AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Proview speaks out on US suit, accuses Apple of fraud & unfair competition
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Proview speaks out on US suit, accuses Apple of fraud & unfair competition - Page 2

post #41 of 92
2/27/12 at 1:05pm
Was so proud of the group, no feeding of the trolls!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel View Post

Point out one thing Apple did hat was bad? Does the iPad somehow compete with proview? (It doesn't , not in any way at all). The core of previews claim seems to be the guy saying it wouldn't compete. It doesn't.
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 92
2/27/12 at 1:07pm
Hindsight is 20/20!

If Proview wanted $100 million, Apple could just call it iNewton instead of iPad, and Proview gets nothing.
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 92
2/27/12 at 1:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I haven't enjoyed this much stupidity since Psystar.

Yep. When will these people understand that they cannot outsmart Apple?
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 92
2/27/12 at 1:10pm
Has anyone considered the fact that the trademark may be worth billions now, but it was NOT when Apple (or iPAd Ltd or whoever) bought it. Apple MADE IT worth billions by creating a great product and marketing it like crazy.
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 92
2/27/12 at 1:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ Web View Post

New York based trademark attorney Martin Scwhimmer said Apple's approach was a "level of ruse" he has "never encountered."

Have to agree with Mr. Schwimmer here... Though I find Apple's penchant for Hollywood style derring do amusing, if true Apple's little charade strikes me as downright deceptive.

Not really. It's how business is done in todays market. This is just a waste of time for Apple. No court will ever hold for Proview. I'm sure Apple could find 100 lawyers that would say just the opposite of what Scwhimmer said. You have to be insane to quoting a lawyer. They will always say what benefits them when talking to the press (i.e. he might be looking for work with Proview).
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 92
2/27/12 at 1:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by williamh View Post

Has anyone considered the fact that the trademark may be worth billions now, but it was NOT when Apple (or iPAd Ltd or whoever) bought it. Apple MADE IT worth billions by creating a great product and marketing it like crazy.

And as one post in another thread pointed out, many didn't even like the iPad name in the beginning. It was the product that made the name, not the other way around. I firmly believe that if it had be called the iSlate, it would be just as popular now as the iPad. That's what Proview is failing (or refusing to see), that Apple made the name what it is today.
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 92
2/27/12 at 1:15pm
Chinese company asks for a trademark lawsuit? Fuck them. They have been running off with ideas from everywhere around the world without regard. Now they want to sue US company that is a big part of their economy much less the US economy. Get a life.
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 92
2/27/12 at 1:18pm
Still waiting for someone to point to the law that forbids the purchase of a trademark via an intermediary...
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 92
2/27/12 at 1:20pm
I think it's the end of the business careers for those behind Proview:

I wouldn't trust them to look after a child's piggy bank, much less a corporation.

The greedy, envious and desparate actions of this company in the courts are frankly, distasteful.

Proview wasn't forced to sell, they sold at a price which was acceptable to them.
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 92
2/27/12 at 1:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague View Post

Proview could have written the contract to say that the buyer wasn't allowed to use the trademark to compete against them. But, they didn't write the contract that way. If that had been their concern they should have had better lawyers/contract writers before the sale rather than now.


Does ProView make tablet computers? Or anything remotely resembling any Apple products or services?
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 92
2/27/12 at 1:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

Zealots will try and defend this no doubt - but any way you slice it, its just a bad Apple.

Remind me to add you to my "blocked" list.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #52 of 92
2/27/12 at 1:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

Still waiting for someone to point to the law that forbids the purchase of a trademark via an intermediary...

Somehow, I think this is probably one of the first things Apple would have looked into given how much business they do in China.
Reply
Reply
post #53 of 92
2/27/12 at 1:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbonner View Post

Companies do this all the time, Disney used shell companies to purchase the land in Florida, otherwise the price get's jacked up, which they would have done if they had known it was Apple. It sounds like a fair price was agreed upon, no reason that price should change because it was Apple at the table.


I was just going to give the same example. If highly visible companies DON'T hide their identity and intentions, they would be taken advantage of for otherwise low-value assets. This is the way it has to be done.
Reply
Reply
post #54 of 92
2/27/12 at 1:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkbrogers View Post

So in China Proview says that they don't have an agreement - but in the US they say they do have an agreement ?? Which is it going to be ?
Seems they just lost their own argument in one country or another.

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.
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 92
2/27/12 at 1:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

Does ProView make tablet computers? Or anything remotely resembling any Apple products or services?

I don't think they make anything now they are bankrupt. I think that's the reason they are pushing their luck for a payout.
Reply
Reply
post #56 of 92
2/27/12 at 1:58pm
Oh snap!

