Apple looking to settle with Proview in 'iPad' trademark dispute - report

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 37
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member


    Proview 1.png


    Proview 2.png


    Proview 3.png


     


    Why the HECK does it make them smaller as they go along? Oh gosh, it's weighted based on file size…

  • Reply 22 of 37

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Proview 1.png


    Proview 2.png


    Proview 3.png


     


    Why the HECK does it make them smaller as they go along?



     


     


    Likely there is a maximum image height.

  • Reply 23 of 37
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Now, now, since when has ZZZ ever used factual logic to defend an opinion? ZZZ always runs deflectors on full power after dropping the usual class of opinion.

    Just sayin'... ;)

    zzz is even worse than that. Look on the bottom of this page. There's a section called 'recent reviews'. Until today, zzz had a review for both the iPhone 3GS and the iPhone 4 (it may have been the 4S). Of course, he panned both of them.

    Now, I don't believe for a minute that he even owns one of those phones, much less both of them. Furthermore, it is not surprising that he would pan what virtually everyone else recognized as one of the best phones (if not the best) available. Clearly, he went so far as to completely fabricate a review without any basis. The review has been taken down, so someone must have discovered his deception.

    Once again, I have to wonder. I can understand a person going to a fan site to discuss a product that they like with others who use the same product. I can understand a person trying a product, hating it, and then going to fan sites to express their opinions. I just plain can't understand someone who spends so much time on a site that's targeted at a product that they don't use (and they often swear that they'd die before using the product) and have never used. Then to spend all that energy spreading FUD - even to the point of fabricating reviews.

    It seems to me like the sign of an inherently unstable individual - either that or they are being well paid.

    You need to demonstrate that to be the case.  I don'r really know what facts you are relying on.


    Let's see:

    A few weeks ago, Proview said that they were already in discussions with Apple. Today, Proview says that Apple wouldn't talk with them earlier, but is now talking to them.

    Surely even you can figure out the inconsistency. Then again, maybe not. Google hasn't paid you to understand that part yet.
  • Reply 24 of 37
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,213member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    zzz is even worse than that. Look on the bottom of this page. There's a section called 'recent reviews'. Until today, zzz had a review for both the iPhone 3GS and the iPhone 4 (it may have been the 4S). Of course, he panned both of them.


    IF he's reviewing products he doesn't own or at least used extensively then it would be both dishonest and misleading. I don't see what you're referring to tho. Perhaps you didn't point to the right page?

  • Reply 25 of 37
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    IF he's reviewing products he doesn't own or at least used extensively then it would be both dishonest and misleading. I don't see what you're referring to tho. Perhaps you didn't point to the right page?

    Look at the bottom of this page. There's a section labeled 'recent reviews'.

    Until today, there were two reviews there - both by zzz. One for the iPhone 3GS and one for the iPhone 4 or 4S. The reviews have been removed.
  • Reply 26 of 37
    goodgriefgoodgrief Posts: 137member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


     


    No, not that one.  I'm referring to Apple being bamboozled into paying a company that did not own the Chinese trademark, despite the true owner being listed in the Chinese trademark registry.


     


    Seemingly, apple was defrauded.  That is an equitable argument.  Legally, Proview has the upper hand.



     


    Equitable? Ok, 55K for 10 countries, 55/10 = 5.5K per country. Since the trademark was generating nothing for proview in China, 5,500$ should be more than "equitable". There you go, problem solved.


     


    And "upper hand"? Which "upper hand" is that? The hand that Apple is bitch-slapping Proview with? Apple is still doing a booming business in China, and using the iPad moniker at that. Proview is doing what? They're desperately trying to hold on to con attempt gone horribly wrong for them, and sliding even deeper into debt (lawyers don't work for free - even in China) in the process.


     


    Here's a new theory I just came up with:


     


    Apple's army of lawyers spotted this con-artist coming from a mile away. The executives at Apple saw this poor attempt to pull a fast one and let it slide on purpose, knowing full well that the net result would be Apple burning this pitiful shell of a sham company to the ground ... then salting the scorched earth where it burned ... all for the cost of the lawyers they already had on retainer plus a few thousand dollars as a token to appease the sensibilities of the Chinese court system (call it the "cost of doing business" in Communist China). And in return, Apple still gets to do their business uninterrupted (aside from what, 40 iPads "seized" by authorities in one province somewhere ... oooh, ouch, Apple must be reeling from that :P), and they get to rain down unholy wrath on the morons that really thought they could steal from the resting dragon and walk away unharmed.

  • Reply 27 of 37
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,213member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    Look at the bottom of this page. There's a section labeled 'recent reviews'.

    Until today, there were two reviews there - both by zzz. One for the iPhone 3GS and one for the iPhone 4 or 4S. The reviews have been removed.




