Proview rejects Apple's $16M offer for 'iPad' trademark - report - Page 2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

No, there's absolutely nothing shady or illegal about that at all. The shady and illegal part comes when companies would have charged Apple MORE simply because they know it's Apple.

Google Blue Harvest.

Both are wrong.  It's business.  It's not shady to buy something and not tell the seller who you are.  It's also not shady to TRY TO charge more because you know that your buyer really really needs what you're selling.  It's called business.  You negotiate the best you can for the best price you can get, and you move on.

In China, however, they have been dealing with command and control style business for so long, they think they can pull some strings and get things fixed.  And they may be right.  But I suspect eventually China will determine that letting this company die and not fleecing Apple will be in their best interests.  Because we know Apple bears grudges, and if they extract $2 billion from Apple, Apple will make sure that eventually that gets extracted right back one way or another.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mac-user 

I'm wondering why Proview doesn't offer the IPAD trademark for any iPad-clone makers and try to sell its right in China?
...if they were right about still having the trademark for China. It seems nobody believes they could win the case, not even the clone makers.

Do you think a buyer would buy something and build a business around it when Apple is on the other side of the table and the ownership of what you're buying is contested?  Really?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigBillyGoatGruff 

 

No.  The only thing the offer suggests is that Apple is willing to pay $16M to end this.

So Apple is always willing to pay $16M to end issues that are easy to put to rest? 

Hmm, I've got some real estate for ya, mate ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by ankleskater 

 

So Apple is always willing to pay $16M to end issues that are easy to put to rest? 

 

Hmm, I've got some real estate for ya, mate ...

The poster you're replying to is not suggesting what you said he is suggesting.  I think you know that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ankleskater 

 

So Apple is always willing to pay $16M to end issues that are easy to put to rest? 

 

Hmm, I've got some real estate for ya, mate ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigBillyGoatGruff 

 

No.  The only thing the offer suggests is that Apple is willing to pay $16M to end this.

not all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigBillyGoatGruff 

Quote:

 

not all."

Nah I saw it, that word "this" was really "every problem"  i saw it.  You're such a liar ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by jnoel 

I tend to agree- that was very sneaky indeed.  Not sure if it's illegal, but definitely shady.   

You want to see shady?

Here's Proview's 'Internet Personal Access Device':

Look a little familiar to you?

Apple should begin legal proceedings against them for copying the iMac just to double their legal costs and make the whole thing look a little more unattractive for all those hoping to benefit from it.

iPad vs IPAD

I am not a lawyer. but if it is a trademark issue I see a big difference between something called a Internet Personal Access Device (IPAD) and Apple's iPad. One is an abbreviation of 4 words and the other a logo or name in and of it's self. I am suer someone else has an explanation. Sorry or Thanks Dave

Gold diggers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jnoel 

I tend to agree- that was very sneaky indeed.  Not sure if it's illegal, but definitely shady.   

In apple's defense, without the dummy corporation, everyone in the world would not only have known apple was building a tablet, but what the tablet was called. So the dummy corp protected them from losing value in the name before they had even launched a product.

IMHO the value of the mark is the value of the mark, it should not depend on who owns it and if they have deep pockets or not. "Oh it's Apple that wants it? That will be $100 bajillion dollars, please."

Quote:

Originally Posted by dasanman69 
Doesnt Apple get things cheaper because they are Apple? Like tax breaks on land.

Not that I know of.

But it was for sale.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dasanman69 


Doesnt Apple get things cheaper because they are Apple? Like tax breaks on land. You and I couldn't get that. Its usually called swindling when one party approaches a second party with the intention to buy something not up for sale because the first party sees a worth that the second party is unaware of.

That's not called swindling

Quote:

Originally Posted by cameronj 

That's not called swindling

sure it is....

swin·dle

1. To obtain by fraudulent means

That's exactly what Proview is accusing Apple of. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by cameronj 

... they think they can pull some strings and get things fixed.  And they may be right.  But I suspect eventually China will determine that letting this company die and not fleecing Apple will be in their best interests. 

I sort of agree...this isn't an issue of clear-cut merits.

The question is, whether Apple's "friends" (read, "partners"), in Chinese business have more, or less, influence with the Chinese government than Proview's "friends" (read, "debt-holders").

I 'sort of agree' because I, too, think it would be more in China's long-term interests to support Apple...but, even in China, there must be some version of "the old school tie".

Quote:

Originally Posted by dasanman69 

sure it is....

 

swin·dle

 

1. To obtain by fraudulent means

 

That's exactly what Proview is accusing Apple of. 

What Apple is being accused of doesn't matter.  Fraud means something very specific, and Apple didn't commit fraud by hiding its identity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cameronj 

 

Do you think a buyer would buy something and build a business around it when Apple is on the other side of the table and the ownership of what you're buying is contested?  Really?

Many people suggested Apple to choose a different name for the product selling in China, especially if the court banned them. If Apple lost the case in Chinese court, it could mean that Proview is still the owner of the trademark of IPAD, for China, so it could sell the name for any clone tablet maker, that produces those clones anyways.
That's why I don't think packing iPad with a different name for Chinese market would be a good idea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dasanman69 

1. To obtain by fraudulent means

 

That's exactly what Proview is accusing Apple of. 

Fortunately, Apple didn't and wasn't, respectively.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cameronj 

What Apple is being accused of doesn't matter.  Fraud means something very specific, and Apple didn't commit fraud by hiding its identity.

