Chinese Court Orders Ban On Apple's iPad

Deja Vu by Dexter+Herbivore · 2012-02-20 03:32 · Score: 5, Interesting

FTA:

"Proview International's shares have been suspended from trading on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange since August 2010 and reports say it is deep in debt. It will be delisted in June if it cannot show it has sufficient assets, business operations and working capital."

SCO Mark 2?

Re:Deja Vu by andydread · 2012-02-20 03:49 · Score: 1, Troll

And Proview OWNS the trademark and has DENIED that its Taiwan affiliate had the rights to sell the trademark for use in mainland China. So no not SCO Mark 2. However Apple's suing Open-Source over trivial silly software-patents is SCO Mark 2.
Re:Deja Vu by sribe · 2012-02-20 04:00 · Score: 1

And Proview OWNS the trademark and has DENIED that its Taiwan affiliate had the rights to sell the trademark for use in mainland China.

Their own emails, presented in the court case in Taiwan, established that they are lying about this.
Re:Deja Vu by Richard_at_work · 2012-02-20 04:19 · Score: 1, Troll

Thats the second time you have said that, got any links to that "evidence", as its the first time I have heard it....
Re:Deja Vu by asdf7890 · 2012-02-20 04:23 · Score: 1

And Proview OWNS the trademark and has DENIED that its Taiwan affiliate had the rights to sell the trademark for use in mainland China.
At this point couldn't Apple turn around and sue the Taiwan office for selling something it didn't have, finish off the company with that legal battle (as they are already close being shut down duw to debt) and buy the trademark in the resulting fire-sale?

They know Proview (Taiwan) had no right to sell them that trademark, Proview have stated this in a court of law (presumably under oath though I know little of the Chinese legal system but I assume they have concepts equivalent to out oaths and purgery laws), so they should have a fairly string case (again, assuming that my assumptions of the Chinese legal system are close to correct).
Re:Deja Vu by sribe · 2012-02-20 04:34 · Score: 4, Informative

Thats the second time you have said that, got any links to that "evidence", as its the first time I have heard it....
Oh, come, on. It's been reported all over the place--maybe you're just tuning out anything that contradicts your "evil Apple" preconceptions. 30 seconds with google turns up plenty of references. Here's one.
Re:Deja Vu by andydread · 2012-02-20 04:44 · Score: 1

You probably won't see it in Apple friendly press because they don't want you to know that part. However if you read other press such as computerworld then you will see it. But since your probably don't I will post a link and quote it there.
Here is the link you requested. http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9224409/Apple_threatens_to_sue_Chinese_firm_in_iPad_trademark_dispute
and here is the relevant quote
"Monday's letter was sent just days after Proview's founder Yang held a press conference and said the trademark rights were never transferred because Apple had bought them from a Taiwan subsidiary company, and not from Proview itself."
Re:Deja Vu by xeno314 · 2012-02-20 05:00 · Score: 1

Assuming business orgs are similar to what they are in the U.S., suing the Taiwan office wouldn't kill the company, just that division. Companies typically protect themselves against that sort of liability where possible, particularly when you get to international and/or not strictly controlled by home base offices.
Even if it *did* kill the company or the branch that owns the trademark, Apple really doesn't want that. Most likely, the trademark would then go up for sale with the rest of the company's assets, and you can bet Apple would have to pay far more when they're bidding against any companies that wanted to buy it for resale to Apple.
I see what they're doing, and I get it, but they're probably better off paying the ransom to end this and making damn sure their lawyers get airtight agreements for trademarks next time around.
Re:Deja Vu by shaitand · 2012-02-20 05:12 · Score: 1

The Taiwan company is another company. One that apparently doesn't have the trademark rights, so if you bankrupted them that doesn't bankrupt the Chinese company and they Taiwanese edition can't fire sale a trademark they don't own.
Re:Deja Vu by blind+monkey+3 · 2012-02-20 07:42 · Score: 1

I think the case would be about the second letter on that link - extract of relevant section (imo):

Yes Mr Ray Mai and I are located in Shenzhen. But trademark is not belong to Shenzhen company but Taiwan company. That the reason why we chose the meeting location in Taiwan.
The Shenzhen company definitely own the trademark for China, not the Taiwan holding company.
Apple acknowledges that there was a mistake and the trademark for China was not owned by the Taiwan holding company but believe the agreement was made with the full consent of the owner of the trademark and the owner of the trademark had deliberately set out to decieve them (corporate hypocracy considering Apple was using a shell company to decieve the owners of the trademark?). The owner claims Apple dealt with the holding company and he did not give permission to sell the trademark for China.
The Hong kong decision stops the Proview owner from selling the China rights till everything is settled -

--
BM3
Re:Deja Vu by JBMcB · 2012-02-20 09:22 · Score: 1

The list of countries included in the transaction clearly includes China (Schedule A) and the deal was signed off by Proview's legal consul from the mainland Chinese office in Shenzhen (Ray Mai.)

