A US judge has thrown out the case brought by Proview that accused Apple of tricking it into selling the "IPAD" name for less than it should have. China's Proview filed the case in February, claiming that Apple had deliberately created a special company called IP Application Development (IPAD) just to talk Proview into handing …
Proview rep 1: "If Apple call and want the name, it's worth 100 mill, ok?"
Proview rep 2: "They didn't. But some two bit operation call IPAD wants it. They can only afford 35k"
Rep 1: "F* it - we're almost bankrupt; just accept. That'll keep the wolf from the door for a few more days yet"
..forward a few weeks...
Rep 2: "IPAD *is" Apple!"
Rep 1: "The bastards! Sue! Sue!"
All in all...it sounds like Proview are pissed they got outmaneuvered, rather than for any commerical damages they may have suffered.
Apple were smart and shrewd - Proview were not and are going (gone) bust it seems. It sounds more like Proview are in the wrong - selling something then AFTER saying oh they didn't have the rights to sell it after all.
They were more than shrewd they were deceitful. The only question is if that's legal.. can't see why not.
The contract was void ab initio
The buyer misrepresented who the real buyer was. The seller misrepresented who owned the copyright.
There was no contract. It was void from the get go.
The only difference between their two deceits, is that if the buyer made and sold maxipads, the real owner of the copyright would have settled for $55k.
Proview are trying to get more money out of Apple so they go bump owing less - that's all.
A little old lady comes round to see your house. She's a lovely old soul and you happily sell to her.
A while later, it turns out she was the front for a large supermarket company and the house you sold will be incorporated into a bigger plot they own to build a massive supermarket.
I don't think companies are completely at liberty to make any kind of misrepresentation they fancy during commercial transactions.
"I don't think companies are completely at liberty to make any kind of misrepresentation they fancy during commercial transactions."
What matters is not what you think it's what was in the contract. If A sell something to B with no specific conditions attached and B then sell to Apple - tough.
If I were a supermarket I would happily send round my dog, your gran - anyone - if you freely choose to sell your house that's all that matters. You need to live in the real world.
read the article
Remains to be proven, but the article states that "IPAD" was not going to compete with Proview.
As Proview makes Screens and of course the posibilty of touch screen devices, it would be clear misrepresentation on Apples part (big surprise there). The Judge didn't rule on this aspect, he mere pointed that the the plaintiff (Proview) was the one that requested the court venue of Chine, so the case should be decided there.
Of course I think Apple is the looser as China is more corrupt than Apple, and will be more likely to have a favorable ruling for a Chinese company rather than a Irish/Dutch* one.
*Yes Apple is NOT an American company, they pay what little taxes they do to Irish and Dutch governments. As a non-American company they really should be forced to pay a duty on the slave labor they use to produce their products, that honest American companies, paying livable wages can't really compete fairly with.
Re: read the article
Actually, it's a Hong Kong court, which means it's less morally bankrupt than the US legal system. By the way, which place regularly ranks as the best place on earth to do business because of its commitment to the rule of law, property rights and determinedly small government? Is it the US, perchance?
Still, it's ' China', so fuck wits like the previous commentard will have their say.
Re: read the article
"Remains to be proven, but the article states that "IPAD" was not going to compete with Proview."
Not this canard again: "IPAD" did NOT compete with Proview! And there's nothing in law to stop the new owner of what was once Proview's IP to then sell it on to another company.
As for not knowing who IPAD were, perhaps Proview's (apparently incompetent) legal team should have done two minutes' of due diligence by looking up IPAD on the Companies House website as all Limited Companies must be registered there in the UK.
Proview fucked up. The only reason this is dragging on for so long is that the government of China happens to be one of Proview's main shareholders and stands to lose a lot of money.
My suspicion is that Apple will eventually be forced to pay as they really need that Chinese government to help Apple defend themselves against copycats and clones.
RE: What matters is not what you think it's what was in the contract
An assertion or manifestation by words or conduct that is not in accord with the facts.
Misrepresentation is a tort, or a civil wrong. This means that a misrepresentation can create civil liability if it results in a pecuniary loss. For example, assume that a real estate speculator owns swampland but advertises it as valuable commercially zoned land. This is a misrepresentation. If someone buys the land relying on the speculator's statement that it is commercially valuable, the buyer may sue the speculator for monetary losses resulting from the purchase.
Some misrepresentations are made by buyers as well. Such as not being an agent for another buyer.
To create liability for the maker of the statement, a misrepresentation must be relied on by the listener or reader. Also, the speaker must know that the listener is relying on the factual correctness of the statement. Finally, the listener's reliance on the statement must have been reasonable and justified, and the misrepresentation must have resulted in a pecuniary loss to the listener.
"And where the offense is, let the great ax fall"
Re: read the article
um, you do know that Hong Kong is now officially part of China....
And while it may once have been a great place to do business, things are changing... google "corruption Hong kong" and I'm sure you'll find plenty of reading material to update your outdated opinions.
Re: read the article
Again, the article stats that this was a stipulation of the contract. No one said this was against the law, but generally not following what was agreed to in a contact does open up room to get sued.
Proview were probably happy (at the time) to get £35k for something they were not using - especially when they were going bump.
>> A while later, it turns out she was the front for a large supermarket company and the house you sold will be incorporated into a bigger plot they own to build a massive supermarket.
Only because you would suddenly think it was worth more because they had bigger pockets. A price is dependent on what you are happy to sell it for - it should not matter who you are selling to.
Unless of course you are in a monopoly style situation. You have one of a few items in the world or your neighbour wants to buy some land off you, meaning they can't go elsewhere.
Equally for a small piece of land your neighbour may be the only realistic buyer - so it's a bad example. If a deal is done at a price the buyer and seller agree then that's it - if the buyer then managed to resell / use that item to make more money the original seller should not feel aggrieved.
Although human nature may kick in as they see 'green'.
"A price is dependent on what you are happy to sell it for."
The price is dependent on what a buyer is willing to pay.
Apple should always make "the lesser of 2 evils" argument.
Bad news for the tutti fruttis in this story.
"SHANGHAI (AP) — Apple Inc. risks losing the right to use the iPad trademark in China, a senior official suggested Tuesday(April 24), as a Chinese court was seeking to mediate a settlement between the technology giant and a local company challenging its use of the iPad name.
Yan Xiaohong, deputy director of the National Copyright Administration, told reporters in Beijing that the government regards Shenzhen Proview Technology as the rightful owner of the trademark for The popular tablet computers. His remarks could add to pressure on Apple to find a solution to the standoff.
Yan's comments followed news that the Guangdong High Court in southern China is seeking to arrange a settlement in the case. In late February, the court began hearing Apple's appeal of a lower court ruling that favored Proview in the trademark dispute"
"Oh the tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive," as LG is fond of saying.