Proview iPad suit against Apple thrown out of California court

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 36
    SpamSandwichspamsandwich Posts: 33,407member
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 22 of 36
    sennensennen Posts: 1,472member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post


     


    Diu Ni! (de lou mo) ...



     


    "diu" is Cantonese, so still appropriate in HK and Guangdong where the Proview case is playing out. In Mandarin it's "cao" ['tsao', perhaps, in the Wade-Giles system], and "cao ni ma de" is the equivalent of "diu le lo mo"...

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 23 of 36
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    nvidia2008 wrote: »
    Diu Ni! (de lou mo) ... The only two words Apple needs in China.

    Aiyah!
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 24 of 36
    suddenly newtonsuddenly newton Posts: 13,819member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by GTR View Post



    Winning in California ain't winning in China, however.

    Personally, I reckon they should just rebrand and sell in China under the name 'iPaid'.


     


    Or "iPaid 2ice"


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    Poor Gatorguy is probably having a heart attack.

     


     


    And poor I am a TEKZTUD Zock Zuppet is probably in deep denial.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 25 of 36

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    There. Done. Apple has won, China now. They can cite… whatever the phrase is. Two words. Can't remember them.





    In China the two words are the name of an early Confucian Negotiator: Fak Que

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 26 of 36

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sennen View Post


     


    "diu" is Cantonese, so still appropriate in HK and Guangdong where the Proview case is playing out. In Mandarin it's "cao" ['tsao', perhaps, in the Wade-Giles system], and "cao ni ma de" is the equivalent of "diu le lo mo"...



    The Italians have a simple gesture that mean the same thing.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 27 of 36
    phone-ui-guyphone-ui-guy Posts: 1,019member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hopl67 View Post


    Yan Xiaohong, deputy director of the National Copyright Administration, said in Beijing that the government regarded Shenzhen Proview Technology as the rightful owner of the trademark for the popular tablet computers. His remarks could add to pressure on Apple to find a solution to the stand-off.



     


    That is meaningless. All that says is that Proview is the registered owner of the trademark in China. Even Apple doesn't dispute who the registered owner currently is. Apple is arguing who the registered owner should be based on the deal they did with Proview.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 28 of 36
    jiveturkeyjiveturkey Posts: 52member


    What amuses me here is the thought that if Steve Jobs were around and the Chinese government meddled with this case on behalf of Proview to exact even a small amount of money from Apple, he would immediately pull all Apple merchandise from China, bulldoze every Chinese Apple Store in a fit of rage and never sell another product in China again.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 29 of 36

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    There. Done. Apple has won China now. They can cite… whatever the phrase is. Two words. Can't remember them.



    Stare Decisis? Res Judicata?


     


    But given that the two lawsuits had totally different subject matter, that is unlikely.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 30 of 36
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Stare Decisis.

    But given that the two lawsuits had totally different subject matter, that is unlikely.

    I see you're off to a good start - by ignoring the facts.

    Apple presented evidence that Proview and Apple had agreed to resolve the matter in the Hong Kong courts - and the CA court accepted that evidence.

    That greatly increases the probability that this will ultimately be decided in Hong Kong and not in some remote province in China. Since Hong Kong's court has already come down firmly on Apple's side, even going so far as claiming that what Proview did was probably criminal conspiracy, if it does end up decided in Hong Kong, that goes a long way toward helping Apple to win this.

    The ultimate effect is that Proview's creditors are going to get screwed. If the HK court rules that the transaction was legal and binding (which appears to be their stance), then Proview will not be able to reverse it. However, they will have to face charges from their creditors over dissipation of assets. Of course, since Proview doesn't have any money, winning that argument won't do the creditors any good.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 31 of 36

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post



    But given that the two lawsuits had totally different subject matter, that is unlikely.




    I see you're off to a good start - by ignoring the facts.

     


     


    In the filing, the Shenzhen-based display manufacturer asserts that Apple committed fraud by purchasing the "iPad" name through a proxy company set up by one of the iPhone maker's law firms. 



    Proview Shenzhen claims that Apple acted "with oppression, fraud and/or malice," when it used U.K.-based IP Application Development, Ltd. to buy the rights from a Taiwanese affiliate in 2009 for a reported 35,000 British pounds, or $55,000.



    The U.S. suit differs from its Chinese counterparts that claim the purchase to be void because Proview Shenzhen didn't authorize its affiliate to sell the trademark. 


     


     


    http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/02/23/proview_sues_apple_over_ipad_moniker_in_us.html

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 32 of 36
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,043member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JiveTurkey View Post


    What amuses me here is the thought that if Steve Jobs were around and the Chinese government meddled with this case on behalf of Proview to exact even a small amount of money from Apple, he would immediately pull all Apple merchandise from China, bulldoze every Chinese Apple Store in a fit of rage and never sell another product in China again.





