this person wants to force Insolvency so that, they can then turn around and say that apple bought the trademark at a under-value so that Trustee in backruptcy can take it back and resell it for it's market value... (Insolvency Act... 5 or 2 year rule for undervalue/gifts; assuming that the china Insolvency Act is similar to usa's and canada's)
The sales contract was signed by the Taiwan company, who did not own the Chinese trademark. The Chinese company is the owner, and is the subject of this story.
The sales contract was signed by the Taiwan company, who did not own the Chinese trademark. The Chinese company is the owner, and is the subject of this story.
I haven't seen anymore paperwork than you probably have but my understanding differs slightly.
The Taiwan company said they had the authority to agree the sale of that trademark to Apple's proxy company and that that the transfer would be made.
This agreement was made on behalf (and signed by a company director and shareholder) of the Taiwan Company.
But they didn't own you say and you are correct and it seems Apple's legal representatives were aware of this and therefore asked for the confirmation of authority. You are right they didn't own it but said director was also a shareholder, creditor and debtor as well as a main board director of the Shenzen company and so could have had authority to transfer the ownership.
The long and short of it is that even if Proview win this case there is the small matter of financial fraud to be heard at a later date should either Apple wish to proceed with it (and why wouldn't they) and conviction for Financial fraud can still carry the death penalty over here. Especially if the case is seen to be high profile and this now is.
This is bigger new in China than it is in most parts of the world and I can find a news channel or commentary programme referring to it everyday of the week.
This is a serious sh*t or bust strategy forced on Proview which could have disastrous consequences either way.
But they didn't own you say and you are correct and it seems Apple's legal representatives were aware of this and therefore asked for the confirmation of authority. You are right they didn't own it but said director was also a shareholder, creditor and debtor as well as a main board director of the Shenzen company and so could have had authority to transfer the ownership.
The long and short of it is that even if Proview win this case there is the small matter of financial fraud to be heard at a later date should either Apple wish to proceed with it (and why wouldn't they) and conviction for Financial fraud can still carry the death penalty over here. Especially if the case is seen to be high profile and this now is.
The Taiwan company is clearly liable for misrepresenting that they owned the Chinese trademark.
While the director to the Schenzen company could have the authority to tranasfer property of the Schenzen company, I have seen no documents signed on behalf of the Schenzen company in which the Schenzen company has done so.
There are emails. I have seen no contract of sale.
Apple can argue fraud or mistake. But to argue that the Chines company sold the trademark is a big stretch. They never signed the sales contract.
this person wants to force Insolvency so that, they can then turn around and say that apple bought the trademark at a under-value so that Trustee in backruptcy can take it back and resell it for it's market value... (Insolvency Act... 5 or 2 year rule for undervalue/gifts; assuming that the china Insolvency Act is similar to usa's and canada's)
Apple is fighting hard to prove that it was a good faith sale (at a fair market rate), so that the trustee won't take it back and resell it. (and proview is saying that a division sold it, and they made a mistake, thus sold it undervalued).
nice tactic, but I believe it was a good faith sale, and wasn't unvalued at the time...
That's the missing piece of the puzzle. The fact that Proview apparently had an order in place forbidding them to sell assets makes it much more plausible for the creditors to win that.
The Taiwan company is clearly liable for misrepresenting that they owned the Chinese trademark.
While the director to the Schenzen company could have the authority to tranasfer property of the Schenzen company, I have seen no documents signed on behalf of the Schenzen company in which the Schenzen company has done so.
There are emails. I have seen no contract of sale.
Apple can argue fraud or mistake. But to argue that the Chines company sold the trademark is a big stretch. They never signed the sales contract.
How big a stretch? Proview Shenzhen was a wholly owned subsidiary of Proview group at the time. Three employees of Proview Shenzhen were involved in the trademark negotiations.
The negotiations were led by Rowel Yang, chairman of Shenzhen Proview.
The contract was signed by Rai Mai, head of the legal department of Proview China.
Proview Shenzhen have argued that they had no knowledge of the trademark negotiations depute their Chairman, another oard director and the head of their legal department have all been involved at every stage of the negotiations and transaction.
They are now arguing that some/all of these individuals were acting only for Proview Taiwan. edit - Despite confirming that they had the right to transfer ownership of the Chinese trademark
This is all i the public domain - I am not privy to this information because I am special, just that I can read.