--
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Re:Deja Vu by blind+monkey+3 · 2012-02-20 14:51 · Score: 1

Yes, schedule A does include China - the company that included it i.e. the contract signatory (Taiwan), did not own the rights to it so they had no right to include it is the argument from Shenzhen.
Apple is arguing that the Shenzhen company knew of the deal and agreed to it - the Apple legal department drew up the contract based on information provided by the Taiwan holding company (which in hindsight was found to be incorrect), the Proview owner is arguing that the deal was only for the trademarks owned by Taiwan. Since the contract was with the Taiwan company, Apple do not have a right to the name - unless Apple can prove misrepresentation. I suspect given time, Apple has the resources to win in the courts (I believe Apple were duped - but so was Proview by Apple...) - if time is critical, they also have the money to make the problem go away.

--
BM3

Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 03:32 · Score: 5, Informative

That's all well and good, except for the fact that they paid for the trade mark.

Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 03:33 · Score: 1

Problem is, this is mostly a test case scenario. If they profit from it, we'll see lots of similar stories in the the near future.

Re:Good by Dexter+Herbivore · 2012-02-20 03:33 · Score: 3, Informative

So when you pay for something, it's stolen?

FTA: "We bought Proview's worldwide rights to the iPad trademark in 10 different countries several years ago. Proview refuses to honor their agreement with Apple in China and a Hong Kong court has sided with Apple in this matter,"

Turn around is a biatch by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 03:33 · Score: 3, Funny

looks like Apple should have patented the concept of Suing the competiton out of business.

Re:Turn around is a biatch by phantomfive · 2012-02-20 11:00 · Score: 1

Shakespeare has prior art

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

A landmark humanatarian decision! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 03:33 · Score: 1

Saving all those people from losing their organs for an iPad3.

Move? by busyqth · 2012-02-20 03:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

I wonder what would happen if Apple told Foxconn to transition their work to another country (say India) within 18 months.

Re:Move? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 03:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

it would lock out apple from the chinese market - which is bigger than the us one....
Re:Move? by El+Torico · 2012-02-20 03:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

Foxconn would laugh, continue to make the iCrap, and sell it under their own (or Proview's) brand. Outsourcing to China by the US has created a new economic superpower/monster that doesn't need the US any more.

--
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
Re:Move? by andydread · 2012-02-20 03:50 · Score: 1

Nothing. This has nothing to do with Foxconn. Apple would still not be able to SELL ipads in Mainland China that's point here. Has nothing to do with manufacturing.
Re:Move? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 03:53 · Score: 0

That's apple's only move if they lose and things go south in China.
I don't think India is the right choice though. They're already too expensive. If apple could move into india, they could build them anywhere.
Re:Move? by Necroman · 2012-02-20 04:03 · Score: 4, Interesting

Doubtful. While I have not directly worked with manufacturing of goods from Apac countries, I have heard many stories from people that do.
China is an ideal place to manufacture goods for a number of reasons. The biggest I've seen are infrastructure and cost. On the infrastructure side, China invest a lot of money over the last 20 years to build a great transport system to move goods around the country. This makes it easier for small components suppliers to get their goods to manufacturers, which can then easily get their goods to major transport hubs to leave the country (be it a port or airport). The second major reason is cost. The Chinese government doesn't impose large fees when it comes to exporting goods from their country; combine this with cheap labor and its a great place to manufacture goods.
On the flip side there is India. This country has a horrible infrastructure. Just ask anyone what it is like getting around that country. Transport of goods from inland cities to a port or major airport is expensive and near impossible for larger items (like cars). On top of that, I believe India charges a large amount to export goods from their country. This is why India has become a hub for desk workers (phone centers, programmers, whatever) rather than a manufacturing country.

