'Exploitative' Proview slammed by trademark judge ... in 2010 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 …
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.
@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.
This post has been deleted by its author
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.
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).
"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.
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!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
