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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Repeated assertion is not a good way to bolster an argument. Cite something that justifies piercing the corporate veil in this situation.
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.
"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?
Repeated assertion is not a good way to bolster an argument. Cite something that justifies piercing the corporate veil in this situation.
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.
"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?
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.
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.
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".
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
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.
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
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
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.
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
Repeated assertion is not a good way to bolster an argument. Cite something that justifies piercing the corporate veil in this situation.
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
Repeated assertion is not a good way to bolster an argument. Cite something that justifies piercing the corporate veil in this situation.
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Realistic
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".