Apple countersued by HTC over two recently-purchased HP patents

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 34
    rlirphrlirph Posts: 2member


    If you read the case you will realize the Chinese company had patented 'iPad' back in 2002.  Not only the Apple law firm did not do 'due diligence', the firm was negotiating with the principal who was acting on the behalf of his three  companies.  It is a case of gross negligence.  In the end, Apple settled for an additional $60M, which works out to one day of Apple sales in China.  The Court was letting both parties mediate to an agreeable ending.  Interestingly the $60M is also what the principal owed to three large Chinese banks.

  • Reply 22 of 34
    sr2012sr2012 Posts: 896member
    rlirph wrote: »
    If you read the case you will realize the Chinese company had patented 'iPad' back in 2002.  Not only the Apple law firm did not do 'due diligence', the firm was negotiating with the principal who was acting on the behalf of his three  companies.  It is a case of gross negligence.  In the end, Apple settled for an additional $60M, which works out to one day of Apple sales in China.  The Court was letting both parties mediate to an agreeable ending.  Interestingly the $60M is also what the principal owed to three large Chinese banks.

    Er dude "iPad" was not "patented". I would request you do your due diligence then come back.
  • Reply 23 of 34
    sr2012sr2012 Posts: 896member

    Steve jobs seemed to see Android as a rip-off and called Google management out on it.

    Precisely. It's blindingly, blatantly obvious what a rip-off Google Android is.
  • Reply 24 of 34


    I never knew that HP had a webpage where you could buy patents like HTC did.

  • Reply 25 of 34
    sleepy3sleepy3 Posts: 244member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by justmeblue View Post


    I never knew that HP had a webpage where you could buy patents like HTC did.



    Yep. Its like buying whole companies and using their patents (Like every other company does, including Apple), just a LOT cheaper

  • Reply 26 of 34
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    rlirph wrote: »
    If you read the case you will realize the Chinese company had patented 'iPad' back in 2002.  Not only the Apple law firm did not do 'due diligence', the firm was negotiating with the principal who was acting on the behalf of his three  companies.  It is a case of gross negligence.  In the end, Apple settled for an additional $60M, which works out to one day of Apple sales in China.  The Court was letting both parties mediate to an agreeable ending.  Interestingly the $60M is also what the principal owed to three large Chinese banks.


    You might want to stop posting until you learn something about a subject matter. Just a few of the errors in your post:

    1. The Chinese company did NOT patent 'iPad'. They had a trademark on the name - which is an entirely different thing.

    2. You don't have any idea whether Apple's law firm (or anyone else, for that matter) did due diligence. Apple claims that they completed a fully legal transaction and that Proview was simply extorting money. The Hong Kong court decision supported that claim.

    3. Apple didn't buy the trademark from Proview. It was a British holding company which bought the trademark.
  • Reply 27 of 34
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,617member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    You might want to stop posting until you learn something about a subject matter. Just a few of the errors in your post:

    1. The Chinese company did NOT patent 'iPad'. They had a trademark on the name - which is an entirely different thing.

    2. You don't have any idea whether Apple's law firm (or anyone else, for that matter) did due diligence. Apple claims that they completed a fully legal transaction and that Proview was simply extorting money. The Hong Kong court decision supported that claim.

    3. Apple didn't buy the trademark from Proview. It was a British holding company which bought the trademark.


    "Back then, the Proview Taiwan unit had sold the rights to IP Application Development Ltd, a London-based company that was set up by Apple, for 35,000 pounds, Proview's executives and lawyers said. IP Application Development then sold the iPad name to Apple for 10 pounds months later, they said."


    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/15/us-apple-proview-idUSTRE81E0BE20120215

  • Reply 28 of 34

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post



    I'm having trouble executing this .bat file on my iPhone screen, maybe something is wrong with my ntdlr.


     


     


    AppleBasic not installed?  Apple DOS? Isn't there an app for that?

  • Reply 29 of 34

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    You might want to stop posting until you learn something about a subject matter. Just a few of the errors in your post:

    1. The Chinese company did NOT patent 'iPad'. They had a trademark on the name - which is an entirely different thing.

    2. You don't have any idea whether Apple's law firm (or anyone else, for that matter) did due diligence. Apple claims that they completed a fully legal transaction and that Proview was simply extorting money. The Hong Kong court decision supported that claim.

    3. Apple didn't buy the trademark from Proview. It was a British holding company which bought the trademark.


     


    2.  The Hong Kong court did what?  They have no jurisdiction over ownership of a trademark in a different country, and were deciding whether or not to grant a gag order, but that doesn't matter. 


     


    What does matter is that the only Chinese court to issue a decision said that Apple did NOT buy the Chinese trademark in the transaction in question.  That is why Apple appealed.

  • Reply 30 of 34


    Hahaha.  When Apple sues a competitor over patents, people rabidly accuse said competitor of hate crimes, theft, etc etc.  When Apple gets sued by a competitor, the claims are bogus, unfounded and desperate.  It goes both ways people, Samsung "steals," HTC "steals," Motoroloa "steals," Microsoft "steals" and, yes, Apple "steals."

  • Reply 31 of 34
    majjomajjo Posts: 574member
    freerange wrote: »
    Its amazing how wrong you always seem to be. Android was copying the BB until apple came along with the iPhone and then they decided to rip it off.


    Considering the first android phone released 1 year after the iphone (the G1) had a physical keyboard (and not a soft keyboard like the iphone), the same desktop concept as the 'BB copy' (and not the homescreen of the iphone), the same statusbar notification system as the 'BB copy' (and not the [outdated] popup system of the iphone), the complete removal of the dock (and not the 4 icon dock of the iphone), the same physical buttons as the 'BB copy' (and not the singular home button of the iphone), I'm struggling to see where the ripoff occured.
  • Reply 32 of 34
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,617member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lubernabei View Post


    Hahaha.  When Apple sues a competitor over patents, people rabidly accuse said competitor of hate crimes, theft, etc etc.  When Apple gets sued by a competitor, the claims are bogus, unfounded and desperate.  It goes both ways people, Samsung "steals," HTC "steals," Motoroloa "steals," Microsoft "steals" and, yes, Apple "steals."



    image I was never ruined but twice; once when I lost a lawsuit and once when I won one.   image


    Voltaire

  • Reply 33 of 34
    sr2012sr2012 Posts: 896member

    AppleBasic not installed?  Apple DOS? Isn't there an app for that?

    Yeah darn, no HIMEM on my iPhone unlike Android, I can't access 64GB of RAM like on rooted Android phones.
  • Reply 34 of 34
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lubernabei View Post

    …and, yes, Apple "steals."


     


    {Citation needed}

Sign In or Register to comment.