    Gotcha. I saw "recent reviews" but there weren't any. I guess they were there sometime recently then, but gone now.

  • Reply 28 of 37

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    Look at the bottom of this page. There's a section labeled 'recent reviews'.

    Until today, there were two reviews there - both by zzz. One for the iPhone 3GS and one for the iPhone 4 or 4S. The reviews have been removed.




    Gotcha. I saw "recent reviews" but there weren't any. I guess they were there sometime recently then, but gone now.



     


    You should go ahead and post some.

  • Reply 29 of 37
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    You should go ahead and post some.

    He hasn't done so because he's apparently not as dishonest as you.
  • Reply 30 of 37
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,213member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    He hasn't done so because he's apparently not as dishonest as you.




    I think that might have been a compliment but I can't be certain. image


    So thanks.

  • Reply 31 of 37
    boredumbboredumb Posts: 1,418member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


    I don't see how this is anything to do with "saving face" on either party's part.  "Settling" is also not a loss per se and is pretty much standard procedure in cases like this.  



     


    My thought was that, at this point, all we have is Proview's account of Apple's intentions.  They seem eager to promote this idea, and have publicized it more than once.


     


    Much has been made of the way business is done in China - "saving face" is a feature of this technique, though certainly not native only to China.

  • Reply 32 of 37
    mechanicmechanic Posts: 805member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


     


     Legally, Proview has the upper hand.



    Lol by upper hand I think you mean they have the government on there side because they own a lot of the bank money preview owes in its bankruptcy.  Not because they still own the trademark even though they claim they do.  There nothing but criminals.

  • Reply 33 of 37
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Legally, Proview has the upper hand.

    Really? Which Chinese law school did you graduate from? And how did you have time for law school when you were so busy fabricating fake iPhone reviews?

    Keep in mind that only one court case so far has addressed the merits of the case and that's the Hong Kong court which told Proview to stop claiming ownership of the trademark.
  • Reply 34 of 37

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post




     

    Keep in mind that only one court case so far has addressed the merits of the case and that's the Hong Kong court which told Proview to stop claiming ownership of the trademark.


     


     


    The Hong Kong court did not consider the merits of the case.  They instead imposed an injunction  to maintain  the status quo pending a decision on the merits.


     


    We've been over this already.  

  • Reply 35 of 37
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member

    The Hong Kong court did not consider the merits of the case.  They instead imposed an injunction  to maintain  the status quo pending a decision on the merits.

    We've been over this already.  

    Yes, we have - which is why it's so frustrating that you continue to spread the same lies.

    http://venturebeat.com/2012/02/16/apple-proview/
    "Here, the conduct of all the defendants demonstrate that they have combined together with the common intention of injuring Apple and IP Application by acting in breach of the Agreement. Proview Holdings, Proview Electronics and Proview Shenzhen, all clearly under Yang’s control, have refused to take any steps to ensure compliance with the Agreement so that the China Trademarks are properly assigned or transferred to IP Application (Apple’s third party trademark purchaser). Instead, they attempted to exploit the situation as a business opportunity for the Proview Group by seeking an amount of $10,000,000 from Apple.”

    How did the court reach that decision if they didn't consider the merits of the case?

    Or maybe this one:
    http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/02/16/hong_kong_court_sided_with_apple_in_ipad_trademark_dispute_with_proview.html
    "The Wall Street Journal uncovered a "not previously reported" court decision from the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region last July that upheld Apple's claim to the iPad trademark in mainland China."

    Or maybe this:
    http://allthingsd.com/20120216/heres-the-chinese-court-ruling-backing-apple-in-ipad-trademark-tiff/
    "“We bought Proview’s worldwide rights to the iPad trademark in 10 different countries several years ago. Proview refuses to honor their agreement with Apple, and a Hong Kong court has sided with Apple in this matter.”
    That was Apple’s statement to AllThingsD Wednesday"
    That reference includes the actual court decision which states:
    "The substantive hearing came before me" (which proves that it was a hearing as to the facts)
    Note that this was not a final hearing, but it most certainly was a hearing of the merits of the case.
  • Reply 36 of 37
    b9botb9bot Posts: 238member


    Proview lawyers claim a lot of things and have been since this story broke. Apple has already told Proview lawyers to SHUT UP!  Until the chinese high court rules on there appeal which hasn't happened yet nothing they say should be taken with a grain of salt or less.

  • Reply 37 of 37
    nvidia2008nvidia2008 Posts: 9,262member


    Lost in translation, I guess, maybe some people think Apple giving them the finger indicates "wanting to settle out of court". Of course, I kid, Proview knows it has no chance. The pantomime on Proview's part is pretty hilarious now.

     

Sign In or Register to comment.