"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"...
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
<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>
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.
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.
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.
Comments
Here's a loooong list of 'em.
NSFW: http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-40063.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
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"...
Aiyah!
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR
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
Poor Gatorguy is probably having a heart attack.
And poor I am a TEKZTUD Zock Zuppet is probably in deep denial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen
"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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hopl67
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by JiveTurkey
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seking
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightstriker
So Proview had a "global trademark" that included the U.S…
Who says it included the US?