Yes. Don't forget that part of Apple's success relies on secrecy. How do they keep the name iPad secret without going through a proxy? The only reason that Proview would know the iPad name would be worth more to Apple is if they knew of Apple's plans. But doesn't Apple have the right to keep that secret?
One could also ask is it fair to ask more for the same product just because you know the buyer has more money?
The name should have inherent value in and of itself, value which Apple built and added through many factors besides just the name. In this case, I would argue they aren't even the same trademark. One is an all caps acronym; the other uses mixed caps to convey a relation to the buyer and an existing product family.
If they wanted more for that particular combination of letters, they should have had the vision to understand how it could be used. It isn't fair to expect Apple to reveal the name and identity of their new product just so some menial company can bleed them.
I tend to agree- that was very sneaky indeed. Not sure if it's illegal, but definitely shady.
No, there's absolutely nothing shady or illegal about that at all. The shady and illegal part comes when companies would have charged Apple MORE simply because they know it's Apple.
In this case there are high level chinese politicians involved with Proview, is a political case and has to be handled like that.
I know Apple's future largely depends on China, from a fiscal growth and valuation point of view at least. Still, I hope this doesn't set any new precedent and I also hope that Apple doesn't get pushed around too much by China. I like to hope that they've changed enough over there to want treatment of businesses to continue their economic growth. I am probably naive though.
Would have been a lot cheaper, and less headache for Apple to have paid the additional $10 million dollars when the transfer mistake was first discovered.
Good. Screw 'em. Apple never should have offered that nonsense.
Offer them $55,000 next. When they reject it, keep stringing the trial along until they go bankrupt and can't negotiate.
Bankruptcy won't happen. The creditors can keep paying the legal bills until the matter is settled. Unless the creditors decide that it's not worth pursuing, this could go on for a long time.
who says they did? Proview. Which means that it could be total bunk and Apple made no such offer. Or any offer other than "give us what we already bought and have proof was included and we will end our lawsuits against you"
As for the $400 million, Apple didn't create this mess it's not their job to fix it. Frankly I think if China isn't willing to back up Apple, who says they have proof of their claims in very clear writing from Proview's executives, then it's time to pull the iPad from China. Pull selling it, pull making it there. Why should Apple risk that the government might actually consider the whole export ban to protect one of their countries companies and it's IP (that they took money for and won't turn off). Remove the risk by getting out of China
Apple's not going to get out of China. What's the point of even suggesting something so ridiculous?
As for the first paragraph, you are correct. Proview's lawyers have proven to be liars already. Several weeks ago, they claimed that they were already having settlement talks with Apple. This week, they claimed that Apple had refused to talk with them previously and had just started talking. Nothing they say can be believed.
Which trial? The one in CA where the judge said that he was going to honor Proview and Apple's agreement that the matter should be settled in Hong Kong or the Hong Kong trial where they judge said that Proview was committing criminal conspiracy?
Well Apple, if you were willing to offer 16 million dollars to Proview, I say forward that check to your legal department and say to those Apple lawyers regarding Proview, "Bury Them!"
/
/
/
If the number is true (which I doubt), that's where it undoubtedly came from. Apple figured what it was going to cost them in legal expenses, depositions, testimony of key executives, etc and came up with a figure of $16 M. It is not uncommon to offer something like that to settle a case like this. If Proview doesn't agree, Apple will fight it.
Apple used a proxy for the obvious reason that anyone would know an "i" trademark would be worth a lot more to Apple than any other company and raise the asking price. When the value of the trademark depends on the identity of the buyer and the identity is concealed, is that a fair deal?
I tend to agree- that was very sneaky indeed. Not sure if it's illegal, but definitely shady.
If the two you you don't have any idea how business operates, I'd suggest learning before making yourself look foolish.
This happens all the time and is 100% legal (unless the party were to intentionally lie about a material thing. For example, if Proview had asked if IPAD was buying it for Apple and IPAD said they were not, that could void the contract). Other than that, this is common practice and 100% legal everywhere that I know of (I'm sure about the US and the UK and Taiwan).