How long do you intend to take this stance just for the sake of your "slappiness"
The sales contract was signed by the Taiwan company, who did not own the Chinese trademark. The Chinese company is the owner, and is the subject of this story.
Proview started in Taiwan. Taiwanese law forbids ownership of Chinese company (at the time), so Proview started a holding company in Hong Kong, did the paper work so it owns companies in Taiwan and China.
Like other similar companies, Proview has its headquarter in Taiwan but the paperwork says otherwise. The management team for the Chinese and Taiwanese companies are the same group of people.
The contract was signed by Rai Mai, head of the legal department of Proview China.
corporations act through human beings, but the humans can have different capacities. The contract was signed by the Taiwan company. The mere fact that the man also had the cpacity to act for the Chinese company does not mean that the Chinese company was bound by the acts of the Taiwan company.
corporations act through human beings, but the humans can have different capacities. The contract was signed by the Taiwan company. The mere fact that the man also had the cpacity to act for the Chinese company does not mean that the Chinese company was bound by the acts of the Taiwan company.
Quite right, but Rai Mai was not an employee of Proview Taiwan at the time and as the Patent for China was held by the Shenzhen company which both parties had previously acknowledged they had shown by their actions that they were acting in both capacities or committing fraud by pretending to have authority that they had not given themselves as legal representatives of Proview Shenzhen! They can not have it both ways.
They either did have authority or always intended to defraud the purchaser, as I have said they probably don't want to win this case as the next could be much worse for their health (whether you agree with the way the law is carried out in this country)
My guess (and it is a guess) is that if BOC weren't a major creditor, this case would have been done and dusted by now.
Proview started in Taiwan. Taiwanese law forbids ownership of Chinese company (at the time), so Proview started a holding company in Hong Kong, did the paper work so it owns companies in Taiwan and China.
Like other similar companies, Proview has its headquarter in Taiwan but the paperwork says otherwise. The management team for the Chinese and Taiwanese companies are the same group of people.
I am pretty up to speed on this, being a foreign national with a Chinese wife, we operate a different but not dissimilar structure with cross shareholdings in a number of companies in China, HK and the UK to legitimately and legally get around having a foreign investment company or joint venture in China which is cumbersome, expensive and leave an organisation politically exposed in all the wrong ways in any dispute!
Apple needs to make this right to Proview. IP theft is serious.
Apple (through a proxy) bought a trademark from a company that were no longer using that trademark. They sold it as they were in deep financial trouble and under pressure from their creditors to find and capitalise non-producing assets to repay debts which had built up over a number of years from over-expansion on thin to negative profits. This was a free bit of bunce at the time.
They negotiated a price that they were satisfied with at the time and this and a number of other sales convinced their creditors to extend their credit arrangements to allow them to move into a new business - LED street lamps!
To my knowledge neither IPADL nor Apple are in competing businesses nor were they in 2009.
A fee was agreed, the terms were agreed and a contract was drawn up, the name of the selling company was changed between draft and signature but the parties involved did not divest their legal interests (again to my knowledge but if they did it hasn't come out in court yet!)
Apple bought the Chinese trademark from a company that didn't own the Chinese trademark. They believed the misrepresentation of the Taiwan company, which was stated in the contract of sale.
That does not make Apple the owner of the Chinese trademark. But it likewise does not make Apple a thief.
Proview isn't going to lose because they are greedy, they are going to lose because they sold the trademark, and are now saying they didn't. It's bs plain and simple.
Proview isn't going to lose because they are greedy, they are going to lose because they sold the trademark, and are now saying they didn't. It's bs plain and simple.
The problem is that it's not that simple. It may be true that Proview doesn't have a chance, but Apple's real competitors here are the banks.
The bank's real argument is that Proview did not have the legal right to sell the license because they had a court restriction in place. If that is true and they can prove it, the bank may be able to get the deal reversed.
The problem is that it's not that simple. It may be true that Proview doesn't have a chance, but Apple's real competitors here are the banks.
The bank's real argument is that Proview did not have the legal right to sell the license because they had a court restriction in place. If that is true and they can prove it, the bank may be able to get the deal reversed.
I agree with you, the problem is not that simple and the financial institutions who are either creditors, or responsible for the reorganisation (or both in some cases) are making a call that this is the only way out of a hole.
But most financial institutions try and make pragmatic decisions based on their understanding of risk (not saying they get it right every time as we have seen over the last 5 years). Chinese banks are considerably more pragmatic that most Western Banks.
