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.
The trial is over. There will be no more depositions. There will be no more testimony of key executives. It has all already happened. Apple has already incurred those expenses.
There will be no more major legal expenses. The trial is over.
By the way this story is poorly sourced, it is according to Proview They have been known to lie in their press releases before, I tried following the links back to china times and it got lost in chinese characters. It would be a bit more believable if it originated in Cupertino.
I would take it with a grain of salt that apple is willing to settle for 16 million, that is enough to set a bad precedent.
It is already over. The trial has concluded. There is nothing to end.
And what was the verdict?
It has not yet been announced.
How about a link to some article, any article, that states that the trial _in China_ has concluded. Everything I've found, so far, says it is still ongoing as of 5/10/12...but then, my search skills aren't legendary...
In this case there are high level chinese politicians involved with Proview, is a political case and has to be handled like that.
Nothing a few custom made iPads with the Apple Logo on the back replaced with the likenesses of Chinese officials couldn't fix, $16 million would buy enough gold and diamonds to make the iPad "gifts" special enough to make the right people turn the other way.
I don't understand why I need to you remind you of this. What you said was "Its usually called swindling when one party approaches a second party with the intention to buy something not up for sale because the first party sees a worth that the second party is unaware of."
I said that that's not swindling. Then mysteriously you started talking about something totally different. Make up your mind.
What Apple is accused of has nothing to do with what your incorrect definition of swindling is.
Well I got the definition directly from the dictionary so excuse me if i believe them and not you.
Whats different about "The company has argued that Apple acted fraudulently to acquire the iPad trademark" versus "swin·dle 1. To obtain by fraudulent means"? and although what i initially said is a little different it still constitutes the purchaser being fraudulent to the seller.
Whats different about "The company has argued that Apple acted fraudulently to acquire the iPad trademark" versus "swin·dle 1. To obtain by fraudulent means"? and although what i initially said is a little different it still constitutes the purchaser being fraudulent to the seller.
The difference is they didn't do it. Swindle, that is.
$16 Million for the trademark for iPad? That's plenty, especially when Proview probably never even sold $16 Million worth of their own product in terms of profit. If I were Proview, I'd take the money and RUN!!! That's more than I would have offered, especially since they are trying to basically rip off the original iMac design.
Even if Apple was guilty of "fraud", the four letters "IPAD" wasn't worth $400 million before January 2010. Apparently, it was worth whatever Proview sold it for. The lawsuit is extortion.
It's not a crocked deal to use an IP subsidiary to buy a name.
Apple wanted to keep the name "iPad" secret. If you recall, iSlate and other such names were the subject of much speculation. So, they were under the radar as they try to be with most things. Of course, with SJ's passing, we'll see how long they can keep up the "Jobsian Intensity."
(Could Proview have checked into the IP company a bit more and found out it was Apple? Don't know.)
...That's plenty, especially when Proview probably never even sold $16 Million worth of their own product in terms of profit. If I were Proview, I'd take the money and RUN!!!...
They can't take the money and run. According to the story they owe Chinese banks $400 million. So that's the amount that they need. The $16m would be gone in a flash with $384m still demanded.
Two things just occurred to me:
- Don't know Chinese law but, can a person/company walk away from debt and declare bankruptcy in China? I'm guessing not as you can do in the US... over here you can buy a house and walk away sticking the bank with the uncollected mortgage. I heard it's a different system in Europe, yes?
- How were Chinese investors left holding so much debt? Does anyone know if Proview went from 18,000 employees to (none) "overnight?"
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
It is already over. The trial has concluded. There is nothing to end.
And what was the verdict?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple
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.
The trial is over. There will be no more depositions. There will be no more testimony of key executives. It has all already happened. Apple has already incurred those expenses.
There will be no more major legal expenses. The trial is over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
It is already over. The trial has concluded. There is nothing to end.
And what was the verdict?
It has not yet been announced.
By the way this story is poorly sourced, it is according to Proview They have been known to lie in their press releases before, I tried following the links back to china times and it got lost in chinese characters. It would be a bit more believable if it originated in Cupertino.
I would take it with a grain of salt that apple is willing to settle for 16 million, that is enough to set a bad precedent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
It is already over. The trial has concluded. There is nothing to end.
