or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Proview says settlement with Apple over iPad trademark 'likely'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Proview says settlement with Apple over iPad trademark 'likely'

post #1 of 33
Thread Starter 
Proview's lawyer has indicated that the company believes it will "likely" reach an out-of-court settlement with Apple in its disagreement over ownership of the iPad trademark in China.

The Associated Press reports that the Guangdong High Court is mediating the settlement talks between the two companies.

"It is likely that we will settle out of court. The Guangdong High Court is helping to arrange it and the court also expects to do so," said Proview lawyer Ma Dongxiao.

"Actually Proview always expected to settle out of court from the beginning," he added. "I don't know if Apple has changed its attitude, but I believe that the key point now is the price."

The report noted that court officials declined to discuss the case with foreign media. Apple said in a statement that it would never "knowingly abuse someone else's trademarks" and added that Proview is trying to get more money to pay off its outstanding debts.

Proview


Reports emerged last week that apple and Proview were discussing a settlement. If the two companies are unable to reach an agreement, the Chinese court will issue its ruling.

Apple maintains that it purchased the Chinese iPad trademark rights from Proview in 2009. Proview argues that the deal did not go through because representatives from the Shenzhen subsidiary that owns the mark were not present when the contract was signed.

Proview made a name for itself as a monitor maker, but it has fallen on hard times. The company reportedly owes a total of $400 million to a number of a creditors, including several prominent Chinese banks.

The negotiations come as Apple is preparing to release its third-generation iPad in China. The Cupertino, Calif., has already received some of the regulatory approvals required to sell the tablet in the country.
post #2 of 33

"We'll settle for you never bothering us again, how's that?"

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #3 of 33

Hey Tallest, looks like that was your 10,100th post! Congrats.

 

Anyhow, looks like Christmas came early this year for one bankrupt Chinese company.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #4 of 33

What a crock, unless something came up that Apple knew they couldn't beat.  

post #5 of 33

Proview realizing Apple won't cave to their criminal demands and that they better take what money they can, even though it'll be a fraction of what they want.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #6 of 33

I will be disappointed if Apple pays any substantial amount.

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

Reply

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

Reply
post #7 of 33

I've said all along that this would be settled politically and I believe this confirms that. Don't think for an instant that this was not a topic of conversation when Tim Cook met with Chinese government officials. I am pretty certain the Chinese government had no intention of allowing anything that might jeopardize Chinese jobs long-term (which this issue has the potential to do) to happen and was the reason I said that the opaqueness of the Chinese justice system was a benefit to Apple. All that is left is for Apple to provide some Chinese government-determined face-saving accommodation for this shell of a once successful Chinese company.

post #8 of 33
The content of the settlement? An x amount of money providing that the guy that at the center of this not earn anything but the creditors only and that HE must do menial jobs FOR Apple at Foxconn. For example, highly corrosive chemical mixing station operator. Muahahahaha (slightly over the top there...)
post #9 of 33

I don't really understand this whole thing.

If Apple did buy then surely they must have paid for it and there's a record of a money transfer ?

Who received the money ?     Where did the money go ?

post #10 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post
Hey Tallest, looks like that was your 10,100th post! Congrats.

 

Anyhow, looks like Christmas came early this year for one bankrupt Chinese company.

 

Wait, really? I see exactly 100 more than that. Maybe the forum counts all deleted posts and I've had exactly 100 posts deleted… lol.gif

 

EDIT: Ladies and gentlemen, never post mere minutes after waking. lol.gif


Edited by Tallest Skil - 4/24/12 at 4:56am

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #11 of 33

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JPDLVMH View Post

I don't really understand this whole thing.

If Apple did buy then surely they must have paid for it and there's a record of a money transfer ?

Who received the money ?     Where did the money go ?

 

Please read up on what has happened since I doubt if anyone wants to give you the entire history here. You have a choice of Internet search engines.


Essentially, the dispute is over whether Apple bought the trademark from the correct Proview corporation. They have 3 corporations in different countries and allege that the corporation that sold Apple the trademark was not the legal owner.