If they think there is a chance of winning and the additional cost to that already spent, they will continue with this case. It seems that at least one of the creditors has re-evaluated their risk and decided it may be time to call it a day.
The rest of the financial group then have to make a decision, either they let it fold and fight the case with Apple after taking ownership of the companies assets - most likely
Pay off Fugon to exit while remaining free from bankruptcy - possible but not in anyones interests except Fugon.
Re-capitalise Proview and try and make it a going concern - not going to happen, debt burden too high and probably throwing good money after bad.
The rhetoric from Proview is all about trying to keep the financial lifeline attached not what they neccesarily what they believe.
Still it makes interesting viewing and well worth buying more popcorn for the next instalment
this person wants to force Insolvency so that, they can then turn around and say that apple bought the trademark at a under-value so that Trustee in backruptcy can take it back and resell it for it's market value... (Insolvency Act... 5 or 2 year rule for undervalue/gifts; assuming that the china Insolvency Act is similar to usa's and canada's)
Apple is fighting hard to prove that it was a good faith sale (at a fair market rate), so that the trustee won't take it back and resell it. (and proview is saying that a division sold it, and they made a mistake, thus sold it undervalued).
nice tactic, but I believe it was a good faith sale, and wasn't unvalued at the time...
That may also why Apple is arguing that the trademark was abandoned. But at the end of the day the value of the mark is only what apple would pay for it. If they offered 60k then that is the market value. If they would have paid more is irrelevant as it does not appear to have been sought by other parties. The value of the mark now to anyone other than apple at this point is zero. It would be encumbered with too many liabilities to have a market. the value of the name to apple is based on the success of apple's products, technology and marketing which have enriched the mark's value after the purchase and those things were not bought from Proview. One could easily argue that the name is worth nothing as Proview possessed it for nearly a decade and only managed go out of business leaving billions of debt.
This if true creates a problem for Apple and maybe this is why Fugon is pushing for bankruptcy to hurry the process and start negotiations with Apple directly. - Obviously this is complete speculation on my part.
Comments
IIRC, the Hong Kong company is bankrupt. It is the eSchenzen company which owns the trademark in China.
Well it is still being decided whether that is true or not!
this person wants to force Insolvency so that, they can then turn around and say that apple bought the trademark at a under-value so that Trustee in backruptcy can take it back and resell it for it's market value... (Insolvency Act... 5 or 2 year rule for undervalue/gifts; assuming that the china Insolvency Act is similar to usa's and canada's)
The sales contract was signed by the Taiwan company, who did not own the Chinese trademark. The Chinese company is the owner, and is the subject of this story.
The sales contract was signed by the Taiwan company, who did not own the Chinese trademark. The Chinese company is the owner, and is the subject of this story.
I haven't seen anymore paperwork than you probably have but my understanding differs slightly.
The Taiwan company said they had the authority to agree the sale of that trademark to Apple's proxy company and that that the transfer would be made.
This agreement was made on behalf (and signed by a company director and shareholder) of the Taiwan Company.
But they didn't own you say and you are correct and it seems Apple's legal representatives were aware of this and therefore asked for the confirmation of authority. You are right they didn't own it but said director was also a shareholder, creditor and debtor as well as a main board director of the Shenzen company and so could have had authority to transfer the ownership.
The long and short of it is that even if Proview win this case there is the small matter of financial fraud to be heard at a later date should either Apple wish to proceed with it (and why wouldn't they) and conviction for Financial fraud can still carry the death penalty over here. Especially if the case is seen to be high profile and this now is.
This is bigger new in China than it is in most parts of the world and I can find a news channel or commentary programme referring to it everyday of the week.
This is a serious sh*t or bust strategy forced on Proview which could have disastrous consequences either way.
But they didn't own you say and you are correct and it seems Apple's legal representatives were aware of this and therefore asked for the confirmation of authority. You are right they didn't own it but said director was also a shareholder, creditor and debtor as well as a main board director of the Shenzen company and so could have had authority to transfer the ownership.
The long and short of it is that even if Proview win this case there is the small matter of financial fraud to be heard at a later date should either Apple wish to proceed with it (and why wouldn't they) and conviction for Financial fraud can still carry the death penalty over here. Especially if the case is seen to be high profile and this now is.
The Taiwan company is clearly liable for misrepresenting that they owned the Chinese trademark.
