proview's assets as much as 9 months before Yang signed the agreement and Yang's authority to sell assets was no longer valid. The banks did not approve the transfer, so there is a strong argument (by the banks, not Yang) that the trademark was not legally transferred.

So if Proview didn't have the legal right to sell the trademark in any area, why aren't they pushing that as a reason to invalidate. Why haven't we had dozens of articles about that side of the issue with Apple claiming they were not told that Proview had already filed for bankruptcy etc (adding to the bad faith dealings claims)

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #49 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

The thing is, iPad doesn't even matter in China. You could call it XYpad and it would sell. Apple also sells Airport devices in Japan under the AirMac name. The brand doesn't matter a bit.

Apple changed the name in Japan because the group that owned the name there didn't want to sell.

That is not the case here. Apple was led to believe they legally bought the name. They shouldn't have to change it and they are fighting that very cause.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #50 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by anakin1992 View Post

it does not make sense. if what you said were correct, how come apple's shill company still tried to make a deal with YANG instead of its creditors? didn't they understand that YANG's proviewS are in banks' hand?

It seemed to them, maybe, that they were doing things in an efficient manner. Hey - they seemingly didn't even check the public trademark registry before doing the deal. So for them to have checked with the bankruptcy court is not likely.

Proview Taiwan said in the contract that they owned the Chinese trademark, even though they did not. I'd have to double check, but they probably gave another representation saying that the trademark was unencumbered.

This was a sloppy, sloppy deal.
post #51 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

That may not have been public knowledge at that point and Yang may have committed fraud by indicating that he was solvent.

if YANG's proviews were in process of bankruptcy while talking to apple for trademark transfer, it would be legal for apple to deal with them if its bankruptcy was not announced yet. then why are those proview's creditors crying for foul from apple? they should sue YANG instead, shouldn't they?
post #52 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by anakin1992 View Post

if YANG's proviews were in process of bankruptcy while talking to apple for trademark transfer, it would be legal for apple to deal with them if its bankruptcy was not announced yet. then why are those proview's creditors crying for foul from apple? they should sue YANG instead, shouldn't they?

Yang is bankrupt. He seems likely to be personally liable for lots of the misfortunes here. But nobody can punish him or recover from him economically.

If there are enough facts to support a criminal fraud charge, he may go to jail, but I haven't heard of any smoking guns in that situation. Not yet, anyways. I think that things look very bad for him. The best he can do is plead ignorance of the facts. Not knowing who owned what in his companies is pretty bad, but less bad than knowingly lying to a buyer.
post #53 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by anakin1992 View Post

if YANG's proviews were in process of bankruptcy while talking to apple for trademark transfer, it would be legal for apple to deal with them if its bankruptcy was not announced yet. then why are those proview's creditors crying for foul from apple? they should sue YANG instead, shouldn't they?

Because Proview did not have the right to sell assets without the bank's permission.

Think of it this way. If someone places a lien on your home, that doesn't mean you're bankrupt, but it does prevent you from selling the home. Now a lien on your home would be easy to find. It may not be so easy to find the orders that prevented Proview from selling assets.

You'll also notice that the creditors are NOT going after Apple at this point. I'm sure they'd rather throw Yang under the bus if they can get a reasonable settlement. That's why all the actions involve Yang and not the banks.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #54 of 63
Good! All 😊
post #55 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Because Proview did not have the right to sell assets without the bank's permission.

Think of it this way. If someone places a lien on your home, that doesn't mean you're bankrupt, but it does prevent you from selling the home. Now a lien on your home would be easy to find. It may not be so easy to find the orders that prevented Proview from selling assets.

You'll also notice that the creditors are NOT going after Apple at this point. I'm sure they'd rather throw Yang under the bus if they can get a reasonable settlement. That's why all the actions involve Yang and not the banks.

don't creditors come into picture only after proviews declared bankruptcy?

following your explanation, can i conclude that all of the other 10 trademark deals are also void because proview can not sell them without creditors' permission?
post #56 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by anakin1992 View Post

don't creditors come into picture only after proviews declared bankruptcy?

Not at all. As I pointed out, if a bank has a lien on your home, you can not sell the home without the bank's approval - even if you are completely solvent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anakin1992 View Post

following your explanation, can i conclude that all of the other 10 trademark deals are also void because proview can not sell them without creditors' permission?

That's a good point. It suggests that the issue might not be whether Yang had permission to sell.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #57 of 63
Wha. . .??

This is new. Proview is suing Apple over the iPad name...
in California!

Can't claim they don't have a pair.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...926896520.html
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #58 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Wha. . .??

This is new. Proview is suing Apple over the iPad name...
in California!

Can't claim they don't have a pair.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...926896520.html

If this is their only chance then why not go for it but they will lose. There is nothing I can see that looks remotely illegal about how Apple handled the deal. I see no reason for the courts not to side with Apple over the proceedings that would have otherwise have had Proview fleece Apple for more money had they known how deep the pockets of the buyer were.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #59 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

If this is their only chance then why not go for it but they will lose. There is nothing I can see that looks remotely illegal about how Apple handled the deal. I see no reason for the courts not to side with Apple over the proceedings that would have otherwise have had Proview fleece Apple for more money had they known how deep the pockets of the buyer were.

I agree.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #60 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Wha. . .??

This is new. Proview is suing Apple over the iPad name...
in California!

Can't claim they don't have a pair.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...926896520.html

Desperation is often mistaken as Courage.
post #61 of 63
Meanwhile another headline could be "China can't pass Apple gas".

Seems an iPhone-branded shipment of gas stoves was seized as fakes by the Chinese. I wonder what gave it away?



http://micgadget.com/22531/chinas-st...mpaign=Feed%3A
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #62 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Meanwhile another headline could be "China can't pass Apple gas".

Seems an iPhone-branded shipment of gas stoves was seized as fakes by the Chinese. I wonder what gave it away?



http://micgadget.com/22531/chinas-st...mpaign=Feed%3A

Other than the logo, it looks like a well-made product...
post #63 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Meanwhile another headline could be "China can't pass Apple gas".

Seems an iPhone-branded shipment of gas stoves was seized as fakes by the Chinese. I wonder what gave it away?



http://micgadget.com/22531/chinas-st...mpaign=Feed%3A



I like the uniform. Looks like he came right out of the turn of the century... As in 1900.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Shanghai court sides with Apple in iPad trademark dispute, sales to continue
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Shanghai court sides with Apple in iPad trademark dispute, sales to continue