"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 #12 of 33

Chinese judgement is one thing and execution is another.  There is not contempt of court which means if you deny court judgement there is new felony charge against you.  [I had seen that cae loser threaten the Judge.]  All the court could do is seizure money from your bank.  But where is Apple Corporation's bank account?  Proview has provide the account information to the court for it to seizure.  I sue and win many judgements in China; but at the end the court tells me that sorry!  They have little means to execute judgements.  In one case, eviction of a business tenant, the court claimed that the renter refused to move and they cannot do any thing.  I file the eviction with the court on Feb 8, 2012.  I won the judgement last December.  The court post the eviction notice on the door on 4/2, and the renter remove the notice the same day.  All Apple has to do is change iPad name for a year, Proview will go bankrupt and than Apple can do all it wanted to do.

post #13 of 33

How would you like to have a name like "Guangdong!" lol.gif
 

post #14 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post
Hey Tallest, looks like that was your 10,100th post! Congrats.

 

Anyhow, looks like Christmas came early this year for one bankrupt Chinese company.

 

Wait, really? I see exactly 100 more than that. Maybe the forum counts all deleted posts and I've had exactly 100 posts deleted… lol.gif

 

EDIT: Ladies and gentlemen, never post mere minutes after waking. lol.gif


or perhaps not trying to be the first poster in an article... bah-dum-ba/rimshot



NEWS-FLASH : i thought proview was fighting over the iPad trademark... not the trademark "likeily"... perhaps a better headline would have been...
Proview likeily to settle with Apple over iPad trademark ...


so how does one use sarcasm in a headline....
post #15 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post
Essentially, the dispute is over whether Apple bought the trademark from the correct Proview corporation. They have 3 corporations in different countries and allege that the corporation that sold Apple the trademark was not the legal owner.

 

Forgive me if I misunderstand how corporations work but… why does that matter at all? If Touchstone uses Disney properties in one of its movies, Disney wouldn't sue Touchstone, would they? Would they even be able to? 

 

As long as the company "Proview" is the same company as "Proview" (other country), they should have a common property base, shouldn't they?

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #16 of 33

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Realistic View Post

I will be disappointed if Apple pays any substantial amount.

 

I doubt that the amount will be publicly known.

post #17 of 33

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JPDLVMH View Post

I don't really understand this whole thing.

If Apple did buy then surely they must have paid for it and there's a record of a money transfer ?

Who received the money ?     Where did the money go ?

 

The contract was signed and the money went to the Taiwanese subsidiary.  They owned the trademark in all jurisdictions except China.  The Chinese subsidiary did not sign the sales contract, and so did not sell the rights in China.

 

That is the Reader's Digest condensed version.

post #18 of 33

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeliu58 View Post

Chinese judgement is one thing and execution is another.  There is not contempt of court which means if you deny court judgement there is new felony charge against you.  [I had seen that cae loser threaten the Judge.]  All the court could do is seizure money from your bank.  But where is Apple Corporation's bank account?  Proview has provide the account information to the court for it to seizure.  I sue and win many judgements in China; but at the end the court tells me that sorry!  They have little means to execute judgements.  In one case, eviction of a business tenant, the court claimed that the renter refused to move and they cannot do any thing.  I file the eviction with the court on Feb 8, 2012.  I won the judgement last December.  The court post the eviction notice on the door on 4/2, and the renter remove the notice the same day.  All Apple has to do is change iPad name for a year, Proview will go bankrupt and than Apple can do all it wanted to do.

 

That's not going to happen. Proview owes its creditors millions of dollars. If Proview goes bankrupt, the creditors would receive the trademarks (if any). That would leave the creditors to sue Apple if there's any validity to the complaint. And since the creditors are large, multinational banks, they aren't going out of business.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Forgive me if I misunderstand how corporations work but… why does that matter at all? If Touchstone uses Disney properties in one of its movies, Disney wouldn't sue Touchstone, would they? Would they even be able to? 

 

As long as the company "Proview" is the same company as "Proview" (other country), they should have a common property base, shouldn't they?

