"driven by greed"
Isn't that how all business functions?
Taiwanese monitor maker Proview’s refusal to honour a deal to sell Apple the IPAD trademark in China smacks of a conspiracy driven by greed, according to a Hong Kong judge who ruled in Apple’s favour back in 2010. The Hong Kong High Court documents from back then, published by All Things Digital, reveal that Judge Hon Poon had …
Isn't that how all business functions?
Of course! Poor Apple, they are not driven by greed at all are they?
Apple produce their products for the good of human kind!!
Proview are doing EXACTLEY the same as Apple, trying to maximise revenue over their IP. Apple does the same thing day in and day out.
DOUBLE STANDARDS. But Apple will get away with it again.
Yes. From you and your idiot ilk. Clearly you didn't bother RTFA.
@Obviously: "EXACTLEY the same as Apple, trying to maximise revenue"
So a con-man who 'sells' a house he doesn't own and walks off with the money is just like the property owner who sells his own house?
Proview once had something called 'IPAD' - I don't know what it was because I've never seen or heard anything of it. Apple clearly did its research before fixing on the iPad name, and fairly paid anyone who might have an interest in the name. Have you got that point clear? Apple *bought* all rights to the name, and Proview *took the money*. Its business seems to have collapsed and now the banks (most likely) are trying to double-dip on an outrageous level. Even if Apple hadn't done the right thing and fairly paid for the rights, the name would be worthless now. There is no confusion over what the name refers to - there is no other 'IPAD', and little or no Proview either it would seem.
Despite the misspellings, I have to agree with Obviously!: Proview is no less dishonest in not letting go of the IP than Apple were in setting up a front company to acquire the name more cheaply. Sauce ..., goose ..., gander, etc.
It still doesn't mean they don't legally own the trademark does it. Though I guess they could possibly be stripped of ownership for fraud or something ?
Next in this zombie flick:
TRADEMARKS ENFORCED IN CHINA!! FILM AT 11!!
I guess there are well-oiled connections to high-ranking animals in State to uncover.
Isn't this starting to look like a constant stream of bad PR... possibly being put out by Apple themselves? Just saying.
written by a judge.
Can Apple now sue Proview Taiwan for selling something they had no rights to, and ask for the full amount that will be due for any action in the PRC plus lawyers fees?
Probably not, the court would just tell Apple to get in line with the other debtors - the banks to whom the trademark was mortgaged and are now in control of the company.
Since Proview debts are already close to a billion, Apple wouldn't see that much back, if any.
This whole case is essentially the banks getting Apple to pay for the banks' own stupid investment decisions, nothing more.
So at best a pyrrhic victory.
Have a taste of your own business practices. You ripped off the Xerox and then farcically tried to sue MS for doing the same rip off.
Given the downvotes, I guess it's mostly fanbois who don't know early computing history on the site today.
Trying to rewrite history, are we? No wonder it got downvoted.
"Apple bought access to the PARC by means of a stock deal that seemed lucrative to the Xerox managers on the East Coast: They might buy 100,000 Apple stocks for one million dollars."
Facts here: http://www.mac-history.net/computer-history/2011-09-30/apple-and-xerox-parc
Apple allowed Xerox to buy stock in their company in exchange for a knowledge share, Xerox were well aware that apple was developing a GUI. Microsoft licensed the technology from apple for windows 1 and the lawsuit only came about with windows 2 which was development of windows 1 based on the licensed technology. Apples complaint was centred around the general idea of a GUI not the technology it was based on. Apple lost because back then patent lawyers actually did a proper job and told them that they can't patent the idea of a GUI.
Xerox only got involved because they wanted to be part of the payoff if apple was successful.
Apple didn't rip off Xerox and Microsoft didn't rip off apple, it was all licensed tech and obvious developments performed by the separate companies involved (in the early days at least).
Bet those Xerox executives are kicking themselves now for not holding the stock longer.
It would be worth a cool 50 billion today, that's a solid ~ 39% annual interest rate.
> I guess it's mostly fanbois who don't know early computing history on the site today.
No, just you and AC
You're a bit quiet there Tom. No rebuttal?
Bankrupt Zombie company trying to get some $$$ from contested IP...... where did I saw it last time? Oh yes RAMBUS anyone?
No doubt Apple is pursuing iPad production outside of China and many others who have production in China or considering, are reconsidering. Can not do business where the courts are not fair and so obviously favor the homeboy.
It depends on the contracts Apple signed with it's Chinese factories.
Its a bitch when your own tactics are employed against you..
Now all I want to see is Proview taken over by Samsung, I will then piss myself with laughter for several days (while I'm lucid and not inebriated).
"Apple has appealed the decision and a final hearing is due to start in the southern Guangdong High Court on Feb 29. This court's decision will be final under the Chinese legal process."
Everything we are hearing now. -- the condition of the Proview factory, IPadl, the dummy corp Apple used to buy the trademark from Proview Taiwan, Proview's suit against Apple in the US for using a dummy corp. -- all are designed to influence the settlement discussions going on now between the companies lawyers. Expect an agreement between now and the 29th.
"Fraud and misrepresentation are false statements used to get you to make a contract. They must relate to a present or past important fact that you rely on. A fraud is a deliberate misstatement of a fact....If you're a victim of fraud or a misrepresentation, you can cancel the contract. A defrauded party can sue the wrongdoer for damages too. A victim of fraud may also have other remedies under the law of consumer fraud."
The court will invalidate the original contract and order the $50k to be returned to IPADL, the dormant sham corp sitting in the back of the court room.
"The court will invalidate the original contract and order the $50k to be returned to IPADL, the dormant sham corp sitting in the back of the court room."
My bad. I forgot
After Proview Taiwan returns the $50k to IPADL, IPADL must return £10 to Apple which is what the frutigious company paid for it's priceless trademark.
More petrol, please :)
Apple: legal atacks for me, not for thee!
Apple plays by ALL the rules possible, goes for the jugular, for the throat, NEVER compromises unless absolutely must, but when someone else does the same against it, Apple applies to "fairness" and fanboys go indignant - how can someone want to stop the progress of the "little company from Curpetino that could" to wolrd domination!? How unfaaaaair!
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017