--
Its not what it is, its something else.
Re:Move? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 04:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

That would last for all of a few months to a year before they're no longer are capable of making the actual products and instead are just making outdated stuff or knock-offs, and there is no Chinese appliance computer maker with the design (both industrial and GUI) skills of Apple. Generally, if you buy knock-off electronics, well, they're of knock-off quality -- i.e., shitty. Your idea doesn't seem like a long-term plan for continued revenues.
Re:Move? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 04:20 · Score: 0

Are you positing that China's economy would not be severely compromised if the U.S. no longer imported the products made in China? I'm not an economist, but that sounds illogical.
Re:Move? by gutnor · 2012-02-20 04:23 · Score: 2

Yes - they produce but don't consume enough to keep their production level. So the problem is not as clear cut as you think. China need the US and the rest of the Western World to be wealthy enough to fund China rise to power, and once they have risen to power, they will just be another Japan. So when it is rough for the US, it is also rough for China. The difference is that rough in the US means people losing stuff, and rough in China means conditions not improving for people that have already nothing.
Re:Move? by erroneus · 2012-02-20 04:25 · Score: 1

I think in the event they lose on appeal, They will rename the device "for use in China" and be done with it. The WalMart prices on labor in China is too important to Apple. There are all sorts of ways Apple could rename it that would make it even more appealing to the Chinese... "The people's pad"? "Ai-Pad"? "iTab" and lots more than I can think of with my limited imagination. And it wouldn't be the first time we have seen a product change its name when sold in another country. What's the deal with the Canon Kiss versus the Canon Rebel cameras? They are essentially the same camera series. And for the longest time, Nissan was known as Datsun in the U.S. There's probably thousands of examples of this sort of thing for various reasons and purposes.
Re:Move? by Gothmolly · 2012-02-20 04:25 · Score: 1

Especially once we've given them all the designs.

--
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Re:Move? by erroneus · 2012-02-20 04:27 · Score: 1

Yup. There's nothing unprecedented in what you assert. Chinese companies and the Chinese government have done this numerous times with various imported technologies. They lure these large businesses in with cheap labor and manufacturing and once the technology arrives, they shut them down and start making it for themselves.
Re:Move? by Mr.123 · 2012-02-20 04:30 · Score: 3, Informative

It's already happening.
Report: Apple Has Opened a New iPad Factory in Brazil http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2392962,00.asp
Re:Move? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 04:34 · Score: 1

Foxconn would laugh, continue to make the iCrap, and sell it under their own (or Proview's) brand.

And sell it where? China is certainly a huge market, but do you think they'd sell the same number—especially if the device doesn't have iOS?
And what do you think would happen with the rest of their customers when they see that Foxconn has ripped off one? Do you think they'd get contract many contract renewals, or would the rest of their customers start moving to their competitors?

Outsourcing to China by the US has created a new economic superpower/monster that doesn't need the US any more.
The domestic Chinese market is big, and certainly growing. But the Chinese have chosen a mostly export-based economy, and if foreign companies decide to stop making cheap crap there, China is going to have a lot of unemployed, unhappy people taking to the streets IMHO. People are happy to give up political liberties in exchange for the promise that the government will give them economic improvement. Woe onto them who don't provide is.
Re:Move? by Ryanrule · 2012-02-20 05:09 · Score: 1

Chinese infrastructure isnt rainbows and puppies either. Clean water is a real issue, and brownouts in manufacturing are REALLY bad. And either country, you have to have a pretty fat graft/bribe budget if you want to succeed as well. "The Chinese government doesn't impose large fees when it comes to exporting goods from their country" Uh, what?
Re:Move? by shaitand · 2012-02-20 05:15 · Score: 1

What makes you think the device wouldn't have iOS?
Re:Move? by El+Torico · 2012-02-20 05:26 · Score: 1

I didn't say that China wouldn't be affected by a US ban on their imports, but they wouldn't sink into a depression either. If the US cut of all trade with China, both countries would suffer. China would suffer increased unemployment and there may be a knock on effect of popping their real estate bubble. On the other hand, the US would suffer even more inflation. Bear in mind that China runs trade surpluses with the EU, Japan, and probably a host of other countries (I'm still looking for a comprehensive list). I'm living in the Middle East right now and I see stores loaded with products made in (wait for it) China. Yes, Chinese domestic spending can't sustain their economy, but it doesn't have to. They have plenty of exports even without the US.
As for technological sophistication, does anyone truly believe that the Chinese are somehow incapable of learning to innovate? That's both racist and incredibly stupid.

--
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
Re:Move? by El+Torico · 2012-02-20 05:33 · Score: 1

Read my sig. You're one of the blind that would crucify me given the chance.
You don't think China is an economic superpower? You're the idiot.
You think they need the US? You're arrogant too. The US isn't even China's largest trading partner now; it's the EU.