 

They are completely different companies. Proview Taiwan is a different company than Proview Hong Kong which is a different company from Proview PRC (I'm not going to look up the actual names because it doesn't matter in this context). It is actually quite common to set up different companies in different countries because of different tax laws but also because it creates some protection from creditors and from liability.

 

What Proview is alleging is that Proview PRC owned the 'iPad' trademark, but Apple actually arranged a deal with Proview Taiwan - which had no legal right to sell it. If Proview wins that argument, then Apple would not have any rights to the trademark and Proview Taiwan would have to return Apple's payment.

It would be as if I wanted to buy your car and negotiated a deal and paid your brother. You would have every right to object.


Of course, Apple claims that they were negotiating with Proview PRC (which owned the trademark) but Proview PRC told them to do the deal with Proview Taiwan (since the same person heads all three companies). If that's the case, it's clear fraud and Apple could get an order for the deal to go through. 

Either Proview committed clear and undeniable fraud or Apple's lawyers slipped up. None of us has enough facts to figure out which is the case. The only court to actually rule on trademark ownership is the Hong Kong court which ruled that Proview could not claim ownership.

"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 #19 of 33

 

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

 

 

The contract was signed and the money went to the Taiwanese subsidiary.  They owned the trademark in all jurisdictions except China.  The Chinese subsidiary did not sign the sales contract, and so did not sell the rights in China.

 

That is the Reader's Digest condensed version.

 

Well, no. 

That is the "I believe everything that Proview says because I will accept anything that puts Apple in a bad light" version. Just the version we'd expect from you.

"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 #20 of 33

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

 

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

 

 

The contract was signed and the money went to the Taiwanese subsidiary.  They owned the trademark in all jurisdictions except China.  The Chinese subsidiary did not sign the sales contract, and so did not sell the rights in China.

 

That is the Reader's Digest condensed version.

 

Well, no. 

That is the "I believe everything that Proview says because I will accept anything that puts Apple in a bad light" version. Just the version we'd expect from you.

 

That is the version based on the actual documents which were posted a couple of monts ago.,

post #21 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post
What Proview is alleging is that Proview PRC owned the 'iPad' trademark, but Apple actually arranged a deal with Proview Taiwan - which had no legal right to sell it. If Proview wins that argument, then Apple would not have any rights to the trademark and Proview Taiwan would have to return Apple's payment.


Of course, Apple claims that they were negotiating with Proview PRC (which owned the trademark) but Proview PRC told them to do the deal with Proview Taiwan (since the same person heads all three companies). If that's the case, it's clear fraud and Apple could get an order for the deal to go through. 

Either Proview committed clear and undeniable fraud or Apple's lawyers slipped up. None of us has enough facts to figure out which is the case. The only court to actually rule on trademark ownership is the Hong Kong court which ruled that Proview could not claim ownership.

 

So why isn't this cut and dry? Find the IP address of the e-mail correspondence for the deal. From PRC, well… From Taiwan, well… How can Apple not know who they did business with?

 

Back in the day it was as easy as reading the watermark at the top of the documents used in the transition. Proview PRC logo? Apple wins. Proview Taiwan logo? Proview wins. Digitization's a slippery slope. lol.gif

 

Thanks for the clarification.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #22 of 33

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

So why isn't this cut and dry? Find the IP address of the e-mail correspondence for the deal. From PRC, well… From Taiwan, well… How can Apple not know who they did business with?

 

Back in the day it was as easy as reading the watermark at the top of the documents used in the transition. Proview PRC logo? Apple wins. Proview Taiwan logo? Proview wins. Digitization's a slippery slope. lol.gif

 

Thanks for the clarification.

 

It's actually much more complicated than that. The person they are negotiating with is an executive of all three companies. The initial negotiations were with Proview PRC which is the right entity. Then, at one point, he told Apple to write the check to Proview Taiwan and sign the contract with them. So that's what Apple did. 

 

It's going to get into some fairly detailed discussion of responsibilities of different legal entities. In the end, though, the fact is that he negotiated a deal as executive of Proview PRC and Apple agreed to the deal he negotiated. Under U.S. law, that would be sufficient to pierce the corporate veil. I can't say for sure if it would be sufficient under Chinese law.

