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.
So are you praising Apple for being original and innovative this time?
Don't because the creative use of shell companies to obfuscate their interests wasn't something Apple invented. This time, they ARE the copyists.
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.
That's Proview's argument: if we had known it was that rich and famous American company wanting to buy a trademark for a dead product that we no longer make, we would have asked for 10000x the price. They tricked us into selling it for a fair market price!
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.
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.
I fail to see any fraud on Apple's part here. Although in this case the action was quite clever and elaborate, hiding the identity of a buyer during a commercial transaction through a third party is perfectly legal. It is not as if Proview was forced to sell its TM. They were approached by X company and a deal was done. That is a fact.
Now, all of a sudden, Proview realized it *could* have asked for an exponentially higher amount of money and is doing all it can to try and void the original transaction. Well, too bad. It is not going to and should not happen.
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.
As I said 'according to them' which means that what I said is their claim, not my opinion.
My opinion is that they sold all rights, they have zero claims and should go kick rocks.
The only group that might have a claim are the banks but they are better off honoring the deal Proview made despite the false pretenses given that they have stayed quiet for two years and could have forfeited any claims of ownership due to their nonprotection
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.
I'm pretty sure this is the same maneuver Walt Disney used to acquire the land for Walt Disney World in Florida too so that he wouldn't face artificially raised prices.
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.
Proview claims it is valid because iPad ltd was Apple
These guys are hilarious! They should include their story in "Trademarks for Idiots" in the "Check the internet before you sell your trademark" section.
Zealots will try and defend this no doubt - but any way you slice it, its just a bad Apple.
Thanks for providing an example of the level of intellect and the many and varied valid arguments against Apple that the anti-Apple crowd brings to the table.
Also, Blue Harvest. Proview's argument is completely invalid.
Zealots will try and defend this no doubt - but any way you slice it, its just a bad Apple.
Point out one thing Apple did that was bad? Does the iPad somehow compete with proview? (It doesn't , not in any way at all). The core of proviews claim seems to be the guy saying it wouldn't compete. It doesn't.
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.
Was so proud of the group, no feeding of the trolls!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel
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.
Comments
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.
So are you praising Apple for being original and innovative this time?
Don't because the creative use of shell companies to obfuscate their interests wasn't something Apple invented. This time, they ARE the copyists.
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.
That's Proview's argument: if we had known it was that rich and famous American company wanting to buy a trademark for a dead product that we no longer make, we would have asked for 10000x the price. They tricked us into selling it for a fair market price!
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.
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.
... Robinson allegedly said that IPAD Ltd. sought the trademark because "IPAD" is an abbreviation for IP Application Development Limited. ...
... is literally the *only* part of the statements noted that could be characterised as a misrepresentation.
Note how this part is a "he said.." kind of thing also, and apparently not recorded in email or on paper as far as we know.
In other words, Proview hasn't got a hope in hell.
Now, all of a sudden, Proview realized it *could* have asked for an exponentially higher amount of money and is doing all it can to try and void the original transaction. Well, too bad. It is not going to and should not happen.
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.
As I said 'according to them' which means that what I said is their claim, not my opinion.
My opinion is that they sold all rights, they have zero claims and should go kick rocks.
The only group that might have a claim are the banks but they are better off honoring the deal Proview made despite the false pretenses given that they have stayed quiet for two years and could have forfeited any claims of ownership due to their nonprotection
Apple has the right to change its mind about the subsidiary company.
The name was bought and paid for.
Proview should get nothing.
Proview has been paid.
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.
Proview claims it is valid because iPad ltd was Apple
Also Proview Taiwan is the parent, not China.
Proview claims it is valid because iPad ltd was Apple
Also Proview Taiwan is the parent, not China.
Does the required two weeks refund period in Taiwan include trademark sales as well?!
Zealots will try and defend this no doubt - but any way you slice it, its just a bad Apple.
Thanks for providing an example of the level of intellect and the many and varied valid arguments against Apple that the anti-Apple crowd brings to the table.
Also, Blue Harvest. Proview's argument is completely invalid.
Zealots will try and defend this no doubt - but any way you slice it, its just a bad Apple.
Point out one thing Apple did that was bad? Does the iPad somehow compete with proview? (It doesn't , not in any way at all). The core of proviews claim seems to be the guy saying it wouldn't compete. It doesn't.
I haven't enjoyed this much stupidity since Psystar.
+1 on that.
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.