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?
Actually yes, you absolutely can and should ask for more money if you feel the purchase would be more valuable to the buyer and you know the buyer has more money. You see, that is fair to the seller. You are advocating a position that is more fair to the buyer. As a seller, I would absolutely feel defrauded if I sold something to a holding company for $55,000 that I later found out was formed by Apple in order to keep secret the ultimate buyer of the patent and the true value of the purchase to that buyer. This is how real estate sales work every day - the seller tries to get the most, the buyer tries to pay the least, and any information gained in the course of the negotiations is fair game.
While having a holding company buy patents and trademarks on behalf of a larger corporation in order to hide the larger corporation's true motives and identity may be acceptable here in the US, where politicians bend over backwards for big business, it may not be okay in other cultures. Apple is learning that here. I actually do hope that Proview prevails because I don't believe, on a fundamental level, that what Apple did was fair or negotiating in good faith. Whether it's legal here in the US is a different matter, but legal /= right.
In Apple's defense, they should just change the iPad name to iPal in China and call it a day.
- 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?
You do know that China is the largest country in Asia and Europe is a continent a few thousand miles to the west, right?
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.
I'm going to say this, one last time, very slowly because it seems that may be helpful to you.
Even if Apple did exactly what Proview accuses them of doing, THAT..... IS...... NOT..... FRAUD.
Apple does not deny that they bought the trademark through a shell company to disguise the purchase.
Proview is suing because their own subsidiary sold (willingly) something the parent company CLAIMS they didn't own. This is not Apple's fault, whether it's true or not. It's not shady, fraudulent or illegal.
What Apple should do is make a special version of the device and call it the ProviewPad - I'll bet they don't have a trademark / copyright / patent / etc on that name.
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?
The question is not whether the deal was fair, it is whether Apple did anything illegal. Fair implies both parties received an equally good deal. Yet, when you go buy a used car you are trying get the lowest price possible, and the seller is trying to get the most money possible. Inevitably somebody gets a better deal. A better example may be somebody who is an expert in antiquities and goes to a yard sale and finds something very valuable; conceals the value from the unknowing owner; and pays the owner of the item only a few dollars. If the owner knew the true value, he would have asked for more. That deal wasn't fair, but it was legal. When Microsoft bought DOS it paid the owner and creator of DOS $75, 000 failing to tell the guy who created it that Microsoft had a deal lined up with IBM that was going to pay it millions in licensing fees. That deal doesn't really seem fair either, but it was legal.
Anytime you sell anything you never know the buyers intent for what you sell. You have to place the value on item based on what you think it is worth based on the knowledge you possess. You have to always assume the buyer is trying to screw you on price. That is how sales work. Further, this stuff of a third party buying stuff for another party happens all the time and there is nothing wrong with it. Another company bought the property for Apple. This was to keep Apple's plans secret. When a large company buys land, it is generally also done through a third party. When celebrities buys property it often times is also done through a third party. Large companies do not want competitors knowing their plans, plain and simple. Companies and celebrities also do not want the price artificially raised. The reality is the name was worth nothing until Apple sold product using it.
Moreover, Proview likely knew the name was being bought for Apple or a larger company. There aren't too many companies that can build the type of product the buyer was claiming the name was going to be used for. Further, it is easy to verify when the company was created, and what business it has conducted. Fifty thousand dollars to pay for a defunct trademark from an almost bankrupt company was a gift. The reality is anybody could have taken the trademark once Proview closed shop. As you say Apple likes "i" in its trademarks, Proview knew that just the same as you would. Proview could have placed as a term of sale in the contract that the name not be sold to Apple if that was a concern.
Proview is taking advantage of having the home town advantage and being backed by local banks to shake down Apple. The Chinese Court system is notoriously corrupt. Apple has a lot at stake if it losses because China could stop the export of its product to places like the US.
Why does it matter how apple bought the name? They bought it, that's it. Malice. Lol. So what. They wanted to buy, proview sold, so what's up. I know the story. So there saying Proviews head quarters Didn't approve at the time or didn't know. Yeah right. What kind of company is that? Now China is there last hope. They waited so long for the iPad to get established and Then they want to drop the bomb. What a joke.
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.