While the director to the Schenzen company could have the authority to tranasfer property of the Schenzen company, I have seen no documents signed on behalf of the Schenzen company in which the Schenzen company has done so.
There are emails. I have seen no contract of sale.
Apple can argue fraud or mistake. But to argue that the Chines company sold the trademark is a big stretch. They never signed the sales contract.
this person wants to force Insolvency so that, they can then turn around and say that apple bought the trademark at a under-value so that Trustee in backruptcy can take it back and resell it for it's market value... (Insolvency Act... 5 or 2 year rule for undervalue/gifts; assuming that the china Insolvency Act is similar to usa's and canada's)
Apple is fighting hard to prove that it was a good faith sale (at a fair market rate), so that the trustee won't take it back and resell it. (and proview is saying that a division sold it, and they made a mistake, thus sold it undervalued).
nice tactic, but I believe it was a good faith sale, and wasn't unvalued at the time...
That's the missing piece of the puzzle. The fact that Proview apparently had an order in place forbidding them to sell assets makes it much more plausible for the creditors to win that.
It's going to be interesting.
The Taiwan company is clearly liable for misrepresenting that they owned the Chinese trademark.
While the director to the Schenzen company could have the authority to tranasfer property of the Schenzen company, I have seen no documents signed on behalf of the Schenzen company in which the Schenzen company has done so.
There are emails. I have seen no contract of sale.
Apple can argue fraud or mistake. But to argue that the Chines company sold the trademark is a big stretch. They never signed the sales contract.
How big a stretch? Proview Shenzhen was a wholly owned subsidiary of Proview group at the time. Three employees of Proview Shenzhen were involved in the trademark negotiations.
The negotiations were led by Rowel Yang, chairman of Shenzhen Proview.
The contract was signed by Rai Mai, head of the legal department of Proview China.
Proview Shenzhen have argued that they had no knowledge of the trademark negotiations depute their Chairman, another oard director and the head of their legal department have all been involved at every stage of the negotiations and transaction.
They are now arguing that some/all of these individuals were acting only for Proview Taiwan. edit - Despite confirming that they had the right to transfer ownership of the Chinese trademark
This is all i the public domain - I am not privy to this information because I am special, just that I can read.
How long do you intend to take this stance just for the sake of your "slappiness"
The sales contract was signed by the Taiwan company, who did not own the Chinese trademark. The Chinese company is the owner, and is the subject of this story.
Proview started in Taiwan. Taiwanese law forbids ownership of Chinese company (at the time), so Proview started a holding company in Hong Kong, did the paper work so it owns companies in Taiwan and China.
Like other similar companies, Proview has its headquarter in Taiwan but the paperwork says otherwise. The management team for the Chinese and Taiwanese companies are the same group of people.
The contract was signed by Rai Mai, head of the legal department of Proview China.
corporations act through human beings, but the humans can have different capacities. The contract was signed by the Taiwan company. The mere fact that the man also had the cpacity to act for the Chinese company does not mean that the Chinese company was bound by the acts of the Taiwan company.
corporations act through human beings, but the humans can have different capacities. The contract was signed by the Taiwan company. The mere fact that the man also had the cpacity to act for the Chinese company does not mean that the Chinese company was bound by the acts of the Taiwan company.
Quite right, but Rai Mai was not an employee of Proview Taiwan at the time and as the Patent for China was held by the Shenzhen company which both parties had previously acknowledged they had shown by their actions that they were acting in both capacities or committing fraud by pretending to have authority that they had not given themselves as legal representatives of Proview Shenzhen! They can not have it both ways.
They either did have authority or always intended to defraud the purchaser, as I have said they probably don't want to win this case as the next could be much worse for their health (whether you agree with the way the law is carried out in this country)
My guess (and it is a guess) is that if BOC weren't a major creditor, this case would have been done and dusted by now.
Proview started in Taiwan. Taiwanese law forbids ownership of Chinese company (at the time), so Proview started a holding company in Hong Kong, did the paper work so it owns companies in Taiwan and China.
Like other similar companies, Proview has its headquarter in Taiwan but the paperwork says otherwise. The management team for the Chinese and Taiwanese companies are the same group of people.
I am pretty up to speed on this, being a foreign national with a Chinese wife, we operate a different but not dissimilar structure with cross shareholdings in a number of companies in China, HK and the UK to legitimately and legally get around having a foreign investment company or joint venture in China which is cumbersome, expensive and leave an organisation politically exposed in all the wrong ways in any dispute!