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #57 of 92
2/27/12 at 2:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

"To further this deception, Apple used an intermediary, Farncombe International and its Managing Director, Graham Robinson, to create an elaborate but false pretext for the purchase of Proview's IPAD trademarks," the statement reads. "Apple created a special purpose company named IP Application Development Limited ("IPAD Ltd."), then concealed the fact that this company was acting as an agent of Apple.

Happens all the time in real estate, and for obvious reasons.
Reply
Reply
post #58 of 92
2/27/12 at 2:13pm
So Proview's latest claim is that Apple doesn't own the iPad name because Apple bought it under a different name, and had Proview known it was Apple, they would've held out for a few more zeros?

Hey Proview! No takesies-backsies!
Reply
Reply
post #59 of 92
2/27/12 at 2:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronbo View Post

Happens all the time in real estate, and for obvious reasons.

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.
Reply
Reply
post #60 of 92
2/27/12 at 2:26pm
[insult removed]
Reply
Reply
post #61 of 92
2/27/12 at 2:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bsginc View Post

Fail to see any valid purpose for the California lawsuit. The transaction took place between a company incorporated in the UK and a company incorporated in Taiwan acting, at it's own admission, on behalf of it's parent company in China.

The Taiwan company has no parent company in China. Instead, the parent company is from Hong Kong.

Therefore, the Taiwan company made no such "admission". It is difficult to come to valid conclusions when one is mistaken as to the facts.
Reply
Reply
post #62 of 92
2/27/12 at 2:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


Also Proview Taiwan is the parent, not China.

Proview Taiwan is not the parent. Proview Schenzen is not the parent. Each of them are subsidiaries of a company incorporated in Hong Kong.
Reply
Reply
post #63 of 92
2/27/12 at 2:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

Proview Taiwan is not the parent. Proview Schenzen is not the parent. Each of them are subsidiaries of a company incorporated in Hong Kong.

It's hard to imagine that anyone is the parent they way Proview is acting.

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #64 of 92
2/27/12 at 2:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by xsu View Post

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.



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.
Reply
Reply
post #65 of 92
2/27/12 at 3:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkbrogers View Post

So in China Proview says that they don't have an agreement - but in the US they say they do have an agreement ?? Which is it going to be ?
Seems they just lost their own argument in one country or another.

Quote:
Originally Posted by xsu View Post

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.

Who was trying to defraud who? You missed the part where Proview Taiwan very unambiguously implied they were authorized to sell the "global" rights which specifically included China, as referenced by emails. And they took the money, which was based on the assumption that China was included. Oh, and the same guy is behind both companies. Pretty clear cut fraud, not a "muddled mess".
Reply
Reply
post #66 of 92
2/27/12 at 3:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post

[insult removed]

That was fast. Thank you Mr. H!
Reply
Reply
post #67 of 92
2/27/12 at 3:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

Who was trying to defraud who? You missed the part where Proview Taiwan very unambiguously implied they were authorized to sell the "global" rights which specifically included China, as referenced by emails. And they took the money, which was based on the assumption that China was included. Oh, and the same guy is behind both companies. Pretty clear cut fraud, not a "muddled mess".

While "the same guy" is presumably involved with the three companies, it is far from clear that ownership of the three was solely in "the same guy".

Often there are more than one owner, with bits and pieces owned by various companies and individuals. In this situation, I have seen no clear statements regarding ownership. Most importantly, I have seen no indication that any of the Proview entities were sole proprietorships. Additionally, there are indications that the creditors of the three are not identical.
Reply
Reply
post #68 of 92
2/27/12 at 3:19pm
  • hmm
  • Keylogger
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ Web View Post

New York based trademark attorney Martin Scwhimmer said Apple's approach was a "level of ruse" he has "never encountered."

Have to agree with Mr. Schwimmer here... Though I find Apple's penchant for Hollywood style derring do amusing, if true Apple's little charade strikes me as downright deceptive.


Somehow I am guessing Mr. Schwimmer is being portrayed incorrectly here. He didn't really say anything that was indicative of lending credibility to Proview's case. A dummy corporation isn't anything new. What would be the actual basis for reversing ownership here? His complaint is based around not having known the true net worth of the buyer. Had he wanted to, he could have walked on the deal at that time if they wouldn't disclose who was funding it.
Reply
Reply
post #69 of 92
2/27/12 at 3:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

While "the same guy" is presumably involved with the three companies, it is far from clear that ownership of the three was solely in "the same guy".

Often there are more than one owner, with bits and pieces owned by various companies and individuals. In this situation, I have seen no clear statements regarding ownership. Most importantly, I have seen no indication that any of the Proview entities were sole proprietorships. Additionally, there are indications that the creditors of the three are not identical.