I know that those are the standards for the USPTO which governs the US, but that is not the same standard used throughout the rest of the world. Are you stating this from some knowledge of Chinese trademark law? I unfortunately know very little about China's governing laws and would love to hear from anyone who can give some insight.
As I understand it, the 'fraud' that Proview claims goes much deeper than Apple's proxy corporation that is being discussed here. It was also agreed that the transferred trademark would not be used in any way to compete with Proview. Considering that both companies are hardware companies and the iPad is a hardware device, this does not seem to be a fair representation from Apple.
Well, it´s not so exactly, as a matter of fact some relatives of very high level officials in the Communist Party are involved, is a matter of money, if Apple raise this to high political ranks levels (which I assume they don´t want) it can be solve, in an internatioanl court it can be win but for now is keep it at the level of a zooming mosquito, in certain moment would (with a raised offer by Apple) be forced to accept.
Big picture. Apple can just buy Proview for less than Proview wants for the trademark. Pay the creditors fractions of it's value (since they're going to get zero if Proview wins anyway, it'll just be dragged out in court till Proview goes bankrupt.) Or maybe some the employees at the Foxconn factory will come and burn down what remains of Proview Assets in retaliation for Apple "moving iPad production to Brazil"
Im actually really curious about the Disney World reference. Im not sure what your referring to.... fill me in?
It's well documented. Do a search for Disney World real estate acquisition.
Disney set up a number of shell companies to buy up all the real estate that they could in the area. If Disney had purchased the land directly, the price would have been many times higher.
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?
No more sneaky or fair than the bogus Proview division that accepted the terms without regard to the parent company.
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?
Actually yes, you absolutely can and should ask for more money if you feel the purchase would be more valuable to the buyer and you know the buyer has more money. You see, that is fair to the seller. You are advocating a position that is more fair to the buyer. As a seller, I would absolutely feel defrauded if I sold something to a holding company for $55,000 that I later found out was formed by Apple in order to keep secret the ultimate buyer of the patent and the true value of the purchase to that buyer. This is how real estate sales work every day - the seller tries to get the most, the buyer tries to pay the least, and any information gained in the course of the negotiations is fair game.
While having a holding company buy patents and trademarks on behalf of a larger corporation in order to hide the larger corporation's true motives and identity may be acceptable here in the US, where politicians bend over backwards for big business, it may not be okay in other cultures. Apple is learning that here. I actually do hope that Proview prevails because I don't believe, on a fundamental level, that what Apple did was fair or negotiating in good faith. Whether it's legal here in the US is a different matter, but legal /= right.
In Apple's defense, they should just change the iPad name to iPal in China and call it a day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by H2P
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?
You do know that China is the largest country in Asia and Europe is a continent a few thousand miles to the west, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZREOSpecialist
You do know that China is the largest country in Asia and Europe is a continent a few thousand miles to the west, right?
Meanwhile Russia's standing over on the left saying, "What am I, curdled borsht?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZREOSpecialist
You do know that China is the largest country in Asia and Europe is a continent a few thousand miles to the west, right?
Duh, so I see. In asking my question I should have said "I heard it's a different system in various Europe Countries, yes?"
BTW, do you know if there is a different (than the US) mortgage "system" in, let's say The Netherlands or Germany?
I just don't recall what country "the report" that I heard applied to...
OK, I admit it... your comment was sorta funny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
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.
I'm going to say this, one last time, very slowly because it seems that may be helpful to you.
Even if Apple did exactly what Proview accuses them of doing, THAT..... IS...... NOT..... FRAUD.
Apple does not deny that they bought the trademark through a shell company to disguise the purchase.
Proview is suing because their own subsidiary sold (willingly) something the parent company CLAIMS they didn't own. This is not Apple's fault, whether it's true or not. It's not shady, fraudulent or illegal.
Are you really this thick?
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.
And the facts of the case are not contested, either by Apple or Proview. What is contested is whether Proview HK had the right to sell what they sold.
Apple's next offer to Proview should be $1.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky
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/
Apple should so totally rename the iPad "TABLETSAURUS REX: KING OF THE TABLETS!!!!" in China.
What Apple should do is make a special version of the device and call it the ProviewPad - I'll bet they don't have a trademark / copyright / patent / etc on that name.
