Proview speaks out on US suit, accuses Apple of fraud & unfair competition

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 91
    Hindsight is 20/20!



    If Proview wanted $100 million, Apple could just call it iNewton instead of iPad, and Proview gets nothing.
  • Reply 42 of 91
    nasseraenasserae Posts: 3,167member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    I haven't enjoyed this much stupidity since Psystar.



    Yep. When will these people understand that they cannot outsmart Apple?
  • Reply 43 of 91
    Has anyone considered the fact that the trademark may be worth billions now, but it was NOT when Apple (or iPAd Ltd or whoever) bought it. Apple MADE IT worth billions by creating a great product and marketing it like crazy.
  • Reply 44 of 91
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ Web View Post


    New York based trademark attorney Martin Scwhimmer said Apple's approach was a "level of ruse" he has "never encountered."



    Have to agree with Mr. Schwimmer here... Though I find Apple's penchant for Hollywood style derring do amusing, if true Apple's little charade strikes me as downright deceptive.



    Not really. It's how business is done in todays market. This is just a waste of time for Apple. No court will ever hold for Proview. I'm sure Apple could find 100 lawyers that would say just the opposite of what Scwhimmer said. You have to be insane to quoting a lawyer. They will always say what benefits them when talking to the press (i.e. he might be looking for work with Proview).
  • Reply 45 of 91
    rob55rob55 Posts: 1,290member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by williamh View Post


    Has anyone considered the fact that the trademark may be worth billions now, but it was NOT when Apple (or iPAd Ltd or whoever) bought it. Apple MADE IT worth billions by creating a great product and marketing it like crazy.



    And as one post in another thread pointed out, many didn't even like the iPad name in the beginning. It was the product that made the name, not the other way around. I firmly believe that if it had be called the iSlate, it would be just as popular now as the iPad. That's what Proview is failing (or refusing to see), that Apple made the name what it is today.
  • Reply 46 of 91
    Chinese company asks for a trademark lawsuit? Fuck them. They have been running off with ideas from everywhere around the world without regard. Now they want to sue US company that is a big part of their economy much less the US economy. Get a life.
  • Reply 47 of 91
    Still waiting for someone to point to the law that forbids the purchase of a trademark via an intermediary...
  • Reply 48 of 91
    chiachia Posts: 712member
    I think it's the end of the business careers for those behind Proview:



    I wouldn't trust them to look after a child's piggy bank, much less a corporation.



    The greedy, envious and desparate actions of this company in the courts are frankly, distasteful.



    Proview wasn't forced to sell, they sold at a price which was acceptable to them.
  • Reply 49 of 91
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by GregInPrague View Post


    Proview could have written the contract to say that the buyer wasn't allowed to use the trademark to compete against them. But, they didn't write the contract that way. If that had been their concern they should have had better lawyers/contract writers before the sale rather than now.





    Does ProView make tablet computers? Or anything remotely resembling any Apple products or services?
  • Reply 50 of 91
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rain View Post


    Zealots will try and defend this no doubt - but any way you slice it, its just a bad Apple.



    Remind me to add you to my "blocked" list.
  • Reply 51 of 91
    rob55rob55 Posts: 1,290member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by freediverx View Post


    Still waiting for someone to point to the law that forbids the purchase of a trademark via an intermediary...



    Somehow, I think this is probably one of the first things Apple would have looked into given how much business they do in China.
  • Reply 52 of 91
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rbonner View Post


    Companies do this all the time, Disney used shell companies to purchase the land in Florida, otherwise the price get's jacked up, which they would have done if they had known it was Apple. It sounds like a fair price was agreed upon, no reason that price should change because it was Apple at the table.





    I was just going to give the same example. If highly visible companies DON'T hide their identity and intentions, they would be taken advantage of for otherwise low-value assets. This is the way it has to be done.
  • Reply 53 of 91
    xsuxsu Posts: 401member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mkbrogers View Post


    So in China Proview says that they don't have an agreement - but in the US they say they do have an agreement ?? Which is it going to be ?

    Seems they just lost their own argument in one country or another.



    The entity that had sold iPad name to Apple's agent was Proview Taiwan, which held all rights to the iPad name for everywhere except China. The entity that did not sell iPad name to Apple's agent was Proview Shenzhen, located in China. Both entities are owned by the same person, but are legally two separate entities. But the original agreement between Proview Taiwan and Apple's agent was ambiguous enough that you can't really tell that Proview Shenzhen was not part of the deal. That gave Proview the opportunity to sue Apple when it started selling iPad in China.



    So it's a fine muddled mess as to who was trying to defraud who when they signed the original agreement.
  • Reply 54 of 91
    evilutionevilution Posts: 1,398member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by freediverx View Post


    Does ProView make tablet computers? Or anything remotely resembling any Apple products or services?



    I don't think they make anything now they are bankrupt. I think that's the reason they are pushing their luck for a payout.
  • Reply 55 of 91
    galbigalbi Posts: 968member
    Oh snap!
  • Reply 56 of 91
    ronboronbo Posts: 669member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    "To further this deception, Apple used an intermediary, Farncombe International and its Managing Director, Graham Robinson, to create an elaborate but false pretext for the purchase of Proview's IPAD trademarks," the statement reads. "Apple created a special purpose company named IP Application Development Limited ("IPAD Ltd."), then concealed the fact that this company was acting as an agent of Apple.



    Happens all the time in real estate, and for obvious reasons.
  • Reply 57 of 91
    So Proview's latest claim is that Apple doesn't own the iPad name because Apple bought it under a different name, and had Proview known it was Apple, they would've held out for a few more zeros?



    Hey Proview! No takesies-backsies!
  • Reply 58 of 91
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ronbo View Post


    Happens all the time in real estate, and for obvious reasons.



    I seem to recall that this happened with Walt Disney & Walt Disney World. Disney and Co wanted to buy a crap-ton of swampland in South Florida, but wanted a fair market price for it, so they purchased it using various pseudonyms. When the sellers found out who had actually purchased the land, they were really kicking themselves.
  • Reply 59 of 91
    [insult removed]
  • Reply 60 of 91
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bsginc View Post


    Fail to see any valid purpose for the California lawsuit. The transaction took place between a company incorporated in the UK and a company incorporated in Taiwan acting, at it's own admission, on behalf of it's parent company in China.



    The Taiwan company has no parent company in China. Instead, the parent company is from Hong Kong.



    Therefore, the Taiwan company made no such "admission". It is difficult to come to valid conclusions when one is mistaken as to the facts.
Sign In or Register to comment.