Look up how Disney acquired the land for Disneyworld.
Perfectly legal. If Apple had gone in as "Apple", proview would have demanded $2Billion. Is that fair?
Walt Disney did it before he build Disney World. Did Orlando or the residents sue him for $400MM dollars.
I'm sure they may indeed have if residents sold property under the condition that the land would not be used to build a massive theme park. I was under the impression that part of Proview's complaint is that negotiations indicated that the transfer of the trademark would be 'non-competing'.
Would have been a lot cheaper, and less headache for Apple to have paid the additional $10 million dollars when the transfer mistake was first discovered.
Which is probably what Proview figured when they "discovered" this "mistake" by their subsidiary. More likely the reality is that, realizing the buyer was Apple instead of some nobody, they dreamed up this scenario of the subsidiary having the rights without the authority to do so.
Apple used a proxy for the obvious reason that anyone would know an "i" trademark would be worth a lot more to Apple than any other company and raise the asking price. When the value of the trademark depends on the identity of the buyer and the identity is concealed, is that a fair deal?
If it's fair for a company to charge more to Apple just because it's Apple, then it has to be fair for Apple to conceal its identity.
Proview squeezed every dollar it thought it could out of its sale of the trademark. Proview accepted the price. That set the value of the trademark at the time of sale. Maybe Proview should have researched the buyer more. Maybe Proview should have negotiated for a higher selling price. Maybe this whole episode is just a symptom of Proview's poor management. The company is in bankruptcy. And Proview's bankruptcy has nothing to do with Apple or this trademark.
I'm sure they may indeed have if residents sold property under the condition that the land would not be used to build a massive theme park. I was under the impression that part of Proview's complaint is that negotiations indicated that the transfer of the trademark would be 'non-competing'.
I believe trademarks are valid in types of industries so the trademark is in the electronics, computers industries, why would anyone need to buy it if they don't wont compete in the same industry? Besides, Proview doesn't have and products or services anymore so there's no competition.
Totally agree. If I were Chinese and were looking a products with "English-Like" names it would more than likely be culturally confusing, etc. So maybe I work with a Chinese Ad firm to research and create all Chinese names for my product line (line up the trademarks in advance, etc. get them legally licensed, etc.) Sure it would be less expensive and a better fit. I bet you could even have some very cool ideographics(characters) designed for each name element.
If Apple has indeed made an offer (and a non-trivial one at that), doesn't this suggest the case is not so open and shut, black and white or easy to put to rest?
If it is a political thing then the politicians need to be involved. Proview has no other lifelines left, if some politician is underwater I suppose that could keep the case alive to a point, I'm guessing that the pol is based in the province where the court favorable to preview issued the injunction, he/she may not have national pull.
If Apple has indeed made an offer (and a non-trivial one at that), doesn't this suggest the case is not so open and shut, black and white or easy to put to rest?
Yes.
No. The only thing the offer suggests is that Apple is willing to pay $16M to end this.
No. The only thing the offer suggests is that Apple is willing to pay $16M to end this.
Exactly. This was the financial equivalent of "shut up and go away". You'd throw the bagpipes player on the bus a few singles to get him to shut up, too.
No, there's absolutely nothing shady or illegal about that at all. The shady and illegal part comes when companies would have charged Apple MORE simply because they know it's Apple.
Google Blue Harvest.
Both are wrong. It's business. It's not shady to buy something and not tell the seller who you are. It's also not shady to TRY TO charge more because you know that your buyer really really needs what you're selling. It's called business. You negotiate the best you can for the best price you can get, and you move on.
In China, however, they have been dealing with command and control style business for so long, they think they can pull some strings and get things fixed. And they may be right. But I suspect eventually China will determine that letting this company die and not fleecing Apple will be in their best interests. Because we know Apple bears grudges, and if they extract $2 billion from Apple, Apple will make sure that eventually that gets extracted right back one way or another.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustav
Yes. Don't forget that part of Apple's success relies on secrecy. How do they keep the name iPad secret without going through a proxy? The only reason that Proview would know the iPad name would be worth more to Apple is if they knew of Apple's plans. But doesn't Apple have the right to keep that secret?