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?
The question is not whether the deal was fair, it is whether Apple did anything illegal. Fair implies both parties received an equally good deal. Yet, when you go buy a used car you are trying get the lowest price possible, and the seller is trying to get the most money possible. Inevitably somebody gets a better deal. A better example may be somebody who is an expert in antiquities and goes to a yard sale and finds something very valuable; conceals the value from the unknowing owner; and pays the owner of the item only a few dollars. If the owner knew the true value, he would have asked for more. That deal wasn't fair, but it was legal. When Microsoft bought DOS it paid the owner and creator of DOS $75, 000 failing to tell the guy who created it that Microsoft had a deal lined up with IBM that was going to pay it millions in licensing fees. That deal doesn't really seem fair either, but it was legal.
Anytime you sell anything you never know the buyers intent for what you sell. You have to place the value on item based on what you think it is worth based on the knowledge you possess. You have to always assume the buyer is trying to screw you on price. That is how sales work. Further, this stuff of a third party buying stuff for another party happens all the time and there is nothing wrong with it. Another company bought the property for Apple. This was to keep Apple's plans secret. When a large company buys land, it is generally also done through a third party. When celebrities buys property it often times is also done through a third party. Large companies do not want competitors knowing their plans, plain and simple. Companies and celebrities also do not want the price artificially raised. The reality is the name was worth nothing until Apple sold product using it.
Moreover, Proview likely knew the name was being bought for Apple or a larger company. There aren't too many companies that can build the type of product the buyer was claiming the name was going to be used for. Further, it is easy to verify when the company was created, and what business it has conducted. Fifty thousand dollars to pay for a defunct trademark from an almost bankrupt company was a gift. The reality is anybody could have taken the trademark once Proview closed shop. As you say Apple likes "i" in its trademarks, Proview knew that just the same as you would. Proview could have placed as a term of sale in the contract that the name not be sold to Apple if that was a concern.
Proview is taking advantage of having the home town advantage and being backed by local banks to shake down Apple. The Chinese Court system is notoriously corrupt. Apple has a lot at stake if it losses because China could stop the export of its product to places like the US.
They bought it, that's it. Malice. Lol. So what.
They wanted to buy, proview sold, so what's up.
I know the story. So there saying Proviews head quarters
Didn't approve at the time or didn't know. Yeah right.
What kind of company is that? Now China is there last hope.
They waited so long for the iPad to get established and
Then they want to drop the bomb. What a joke.
Exactly. They are trying to get some of that 100 billion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
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.
I know that those are the standards for the USPTO which governs the US, but that is not the same standard used throughout the rest of the world. Are you stating this from some knowledge of Chinese trademark law? I unfortunately know very little about China's governing laws and would love to hear from anyone who can give some insight.
As I understand it, the 'fraud' that Proview claims goes much deeper than Apple's proxy corporation that is being discussed here. It was also agreed that the transferred trademark would not be used in any way to compete with Proview. Considering that both companies are hardware companies and the iPad is a hardware device, this does not seem to be a fair representation from Apple.
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.
Im actually really curious about the Disney World reference. Im not sure what your referring to.... fill me in?
Well, it´s not so exactly, as a matter of fact some relatives of very high level officials in the Communist Party are involved, is a matter of money, if Apple raise this to high political ranks levels (which I assume they don´t want) it can be solve, in an internatioanl court it can be win but for now is keep it at the level of a zooming mosquito, in certain moment would (with a raised offer by Apple) be forced to accept.
Rgds.
Big picture. Apple can just buy Proview for less than Proview wants for the trademark. Pay the creditors fractions of it's value (since they're going to get zero if Proview wins anyway, it'll just be dragged out in court till Proview goes bankrupt.) Or maybe some the employees at the Foxconn factory will come and burn down what remains of Proview Assets in retaliation for Apple "moving iPad production to Brazil"
Apple is not stupid.
It's well documented. Do a search for Disney World real estate acquisition.
Disney set up a number of shell companies to buy up all the real estate that they could in the area. If Disney had purchased the land directly, the price would have been many times higher.
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?
No more sneaky or fair than the bogus Proview division that accepted the terms without regard to the parent company.