 

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

 

 

That is the version based on the actual documents which were posted a couple of monts ago.,

 

No, it's the version based on the few documents that support your view. You're ignoring the decision of the Hong Kong court as well as all the documents provided by AllThingsD.

IOW, you're only accepting the information from Proview because it supports your anti-Apple view while completely ignoring any information that doesn't make Apple look bad - just as I said.

"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 #23 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post
The person they are negotiating with is an executive of all three companies.

 

That's where I'd slam my gavel down and declare Apple the winner. Is there anywhere I can read up on Chinese tradem… oh, never mind, here!

 

Quote:
Article 26. Any trademark registrant may, by signing a trademark license contract, authorize other persons to use his registered trademark. The licenser shall supervise the quality of the goods in respect of which the licensee uses his registered trademark, and the licensee shall guarantee the quality of the goods in respect of which the registered trademark is used.

 

For the purposes of the argument, can it be assumed that this Proview executive was the legal entity charged with the negotiation of said trademark (and thus the 'trademark holder' in this case)?

 

Now take a look at this:

 

Quote:
Originally posted by AppleInsider
In 2006, Proview Electronics (Taiwan) agreed to sell… 

 

Aught six. BUT, PRC trademark law says

 

Quote:

CHAPTER V. ADJUDICATION OF DISPUTES CONCERNING REGISTERED TRADEMARKS

Article 27.  Any person disputing a registered trademark may, within one year from the date of approval of the trademark registration, apply to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board for adjudication.

 

I assume 'registration' in this case can mean 'change of ownership' (in before an attorney comes and slaps me for making that assumption), so wouldn't their claim be null and void anyway since they didn't file it for five years?

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #24 of 33

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post
What Proview is alleging is that Proview PRC owned the 'iPad' trademark, but Apple actually arranged a deal with Proview Taiwan - which had no legal right to sell it. If Proview wins that argument, then Apple would not have any rights to the trademark and Proview Taiwan would have to return Apple's payment.


Of course, Apple claims that they were negotiating with Proview PRC (which owned the trademark) but Proview PRC told them to do the deal with Proview Taiwan (since the same person heads all three companies). If that's the case, it's clear fraud and Apple could get an order for the deal to go through. 

Either Proview committed clear and undeniable fraud or Apple's lawyers slipped up. None of us has enough facts to figure out which is the case. The only court to actually rule on trademark ownership is the Hong Kong court which ruled that Proview could not claim ownership.

 

So why isn't this cut and dry? Find the IP address of the e-mail correspondence for the deal. From PRC, well… From Taiwan, well… How can Apple not know who they did business with?

 

Back in the day it was as easy as reading the watermark at the top of the documents used in the transition. Proview PRC logo? Apple wins. Proview Taiwan logo? Proview wins. Digitization's a slippery slope. lol.gif

 

Thanks for the clarification.

 

The emails are not a mystery.  It is known who negotiatied.

 

It is also known who signed the contract of sale.

 

And the company who owned the Chinese mark never signed the document transferring the Chinese trademark.  That is the problem.

 

In Apple's defense, they were bamboozled.  They trusted a statement that the Taiwanese company actually did own the Chinese trademark.  But the statement was a lie.

 

If the Taiwanese company had any money, they could make Apple whole.  But they have no substantial assets.

 

If the Taiwanese company had any power to order the Chinese company to transfer the trademark, they could be ordered to do so.  But they have no power to do that.

 

There have been indications that the Chinese Trademark is registered to the Chinese company in the official Trademark Registry in China.  Had Apple done its due diligence, checking the official records in China, it would not have accepted the sale from the Taiwanese company.  But seemingly, Apple allowed itself to be defrauded. 

 

 

 

 

Likely there are facts unknown to us.  Like maybe the Chinese Trademark office stonewalled or lied or something.  Or maybe checking the Chinese Trademark office is otherwise damn near impossible.  Or something else.  Maybe the outside shell company had lawyers who were in on the deal and accepted huge bribes to ignore the facts?  All just guesses.

