Originally Posted by Corporate
I dont understand what the hell the court needs to look at. They just need a tiny bit of common sense...
-Apple was a decently wealthy company when they bought the trademark. The only reason they wanted to buy it with a 'special purpose company' was to get the ACTUAL value for the name, not the 'you are a rich company, so you must pay more' value. Also they most likely didn't want to give away any bit their future plans for the iPad (including the name).
-Proview waited nearly 2 years to take Apple to court with all their BS claims. If this was a legitimate claim, they would have filed it as soon as Apple started producing the first iPad in China. Instead they wait until their company literally has nothing to lose in trying this.
-The court should also look at how Apple conducts all their other purchases. This is the only problem (that I know of) in Apple's asset buying career.
I just don't see how the courts can't see this whole thing for what it is. A SCAM. I hope the courts aren't corrupted and let Proview get away with this. I also hope that if Proview's claims get dismissed, the company and the owner and any other officials who claimed this get the book thrown at them. If the court makes an example of this company it will save the court time, and it will teach other companies not to try this.
You are absolutely right. It is common practice everywhere for buyers often to not disclose their true identity where this might prejudice them by encouraging the seller to ask a higher price based on the identity of the buyer and the buyer's ability to pay more.
It is a basic principle at equity that a fair price is based on a price that a willing buyer and are willing seller are willing to buy and sell a property. That is the basis valuations are made.
The same principle applies if a seller disguises his or her true identity. For example if somebody was known to be heavily in debt, they may decide too sell their property through a nominee in order that the buyer did not get to know that they were a forced seller. In this case if a buyer was later to find out the true identity of the seller, they could not go to court and say I paid too much because I did not know the identity of the seller. If I had known then I would have offered to pay less. That argument would be laughed out of court!
Another argument Proview are using in their US case is that the buyer promised not to compete with Proview. It appears based on the facts that Apple has not competed with Proview using the iPad trademark because Proview have never produced and sold a tablet. They used the IPAD trademark for a iMac look alike built in 1999, which they had stopped producing before they sold the trademark. It could also be argued that Apple has never competed with Proview because Proview was effectively bankrupt and had ceased trading by the time the iPad began to be sold.
Also Apple are invoking the doctrine of "Use it or lose it" . Proview have never used the trademark for a tablet, therefore they have no right to it for tablets. Furthermore it appears that Proview had ceased selling the IPAD iMac rip-off years before theys sold the trademark to Apple.
Another argument that Apple are using in their case in the Shanghai Court and presumably will be using in their Appeal, is that of public interest. Around the world this argument is frequently upheld in IP cases. For example the US's ITC does look at national interest & consumer interest in IP cases. Here Apple have a very strong case given the number of Chinese workers employed making iPads. It would throw hundreds of thousands onto the streets if Apple were prevented from selling iPads. This could cause civil unrest, which is definitely a national interest issue for China.