One could also ask is it fair to ask more for the same product just because you know the buyer has more money?
The name should have inherent value in and of itself, value which Apple built and added through many factors besides just the name. In this case, I would argue they aren't even the same trademark. One is an all caps acronym; the other uses mixed caps to convey a relation to the buyer and an existing product family.
If they wanted more for that particular combination of letters, they should have had the vision to understand how it could be used. It isn't fair to expect Apple to reveal the name and identity of their new product just so some menial company can bleed them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnoel
I tend to agree- that was very sneaky indeed. Not sure if it's illegal, but definitely shady.
No, there's absolutely nothing shady or illegal about that at all. The shady and illegal part comes when companies would have charged Apple MORE simply because they know it's Apple.
Google Blue Harvest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by advill
In this case there are high level chinese politicians involved with Proview, is a political case and has to be handled like that.
I know Apple's future largely depends on China, from a fiscal growth and valuation point of view at least. Still, I hope this doesn't set any new precedent and I also hope that Apple doesn't get pushed around too much by China. I like to hope that they've changed enough over there to want treatment of businesses to continue their economic growth. I am probably naive though.
Would have been a lot cheaper, and less headache for Apple to have paid the additional $10 million dollars when the transfer mistake was first discovered.
Bankruptcy won't happen. The creditors can keep paying the legal bills until the matter is settled. Unless the creditors decide that it's not worth pursuing, this could go on for a long time.
Apple's not going to get out of China. What's the point of even suggesting something so ridiculous?
As for the first paragraph, you are correct. Proview's lawyers have proven to be liars already. Several weeks ago, they claimed that they were already having settlement talks with Apple. This week, they claimed that Apple had refused to talk with them previously and had just started talking. Nothing they say can be believed.
Which trial? The one in CA where the judge said that he was going to honor Proview and Apple's agreement that the matter should be settled in Hong Kong or the Hong Kong trial where they judge said that Proview was committing criminal conspiracy?
If the number is true (which I doubt), that's where it undoubtedly came from. Apple figured what it was going to cost them in legal expenses, depositions, testimony of key executives, etc and came up with a figure of $16 M. It is not uncommon to offer something like that to settle a case like this. If Proview doesn't agree, Apple will fight it.
If the two you you don't have any idea how business operates, I'd suggest learning before making yourself look foolish.
This happens all the time and is 100% legal (unless the party were to intentionally lie about a material thing. For example, if Proview had asked if IPAD was buying it for Apple and IPAD said they were not, that could void the contract). Other than that, this is common practice and 100% legal everywhere that I know of (I'm sure about the US and the UK and Taiwan).
Look up how Disney acquired the land for Disneyworld.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
Perfectly legal. If Apple had gone in as "Apple", proview would have demanded $2Billion. Is that fair?
Walt Disney did it before he build Disney World. Did Orlando or the residents sue him for $400MM dollars.
I'm sure they may indeed have if residents sold property under the condition that the land would not be used to build a massive theme park. I was under the impression that part of Proview's complaint is that negotiations indicated that the transfer of the trademark would be 'non-competing'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas
Would have been a lot cheaper, and less headache for Apple to have paid the additional $10 million dollars when the transfer mistake was first discovered.
Which is probably what Proview figured when they "discovered" this "mistake" by their subsidiary. More likely the reality is that, realizing the buyer was Apple instead of some nobody, they dreamed up this scenario of the subsidiary having the rights without the authority to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magic_Al
Apple used a proxy for the obvious reason that anyone would know an "i" trademark would be worth a lot more to Apple than any other company and raise the asking price. When the value of the trademark depends on the identity of the buyer and the identity is concealed, is that a fair deal?
If it's fair for a company to charge more to Apple just because it's Apple, then it has to be fair for Apple to conceal its identity.