 

 

 

post #25 of 33

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

 

It's going to get into some fairly detailed discussion of responsibilities of different legal entities. In the end, though, the fact is that he negotiated a deal as executive of Proview PRC and Apple agreed to the deal he negotiated. Under U.S. law, that would be sufficient to pierce the corporate veil. I can't say for sure if it would be sufficient under Chinese law.

 

 

 

 

Please.  Every time you learn 2/3 of the relevant law, you start making these sorts of statements.

 

The facts cited by you would NOT be sufficient to pierce the veil.  It is unlikely that the facts would even be sufficient to void the contract, much less enforce it against a third party corporation.

post #26 of 33

The WSJ has an article posted on this with additional information. It appears to me that Apple is under some pressure to come to an agreement as 10 different customs offices have received paperwork to halt the import/export of Apple's iPad. They're simply waiting for the judgement from the Guangdong Court to determine if the applications should be enforced.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303459004577363551202886044.html?KEYWORDS=apple
 

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #27 of 33

 

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

 

 

 

Please.  Every time you learn 2/3 of the relevant law, you start making these sorts of statements.

 

The facts cited by you would NOT be sufficient to pierce the veil.  It is unlikely that the facts would even be sufficient to void the contract, much less enforce it against a third party corporation.

 

Considering that I've run multiple global companies and you have no experience other than spreading FUD on AI, it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about.


No one ever suggested that it could be enforced against a third party - that's a silly red herring that you're dragging up. But Proview PRC is not an independent third party. Same officers, both were subsidiaries of the same company IIRC, Proview PRC negotiated with Apple and Proview PRC told Apple to write the check to Proview Taiwain. That would absolutely be sufficient to pierce the corporate veil in the US.

"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 #28 of 33

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

 

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

 

 

 

Please.  Every time you learn 2/3 of the relevant law, you start making these sorts of statements.

 

The facts cited by you would NOT be sufficient to pierce the veil.  It is unlikely that the facts would even be sufficient to void the contract, much less enforce it against a third party corporation.

 

 But Proview PRC is not an independent third party. Same officers, both were subsidiaries of the same company IIRC, Proview PRC negotiated with Apple and Proview PRC told Apple to write the check to Proview Taiwain. That would absolutely be sufficient to pierce the corporate veil in the US.

 

Repeated assertion is not a good way to bolster an argument.  Cite something that justifies piercing the corporate veil in this situation.

 

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Piercing the corporate veil or lifting the corporate veil is a legal decision to treat the rights or duties of a corporationas the rights or liabilities of its shareholders

 

post #29 of 33

 

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

 

 

Repeated assertion is not a good way to bolster an argument.  Cite something that justifies piercing the corporate veil in this situation.

 

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Piercing the corporate veil or lifting the corporate veil is a legal decision to treat the rights or duties of a corporationas the rights or liabilities of its shareholders

 

 

And, yet, you've provided NOTHING to back up your claim.


However:
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/business/corporate_veil.html

"An action to pierce the corporate veil normally arises in civil litigation when the corporation is believed to have inadequate assets to cover its liabilities, and the plaintiff alleges that the corporation is actually a sham - that is, the corporation is not really a distinct individual, but is merely an extension or "alter ego" of its shareholders, being used to advance their private interests or to perpetrate a fraud."

Clearly, Proview does not have sufficient assets to cover the amounts owed. And it could easily be argued that it's fraud when the President of Proview PRC negotiated a license and then told Apple to finalize the deal with Proview Taiwan - and then tried to negate the deal that they told Apple to do in the first place. And given the fact that the officers were the same and they were tied together in conducting the transaction, showing that they weren't acting as unique individuals is also likely.


Furthermore, from the same source:
"A court may also pierce the corporate veil to prevent a fraud, where the corporation is found to be a "sham" meant to facilitate fraud against third parties."

 

Again, it's pretty easy to show that fraud occurred here.

 

So where's the evidence supporting your claim that they wouldn't be able to pierce the corporate veil in the US with these facts?

