or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Proview and Apple argue in China higher court over 'iPad' trademark
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Proview and Apple argue in China higher court over 'iPad' trademark - Page 2

post #41 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Secular Investor View Post

Also, there is a perverse inherent contradiction in Proview's case. In mainland China they claim they did not sell the iPad trademark to Apple, but in in the US they claim they DID SELL THE IPAD Trademark to Apple, but were duped into doing so.

They never denied that the Taiwan company sold the rights in several countries. They are consistent in their denial that the Taiwan company had the ability to sell the Chinese trademark.
post #42 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth View Post

You're parsing words (again), and hanging on to threads. The Hong Kong court said flat out that Yang was an active participant in a conspiracy (the judge's words), and said Proview should have transferred the rights to Apple.

so we agree that they should have, but ultimately, they did not?
post #43 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

The Chinese trademark was not bought by Apple. They bought it in several other countries.

No, the price paid was for the "global rights" and emails entered into evidence show China was specifically listed. So the one entity took the money, then said a different entity owned the Chinese rights, even though Yang is an Officer of both and both are owned by the same parent entity.
post #44 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corporate View Post

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.
post #45 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

This is about shaking down Apple. Proview has no intention of taking the iPad name back. Their motive is to get Apple to cough up some money. And Apple has a lot of money. If Chinese courts side with Proview I predict a nondisclosure settlement for no where near the $2 billion figure being bandied about. This will definitely leave a bad taste in Apple's mouth regarding China. The Chinese communist government may not be adverse to shaking down a company like Apple but they don't want to take it too far either. After all Foxconn is building a factory in Brazil don't you know.

That's right - a cowardly shakedown and nothing else.
post #46 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

They never denied that the Taiwan company sold the rights in several countries. They are consistent in their denial that the Taiwan company had the ability to sell the Chinese trademark.

But the Hongkong Court found that ALL the Proview companies were controlled by Yang AT ALL MATERIAL TIMES.

You Zither of course are kindred spirit of Yang's and believe that his argument that his right hand does know what his left hand is doing and vice versa is a good argument.

But Provie/Yang's argument has been blown out of the water by the finding of the Hongkong court, as it would be in any Western court.
post #47 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

Two Chinese courts have decided exactly that. Apple is now appealing the decision of one of those courts.

What two Chinese courts have entered a judgment on the merits of the case? Certainly not the Hong Kong court as the February decision contemplates a trial. Every ruling so far deals with preliminary matters that do not find facts. So stop representing that someone has found the facts in the cases.
post #48 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by tcasey View Post

Says Proview.

Please if you wish to converse with a troll, don't quote the text so we don't have see or read their crap over and over. It defeats the purpose of the ignore list.
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."
Reply
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."
Reply
post #49 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

Yang never owned the Chinese trademark. It is owned by Proview Schenzen, which is a subsidiary of a publicly owned company based in Hong Kong.

z.z.z.,

1: who owned proview shenzen?
2: who owned proview taiwan?
3: who owned proview hong kong?
post #50 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

so we agree that they should have, but ultimately, they did not?

Whether they did or did not is academic and frankly distracts from the central issue of ending Proview's behavior regarding the Chinese trademark. The Hong Kong decision clearly contemplates a constructive trust of the Chinese trademark meaning that Apple is at least the equitable owner of the trademark and therefore the beneficiary of same.
post #51 of 58
Can everyone please put ZZZ on their ignore lists. He ruins the whole article by posting only things that support his argument while ignoring all the facts that prove him wrong again and again. Put him on your ignore list, don't encourage him. ZZZ enjoys getting people POd, it is his only reason for being here.
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."
Reply
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."
Reply
post #52 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Realistic View Post

Can everyone please put ZZZ on their ignore lists. He ruins the whole article by posting only things that support his argument while ignoring all the facts that prove him wrong again and again. Put him on your ignore list, don't encourage him. ZZZ enjoys getting people POd, it is his only reason for being here.

Agreed! It makes it so much nicer to read the (mostly) reasonable, rational comments without z's blather making a mess of things. Save your sanity. Put him on ignore.
post #53 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I think at this point we should just copy-paste our old posts from the other ten threads on this, because no matter how many times the losing side says it, they're still going to be wrong.

It's easier to write a one line sentence [and maybe I'll copy and paste that], which are the facts, and people can choose to keep ignoring it, I'll keep writing it.

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

The Chinese trademark was not bought by Apple. They bought it in several other countries.

Incorrect. Yang, representing Proview, sold all the iPad trademarks they own including the China Trademark; they transferred all of them except the China Trademark in a conspiracy to injure and defraud.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Switch23 View Post

That is a question of fact that hasn't yet been decided by any fact finder in any court of competent jurisdiction, since no court has actually considered the claims on their merits.

See above, the documents show that Proview entered into a written contract and agreed to sell all the trademarks. This evidence is reaffirmed by the Hong Kong decision, which is probably one of the few competent courts that has considered the claim on its merits.
post #54 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman View Post

Agreed! It makes it so much nicer to read the (mostly) reasonable, rational comments without z's blather making a mess of things. Save your sanity. Put him on ignore.

Edit: Yes, Report or Ignore.
post #55 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

Bla Bla Blablablabla Bla.

Dear Mr. Yang how is the weather China?
post #56 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

And every Chinese court which has issued a decision.

Not so fast there Lee Harvey. Actually, two lower courts in Guangdong have sided with Proview, but a Hong Kong court ruled in Apple's favor.
post #57 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunilraman View Post

See above, the documents show that Proview entered into a written contract and agreed to sell all the trademarks. This evidence is reaffirmed by the Hong Kong decision, which is probably one of the few competent courts that has considered the claim on its merits.

I really don't want to go too far off-topic on this, and I believe Apple's completely in the right on this and the evidence that has been made public supports that, but no court or fact-finder has ruled on the facts yet, even Hong Kong. They've considered the evidence but it's all still preliminary to the trial.
post #58 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Switch23 View Post

I really don't want to go too far off-topic on this, and I believe Apple's completely in the right on this and the evidence that has been made public supports that, but no court or fact-finder has ruled on the facts yet, even Hong Kong. They've considered the evidence but it's all still preliminary to the trial.

Fair enough, I stand corrected.

Well, I'll leave this in all of your capable hands.

And do use the Ignore List... As they say, time is money, and I saved for a few good episodes of Big Bang Theory on iTunes Store tonight.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Proview and Apple argue in China higher court over 'iPad' trademark
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Proview and Apple argue in China higher court over 'iPad' trademark