Apple needs to make this right to Proview. IP theft is serious.
Apple (through a proxy) bought a trademark from a company that were no longer using that trademark. They sold it as they were in deep financial trouble and under pressure from their creditors to find and capitalise non-producing assets to repay debts which had built up over a number of years from over-expansion on thin to negative profits. This was a free bit of bunce at the time.
They negotiated a price that they were satisfied with at the time and this and a number of other sales convinced their creditors to extend their credit arrangements to allow them to move into a new business - LED street lamps!
To my knowledge neither IPADL nor Apple are in competing businesses nor were they in 2009.
A fee was agreed, the terms were agreed and a contract was drawn up, the name of the selling company was changed between draft and signature but the parties involved did not divest their legal interests (again to my knowledge but if they did it hasn't come out in court yet!)
How is that IP theft?
How is that IP theft?
It is a misnomer to call it theft.
Apple bought the Chinese trademark from a company that didn't own the Chinese trademark. They believed the misrepresentation of the Taiwan company, which was stated in the contract of sale.
That does not make Apple the owner of the Chinese trademark. But it likewise does not make Apple a thief.
Proview isn't going to lose because they are greedy, they are going to lose because they sold the trademark, and are now saying they didn't. It's bs plain and simple.
The problem is that it's not that simple. It may be true that Proview doesn't have a chance, but Apple's real competitors here are the banks.
The bank's real argument is that Proview did not have the legal right to sell the license because they had a court restriction in place. If that is true and they can prove it, the bank may be able to get the deal reversed.
The problem is that it's not that simple. It may be true that Proview doesn't have a chance, but Apple's real competitors here are the banks.
The bank's real argument is that Proview did not have the legal right to sell the license because they had a court restriction in place. If that is true and they can prove it, the bank may be able to get the deal reversed.
I agree with you, the problem is not that simple and the financial institutions who are either creditors, or responsible for the reorganisation (or both in some cases) are making a call that this is the only way out of a hole.
But most financial institutions try and make pragmatic decisions based on their understanding of risk (not saying they get it right every time as we have seen over the last 5 years). Chinese banks are considerably more pragmatic that most Western Banks.
If they think there is a chance of winning and the additional cost to that already spent, they will continue with this case. It seems that at least one of the creditors has re-evaluated their risk and decided it may be time to call it a day.
The rest of the financial group then have to make a decision, either they let it fold and fight the case with Apple after taking ownership of the companies assets - most likely
Pay off Fugon to exit while remaining free from bankruptcy - possible but not in anyones interests except Fugon.
Re-capitalise Proview and try and make it a going concern - not going to happen, debt burden too high and probably throwing good money after bad.
The rhetoric from Proview is all about trying to keep the financial lifeline attached not what they neccesarily what they believe.
Still it makes interesting viewing and well worth buying more popcorn for the next instalment
this person wants to force Insolvency so that, they can then turn around and say that apple bought the trademark at a under-value so that Trustee in backruptcy can take it back and resell it for it's market value... (Insolvency Act... 5 or 2 year rule for undervalue/gifts; assuming that the china Insolvency Act is similar to usa's and canada's)
Apple is fighting hard to prove that it was a good faith sale (at a fair market rate), so that the trustee won't take it back and resell it. (and proview is saying that a division sold it, and they made a mistake, thus sold it undervalued).
nice tactic, but I believe it was a good faith sale, and wasn't unvalued at the time...
That may also why Apple is arguing that the trademark was abandoned. But at the end of the day the value of the mark is only what apple would pay for it. If they offered 60k then that is the market value. If they would have paid more is irrelevant as it does not appear to have been sought by other parties. The value of the mark now to anyone other than apple at this point is zero. It would be encumbered with too many liabilities to have a market. the value of the name to apple is based on the success of apple's products, technology and marketing which have enriched the mark's value after the purchase and those things were not bought from Proview. One could easily argue that the name is worth nothing as Proview possessed it for nearly a decade and only managed go out of business leaving billions of debt.
There is an article in he FT which says even if Apple wins the suit with Proview the company's creditors may still go after Apple for compensation.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/80d74...#axzz1oUJ37MzN
I have added the link to this article.
This if true creates a problem for Apple and maybe this is why Fugon is pushing for bankruptcy to hurry the process and start negotiations with Apple directly. - Obviously this is complete speculation on my part.