I never said they were guilty of it only that they're accused.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigBillyGoatGruff 

Quote:

Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz 
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by ankleskater 

 

If Apple has indeed made an offer (and a non-trivial one at that), doesn't this suggest the case is not so open and shut, black and white or easy to put to rest?

 

 

Yes.

 

No.  The only thing the offer suggests is that Apple is willing to pay $16M to end this.

It is already over.  The trial has concluded.  There is nothing to end.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dasanman69 

I never said they were guilty of it only that they're accused.

I don't understand why I need to you remind you of this.  What you said was "Its usually called swindling when one party approaches a second party with the intention to buy something not up for sale because the first party sees a worth that the second party is unaware of."

I said that that's not swindling.  Then mysteriously you started talking about something totally different.  Make up your mind.

What Apple is accused of has nothing to do with what your incorrect definition of swindling is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz 
It is already over.  The trial has concluded.  There is nothing to end.

And what was the verdict?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rot'nApple 

Well Apple, if you were willing to offer 16 million dollars to Proview, I say forward that check to your legal department and say to those Apple lawyers regarding Proview, "Bury Them!"
/

If the number is true (which I doubt), that's where it undoubtedly came from. Apple figured what it was going to cost them in legal expenses, depositions, testimony of key executives, etc and came up with a figure of $16 M. It is not uncommon to offer something like that to settle a case like this. If Proview doesn't agree, Apple will fight it.
 

The trial is over.  There will be no more depositions.  There will be no more testimony of key executives.  It has all already happened.  Apple has already incurred those expenses.

There will be no more major legal expenses. The trial is over.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

Quote:

Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz 
It is already over.  The trial has concluded.  There is nothing to end.

 

And what was the verdict?

It has not yet been announced.

By the way this story is poorly sourced, it is according to Proview  They have been known to lie in their press releases before, I tried following the links back to china times and it got lost in  chinese characters.  It would be a bit more believable if it originated in Cupertino.

I would take it with a grain of salt that apple is willing to settle for 16 million, that is enough to set a bad precedent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

Quote:

Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz 
It is already over.  The trial has concluded.  There is nothing to end.

 

And what was the verdict?

It has not yet been announced.

How about a link to some article, any article, that states that the trial _in China_ has concluded.  Everything I've found, so far, says it is still ongoing as of 5/10/12...but then, my search skills aren't legendary...

Quote:

Originally Posted by advill 

In this case there are high level chinese  politicians involved with Proview, is a political case and has to be handled like that.

Nothing a few custom made iPads with the Apple Logo on the back replaced with the likenesses of Chinese officials couldn't fix, $16 million would buy enough gold and diamonds to make the iPad "gifts" special enough to make the right people turn the other way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cameronj 

I don't understand why I need to you remind you of this.  What you said was "Its usually called swindling when one party approaches a second party with the intention to buy something not up for sale because the first party sees a worth that the second party is unaware of."

 

I said that that's not swindling.  Then mysteriously you started talking about something totally different.  Make up your mind.

 

What Apple is accused of has nothing to do with what your incorrect definition of swindling is.

Well I got the definition directly from the dictionary so excuse me if i believe them and not you. 

Whats different about "The company has argued that Apple acted fraudulently to acquire the iPad trademark"  versus "swin·dle 1. To obtain by fraudulent means"? and although what i initially said is a little different it still constitutes the purchaser being fraudulent to the seller.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dasanman69 
Whats different about "The company has argued that Apple acted fraudulently to acquire the iPad trademark"  versus "swin·dle 1. To obtain by fraudulent means"? and although what i initially said is a little different it still constitutes the purchaser being fraudulent to the seller.

The difference is they didn't do it. Swindle, that is.

$16 Million for the trademark for iPad?  That's plenty, especially when Proview probably never even sold $16 Million worth of their own product in terms of profit. If I were Proview, I'd take the money and RUN!!!  That's more than I would have offered, especially since they are trying to basically rip off the original iMac design.

Then, once i got the money, I would invest a large portion of that money into Apple stock and let it ride for a few years.

Kind of like AAA.  Do you know how many companies use the three letters AAA?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

The difference is they didn't do it. Swindle, that is.

And you know this how? As much as I love Apple i will not blindly believe them nor anyone else. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jnoel 

I tend to agree- that was very sneaky indeed.  Not sure if it's illegal, but definitely shady.   

Yes it's legal, no it's not shady, it's pretty standard practice especially with high profile companies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dasanman69 
And you know this how? As much as I love Apple i will not blindly believe them nor anyone else. 

Because, as we've already established, Apple did not use fraudulent means to get the trademark.

I don't see how that's unclear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton 


LOL. I like the idea of insulting them with an even lower offer, just to piss them off.

Here's an interesting response from a brewing company that Apple might use to form a response around:

http://www.edibleapple.com/2012/01/13/best-letter-ever-written-to-a-lawyer/

It's not a crocked deal to use an IP subsidiary to buy a name.

Apple wanted to keep the name "iPad" secret. If you recall, iSlate and other such names were the subject of much speculation. So, they were under the radar as they try to be with most things. Of course, with SJ's passing, we'll see how long they can keep up the "Jobsian Intensity."

(Could Proview have checked into the IP company a bit more and found out it was Apple? Don't know.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

Because, as we've already established, Apple did not use fraudulent means to get the trademark.

 

I don't see how that's unclear.

Who's we? As far as I'm concerned its still a case that needs to be decided on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dasanman69 
Who's we? As far as I'm concerned its still a case that needs to be decided on.

That's not what the case is about.

Happy thousand, by the way.