Like many others I had thought that Proview were pulling a fast one, whining because they lost out on a opportunity to milk apple.
The following however shows things in a completely different light.http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...12+PRN20120227
Proview claim that IPAD Ltd had told them that they wanted the ipad name because of their initials.
When pressed about IPAD Ltd's use of the name, they were vague, with Graham Robinson of IPAD Ltd assuring Proview that "As I said in my last message, I can assure you that the company will not compete with Proview." Perhaps Mr Robinson was being honest in so far as IPAD Ltd would not be competing in the same industry but Robinson would probably have been aware what the name would be used for.
Proview also assert that Robinson used a false name (Jonathan Hargreaves).
If any of the above does prove to be true it does raise some very serious questions about the conduct of IPAD Ltd and the extent to which Apple were directing Robinson.
Of course, it is up to the courts to decide if Proview's claim holds any water. If not they deserve to be slapped with the mother of all fines, if however their claim is upheld then Apple had better prepare to dig deep into their pockets.