    No, actually he would pull all business from Foxconn who employes close to 1M people in china building Apple products. Apple is doing more for china's economy than any other company in the world, do you think the Capitalist/Communist are willing to risk this. China will let this pay out in the courts so it looks as if everything is above board but in the back rooms the court will be told exactly how this will play out.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 33 of 36
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,043member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by seking View Post


    So, Proview defrauded Apple. They assumed the attempt to buy "iPad" was a front for Apple, they said as much already. So they concocted a scheme to defraud Apple out of $1.5 Billion by directing them to negotiate with their subsidy which claimed to be able to negotiate on behalf of the parent (fraud) so that later the parent could refute the sale and then extort billions from Apple after the product was already distributed by the thousands and the "iPad" name was well-established. 


     


    Why is Apple (or the UK company known as IPAD) not suing the pants off of Proview? Isn't this as obvious and plain as day to everyone?





    Not even sure why I am responding to this, but you need to do more critical reading, the UK company call IPAD was set up by Apple to buy the name since they were smart enough to know  they would over pay if Proview knew it was Apple trying to buy the trade name.


     


    This is called a proxy transaction it is done all the time. Proview is just pissed they were not smart enough to realize the UK company IPAD was proxy company to Apple.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 34 of 36
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    <h2><span style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:15px;line-height:23px;background-color:rgb(242,242,242);">In the filing, the Shenzhen-based display manufacturer asserts that Apple committed fraud by purchasing the "iPad" name through a </span>
    <a href="http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/12/06/apple_could_pay_1_5b_to_chinese_company_in_ipad_trademark_lawsuit.html" style="font-weight:bold;color:rgb(78,100,144);font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:15px;line-height:23px;background-color:rgb(242,242,242);">proxy company</a>
    <span style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:15px;line-height:23px;background-color:rgb(242,242,242);"> set up by one of the iPhone maker's law firms. </span>
    <br style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:15px;line-height:23px;background-color:rgb(242,242,242);">
    <br style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:15px;line-height:23px;background-color:rgb(242,242,242);">
    <span style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:15px;line-height:23px;background-color:rgb(242,242,242);">Proview Shenzhen claims that Apple acted "with oppression, fraud and/or malice," when it used U.K.-based IP Application Development, Ltd. to buy the rights from a Taiwanese affiliate in 2009 for a reported 35,000 British pounds, or $55,000.</span>
    <br style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:15px;line-height:23px;background-color:rgb(242,242,242);">
    <br style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:15px;line-height:23px;background-color:rgb(242,242,242);">
    [SIZE=16px]<span style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:23px;background-color:rgb(242,242,242);">The U.S. suit differs from its </span>
    <a href="http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/10/27/taiwanese_company_threatens_to_sue_apple_over_ipad_name.html" style="font-weight:bold;color:rgb(78,100,144);font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:15px;line-height:23px;background-color:rgb(242,242,242);">Chinese counterparts</a>
    <span style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:23px;background-color:rgb(242,242,242);"> that claim the purchase to be void because Proview Shenzhen didn't authorize its affiliate to sell the trademark. </span>
    [/SIZE]</h2>

    http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/02/23/proview_sues_apple_over_ipad_moniker_in_us.html

    So what? Apple claimed (and the CA judge apparently agreed) that Apple and Proview agreed to settle the matter in Hong Kong. So all of Proview's filings around the world are frivolous and not likely to succeed. And the Hong Kong court has already stated their belief that Apple was the legal owner of the trademark and that Proview committed conspiracy with intent to defraud.

    In addition, the fact that you apparently agree that the use of a proxy company constitutes fraud is pretty certain proof that you don't understand enough about business or the law to even be participating in this discussion. Go back to writing fake reviews.

    maestro64 wrote: »

    Not even sure why I am responding to this, but you need to do more critical reading, the UK company call IPAD was set up by Apple to buy the name since they were smart enough to know  they would over pay if Proview knew it was Apple trying to buy the trade name.

    This is called a proxy transaction it is done all the time. Proview is just pissed they were not smart enough to realize the UK company IPAD was proxy company to Apple.

    That's half of it. If the proxy company had turned out to be someone else, they might not have bothered.

    However, it also appears that there was a clear intent to defraud from the start. Read the Hong Kong court ruling. They may not have intended to transfer the trademark to the UK company even before they knew it was Apple.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 35 of 36
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post




    Not even sure why I am responding to this, but you need to do more critical reading, the UK company call IPAD was set up by Apple to buy the name since they were smart enough to know  they would over pay if Proview knew it was Apple trying to buy the trade name.


     


    This is called a proxy transaction it is done all the time. Proview is just pissed they were not smart enough to realize the UK company IPAD was proxy company to Apple.



    You're right. Proxy transactions are common. If they wanted to hold out for more money, they could have negotiated back then or at least researched the buyer. I don't think it would have hit millions or billions, but if Apple really wanted to use that name, it's unlikely that this was the upper limit of their budget.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 36 of 36

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lightstriker View Post


    So Proview had a "global trademark" that included the U.S…



     


    Who says it included the US?

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.