I'm not addressing any of that. I am saying who committed fraud. As a presumably authorized agent of the companies in question, the "same guy" committed fraud.
Reply
Reply
post #70 of 92
2/27/12 at 3:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

Because according to them they were taken by the fraud and the mark is worth much more than they were tricked into taking for it. So the sale should be voided as unfair so they can demand more money.

I say let them have it. And Apple simply refuse to change the product name and thus refuse to sell in those areas. and when the various countries refuse to block smugglers from bringing in the product to sell themselves, sue etc

Oh and move all iPad production out of China. Foxconn does have factories in Brazil etc. Let them have the iPad.

I'm glad you're not running Apple. Corporations that act on emotion do not succeed.
Reply
Reply
post #71 of 92
2/27/12 at 3:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

While "the same guy" is presumably involved with the three companies, it is far from clear that ownership of the three was solely in "the same guy".

Often there are more than one owner, with bits and pieces owned by various companies and individuals. In this situation, I have seen no clear statements regarding ownership. Most importantly, I have seen no indication that any of the Proview entities were sole proprietorships. Additionally, there are indications that the creditors of the three are not identical.

That's certainly a possibility.

BUT, it is impossible for Yang to say that Apple did the wrong thing when Apple did what Yang wanted him to do and Yang agreed to transfer the trademark in all 10 countries. Clearly, Yang was acting fraudulently.

I'm still trying to figure out how you could honestly think that Apple was in the wrong here. *shakes head*
Reply
Reply
post #72 of 92
2/27/12 at 3:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

The mark is only worth more because of what Apple subsequently invested in it. Proview accepted what the mark was worth at the time. That's how agreements are made.

Score: 5 (Insightful)
"And just like that, everyone here realizes you're just another sweaty little Google licker with an axe to grind and no idea what he's talking about." --addabox
Reply
"And just like that, everyone here realizes you're just another sweaty little Google licker with an axe to grind and no idea what he's talking about." --addabox
Reply
post #73 of 92
2/27/12 at 3:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

The Taiwan company has no parent company in China. Instead, the parent company is from Hong Kong.

And, coincidentally, the Hong Kong court stated that Proview was guilty of fraud and should complete the transfer of the trademark to Apple. If the HK company is the parent, they have all the authority they need to do that.
Reply
Reply
post #74 of 92
2/27/12 at 3:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

Does ProView make tablet computers? Or anything remotely resembling any Apple products or services?

I think I read that they used to make an iMac look-alike.
Reply
Reply
post #75 of 92
2/27/12 at 3:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

The Taiwan company has no parent company in China. Instead, the parent company is from Hong Kong.

Therefore, the Taiwan company made no such "admission". It is difficult to come to valid conclusions when one is mistaken as to the facts.

That makes it even more interesting, in that it's the Hong Kong court that ruled for Apple, and criticized Proview for selling the Chinese rights to the name, but failing to register it.
Reply
Reply
post #76 of 92
2/27/12 at 4:25pm
I wish my company was a client of the PR firm Powell-Tate as it would give me great pleasure to fire them for being so stupid in taking on this extortionist. Anyone else out there that can kick them to the curb? If they are an ethical company why would they take on such an unethical client? They should be punished in the marketplace as any 6 year old could see from the evidence that Proview is clearly engaged in extortion.
Reply
Reply
post #77 of 92
2/27/12 at 4:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth View Post

That makes it even more interesting, in that it's the Hong Kong court that ruled for Apple, and criticized Proview for selling the Chinese rights to the name, but failing to register it.

If ever there was a definition of frivolous, ProView's suit takes the prize (from PsyStar?).
Reply
Reply
post #78 of 92
2/27/12 at 5:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

And, coincidentally, the Hong Kong court stated that Proview was guilty of fraud and should complete the transfer of the trademark to Apple. If the HK company is the parent, they have all the authority they need to do that.

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.
Reply
Reply
post #79 of 92
2/27/12 at 5:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647 View Post

I've had this happen to me. Yahoo used a disguise company to purchase a domain from me. I could have got much more, but you know what? That's how the cookie crumbles. If it was worth more to me, no matter who wanted it, I would have requested a higher number, no matter who is on the other end.

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.
Reply
Reply
post #80 of 92
2/27/12 at 5:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

I'm not addressing any of that. I am saying who committed fraud. As a presumably authorized agent of the companies in question, the "same guy" committed fraud.

He may be personally liable. I can't argue with that.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Proview speaks out on US suit, accuses Apple of fraud & unfair competition
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Proview speaks out on US suit, accuses Apple of fraud & unfair competition