Proview squeezed every dollar it thought it could out of its sale of the trademark. Proview accepted the price. That set the value of the trademark at the time of sale. Maybe Proview should have researched the buyer more. Maybe Proview should have negotiated for a higher selling price. Maybe this whole episode is just a symptom of Proview's poor management. The company is in bankruptcy. And Proview's bankruptcy has nothing to do with Apple or this trademark.
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas
I'm sure they may indeed have if residents sold property under the condition that the land would not be used to build a massive theme park. I was under the impression that part of Proview's complaint is that negotiations indicated that the transfer of the trademark would be 'non-competing'.
I believe trademarks are valid in types of industries so the trademark is in the electronics, computers industries, why would anyone need to buy it if they don't wont compete in the same industry? Besides, Proview doesn't have and products or services anymore so there's no competition.
Totally agree. If I were Chinese and were looking a products with "English-Like" names it would more than likely be culturally confusing, etc. So maybe I work with a Chinese Ad firm to research and create all Chinese names for my product line (line up the trademarks in advance, etc. get them legally licensed, etc.) Sure it would be less expensive and a better fit. I bet you could even have some very cool ideographics(characters) designed for each name element.
Somehow, I feel that Apple can invent a new name, register it everywhere, and ditch the iPad name. It will probably cost almost nothing.
I hate to cave into Proviews' outrageous demands. $16 is a fair price. If they don't want it, too bad. We move on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Good. Screw 'em. Apple never should have offered that nonsense.
Offer them $55,000 next. When they reject it, keep stringing the trial along until they go bankrupt and can't negotiate.
Or just give them coupons good for $50 off future iPad purchases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
The trial is over.
So what's this business in Hong Kong coming up?
Ask J-Rag.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
If Apple has indeed made an offer (and a non-trivial one at that), doesn't this suggest the case is not so open and shut, black and white or easy to put to rest?
Yes.
I'm wondering why Proview doesn't offer the IPAD trademark for any iPad-clone makers and try to sell its right in China?
...if they were right about still having the trademark for China. It seems nobody believes they could win the case, not even the clone makers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by advill
In this case there are high level chinese politicians involved with Proview, is a political case and has to be handled like that.
Agreed, but if american companies start to pay "hostage" fees to chinese politicians there can be no end to it. I think wal-mart or some other american company was recently accused of paying bribes to mexican local officials and is being prosecuted in US courts [here for those interested- http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/business/at-wal-mart-in-mexico-a-bribe-inquiry-silenced.html?pagewanted=all ]
If it is a political thing then the politicians need to be involved. Proview has no other lifelines left, if some politician is underwater I suppose that could keep the case alive to a point, I'm guessing that the pol is based in the province where the court favorable to preview issued the injunction, he/she may not have national pull.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
If Apple has indeed made an offer (and a non-trivial one at that), doesn't this suggest the case is not so open and shut, black and white or easy to put to rest?
Yes.
No. The only thing the offer suggests is that Apple is willing to pay $16M to end this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBillyGoatGruff
No. The only thing the offer suggests is that Apple is willing to pay $16M to end this.
Exactly. This was the financial equivalent of "shut up and go away". You'd throw the bagpipes player on the bus a few singles to get him to shut up, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
No, there's absolutely nothing shady or illegal about that at all. The shady and illegal part comes when companies would have charged Apple MORE simply because they know it's Apple.
Google Blue Harvest.
Both are wrong. It's business. It's not shady to buy something and not tell the seller who you are. It's also not shady to TRY TO charge more because you know that your buyer really really needs what you're selling. It's called business. You negotiate the best you can for the best price you can get, and you move on.
In China, however, they have been dealing with command and control style business for so long, they think they can pull some strings and get things fixed. And they may be right. But I suspect eventually China will determine that letting this company die and not fleecing Apple will be in their best interests. Because we know Apple bears grudges, and if they extract $2 billion from Apple, Apple will make sure that eventually that gets extracted right back one way or another.