And what was the verdict?
It has not yet been announced.
How about a link to some article, any article, that states that the trial _in China_ has concluded. Everything I've found, so far, says it is still ongoing as of 5/10/12...but then, my search skills aren't legendary...
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.
Nothing a few custom made iPads with the Apple Logo on the back replaced with the likenesses of Chinese officials couldn't fix, $16 million would buy enough gold and diamonds to make the iPad "gifts" special enough to make the right people turn the other way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj
I don't understand why I need to you remind you of this. What you said was "Its usually called swindling when one party approaches a second party with the intention to buy something not up for sale because the first party sees a worth that the second party is unaware of."
I said that that's not swindling. Then mysteriously you started talking about something totally different. Make up your mind.
What Apple is accused of has nothing to do with what your incorrect definition of swindling is.
Well I got the definition directly from the dictionary so excuse me if i believe them and not you.
Whats different about "The company has argued that Apple acted fraudulently to acquire the iPad trademark" versus "swin·dle 1. To obtain by fraudulent means"? and although what i initially said is a little different it still constitutes the purchaser being fraudulent to the seller.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Whats different about "The company has argued that Apple acted fraudulently to acquire the iPad trademark" versus "swin·dle 1. To obtain by fraudulent means"? and although what i initially said is a little different it still constitutes the purchaser being fraudulent to the seller.
The difference is they didn't do it. Swindle, that is.
$16 Million for the trademark for iPad? That's plenty, especially when Proview probably never even sold $16 Million worth of their own product in terms of profit. If I were Proview, I'd take the money and RUN!!! That's more than I would have offered, especially since they are trying to basically rip off the original iMac design.
Then, once i got the money, I would invest a large portion of that money into Apple stock and let it ride for a few years.
Kind of like AAA. Do you know how many companies use the three letters AAA?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
The difference is they didn't do it. Swindle, that is.
And you know this how? As much as I love Apple i will not blindly believe them nor anyone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnoel
I tend to agree- that was very sneaky indeed. Not sure if it's illegal, but definitely shady.
Yes it's legal, no it's not shady, it's pretty standard practice especially with high profile companies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
And you know this how? As much as I love Apple i will not blindly believe them nor anyone else.
Because, as we've already established, Apple did not use fraudulent means to get the trademark.
I don't see how that's unclear.
Even if Apple was guilty of "fraud", the four letters "IPAD" wasn't worth $400 million before January 2010. Apparently, it was worth whatever Proview sold it for. The lawsuit is extortion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
LOL. I like the idea of insulting them with an even lower offer, just to piss them off.
Here's an interesting response from a brewing company that Apple might use to form a response around:
http://www.edibleapple.com/2012/01/13/best-letter-ever-written-to-a-lawyer/
It's not a crocked deal to use an IP subsidiary to buy a name.
Apple wanted to keep the name "iPad" secret. If you recall, iSlate and other such names were the subject of much speculation. So, they were under the radar as they try to be with most things. Of course, with SJ's passing, we'll see how long they can keep up the "Jobsian Intensity."
(Could Proview have checked into the IP company a bit more and found out it was Apple? Don't know.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Because, as we've already established, Apple did not use fraudulent means to get the trademark.
I don't see how that's unclear.
Who's we? As far as I'm concerned its still a case that needs to be decided on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Who's we? As far as I'm concerned its still a case that needs to be decided on.
That's not what the case is about.
Happy thousand, by the way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
...That's plenty, especially when Proview probably never even sold $16 Million worth of their own product in terms of profit. If I were Proview, I'd take the money and RUN!!!...
They can't take the money and run. According to the story they owe Chinese banks $400 million. So that's the amount that they need. The $16m would be gone in a flash with $384m still demanded.
Two things just occurred to me:
- Don't know Chinese law but, can a person/company walk away from debt and declare bankruptcy in China? I'm guessing not as you can do in the US... over here you can buy a house and walk away sticking the bank with the uncollected mortgage. I heard it's a different system in Europe, yes?
- How were Chinese investors left holding so much debt? Does anyone know if Proview went from 18,000 employees to (none) "overnight?"