"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 #30 of 33

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

 

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

 

 

Repeated assertion is not a good way to bolster an argument.  Cite something that justifies piercing the corporate veil in this situation.

 

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Piercing the corporate veil or lifting the corporate veil is a legal decision to treat the rights or duties of a corporationas the rights or liabilities of its shareholders

 

 

And, yet, you've provided NOTHING to back up your claim.


However:
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/business/corporate_veil.html

"An action to pierce the corporate veil normally arises in civil litigation when the corporation is believed to have inadequate assets to cover its liabilities, and the plaintiff alleges that the corporation is actually a sham - that is, the corporation is not really a distinct individual, but is merely an extension or "alter ego" of its shareholders, being used to advance their private interests or to perpetrate a fraud."

Clearly, Proview does not have sufficient assets to cover the amounts owed. And it could easily be argued that it's fraud when the President of Proview PRC negotiated a license and then told Apple to finalize the deal with Proview Taiwan - and then tried to negate the deal that they told Apple to do in the first place. And given the fact that the officers were the same and they were tied together in conducting the transaction, showing that they weren't acting as unique individuals is also likely.


Furthermore, from the same source:
"A court may also pierce the corporate veil to prevent a fraud, where the corporation is found to be a "sham" meant to facilitate fraud against third parties."

 

Again, it's pretty easy to show that fraud occurred here.

 

So where's the evidence supporting your claim that they wouldn't be able to pierce the corporate veil in the US with these facts?

 

You are the one who made the claim.  It is up to you to defend it against doubters.

 

And while you have cited some of the elements, you have not cited sufficient elements.

 

 

And nowhere do you justify veil piercing against the Chinese affiliate.   Which was your original claim.  Now you are talking about piercing the veil of the Hong Kong parent company, but you don't even realize that.

 

 

 

So again - how could the veil of the Chinese company be pierced?

post #31 of 33

 

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

 

 

You are the one who made the claim.  It is up to you to defend it against doubters.

 

And while you have cited some of the elements, you have not cited sufficient elements.

 

 

And nowhere do you justify veil piercing against the Chinese affiliate.   Which was your original claim.  Now you are talking about piercing the veil of the Hong Kong parent company, but you don't even realize that.

 

 

 

So again - how could the veil of the Chinese company be pierced?

 

First, I made the claim and justified it above. You claimed that I was wrong - but provided no evidence that I was wrong. YOU are the one claiming I was wrong in spite of the fact that I've supported my statement.


Second, I did not say that the veil of the Chinese company would be pierced. What I said was that if the identical facts had occurred in the US that the veil could probably be pierced. I specifically stated that I don't know enough about Chinese law to know whether it would happen there.

The fact that you are making up arguments and pretending that I said things that I never said is (along with the above and your use of red herring arguments) pretty good evidence that you don't know what you're talking about.

"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 #32 of 33

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

 

 

First, I made the claim and justified it above. You claimed that I was wrong - but provided no evidence that I was wrong. YOU are the one claiming I was wrong in spite of the fact that I've supported my statement.


Second, I did not say that the veil of the Chinese company would be pierced. What I said was that if the identical facts had occurred in the US that the veil could probably be pierced. I specifically stated that I don't know enough about Chinese law to know whether it would happen there.

The fact that you are making up arguments and pretending that I said things that I never said is (along with the above and your use of red herring arguments) pretty good evidence that you don't know what you're talking about.

 

 

Why do you bother with I am a Zither Zather Zuzz? She always ignores and/or omits the facts that don't support her normally troll-like stance.

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

Reply

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

Reply
post #33 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Realistic View Post
Why do you bother with I am a Zither Zather Zuzz? She always ignores and/or omits the facts that don't support her normally troll-like stance.

 

Agreed, but why do you assume he's a girl? Unless it was a case of having a name like those "Southern" girl names like "Bobby-Joe" with the old account… You know, the girls that get two guy names for their first name so they apparently cancel out to make a "girl's name".

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Proview says settlement with Apple over iPad trademark 'likely'