--
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
Re:Move? by El+Torico · 2012-02-20 05:46 · Score: 2

I recall people saying the same thing about Japan and then about South Korea. The Chinese should not be underestimated.
Foxconn might take a hit if they blatantly screwed over Apple, but I find it extremely unlikely that Cisco, HP, Vizio, Toshiba, and the rest of Foxconn's customers would wean themselves off of that low cost producer. One or two might, but only if they either thought long term or found an even lower cost producer.

--
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
Re:Move? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 06:25 · Score: 0

If you actually read the source you linked to instead of just the headline, you'd realise that it's Foxconn that are opening a factory in Mexico, not Apple. The Chinese Government is very happy with the increasing economic and political power it has with its companies building high tech factories overseas.
Re:Move? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 08:35 · Score: 0

does anyone truly believe that the Chinese are somehow incapable of learning to innovate? That's both racist and incredibly stupid.
Sure, and Greece will become a model of fiscal responsibility, and arabs will win a war against a non-arab nation.
Re:Move? by EmagGeek · 2012-02-20 09:10 · Score: 1

The factory is Brazil is not being built to get out of China, it's being built to get into Brazil, and out of the 60% import duty on foreign-made goods.
Re:Move? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 09:25 · Score: 0

Foxconn would laugh, continue to make the iCrap, and sell it under their own (or Proview's) brand. Outsourcing to China by the US has created a new economic superpower/monster that doesn't need the US any more.
That is BS. While the Chinese may be good at building things cheaply, they can't engineer worth a crap. Everything Foxconn builds is for someone else who first designed and tested it the US, Korea, Japan or Europe.
Re:Move? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 09:33 · Score: 0

On the flip side there is India. This country has a horrible infrastructure. Just ask anyone what it is like getting around that country. Transport of goods from inland cities to a port or major airport is expensive and near impossible for larger items (like cars). On top of that, I believe India charges a large amount to export goods from their country. This is why India has become a hub for desk workers (phone centers, programmers, whatever) rather than a manufacturing country.
India's infrastructure is indeed bad, but movement of goods is hampered more due to the fact that every state has its own VAT laws which impose restrictions on movement of goods in or out of the state. Basically each state has its own "customs". This is the single most factor hampering India becoming a single market. The Central Government has been trying for years to move to a homogenenous GST (Goods and Service Tax) regime, but the state governments are stalling it fearing losing the autonomy.
Also, there are no export fees as such. That bit is just incorrect. There are export duties on some products, basically foodgrains, minerals etc., which the government thinks are required in India and export of which would raise prices in India.
Re:Move? by arose · 2012-02-20 12:58 · Score: 1

You're not up to date.

--
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Re:Move? by lexsird · 2012-02-20 13:06 · Score: 1

My advice to Brazil is to burn their factories down, chase them down in the street and cap them. Every.last.one.of.them.

--
Take the Red Pill.
Re:Move? by LordLimecat · 2012-02-20 16:45 · Score: 1

Yea, Cisco in particular-- their profit margins are razor thin already, and if their build cost doubled from $15 per Pentium 4-based router to $30 each, it would DESTROY them.
Re:Move? by AmiMoJo · 2012-02-21 01:32 · Score: 1

China would probably take action against Apple directly too, like freezing their assets. Governments everywhere don't take kindly to companies trying to subvert their legal systems by threatening unrelated companies.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC

Re:Good by msobkow · 2012-02-20 03:42 · Score: 5, Informative

And the company that OWNS the trademark denies that the company that SOLD it had the right to do so.

--
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.

Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 03:43 · Score: 0

Well Ive a large bridge with matching Clock in London I can sell you dosnt mean its mine. I thought that was what the court case was to establish had they bought it or merely thought they had.

Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 03:44 · Score: 0

"We bought Proview's worldwide rights [...]in 10 different countries"...

Ah, why not just buy worldwide right in the US and send in the Marines to defend their worldwide right??

The drama continues... by JoeMerchant · 2012-02-20 03:46 · Score: 1

http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=29390955

Re:Good by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-02-20 03:49 · Score: 1, Troll

That's all well and good, except for the fact that they paid for the trade mark.

They say they paid for the trademark. The court decides whether they legally bought or licensed the trademark.

I think Apple will win this one because they'll be able to show that they really did pay for the trademark in China.

Re:Good by andydread · 2012-02-20 03:54 · Score: 4, Informative

They paid from the trademark from the Taiwan affiliate. The mainland China Corporate office has denied that apple can use that trademark in mainland China and has denied permission for the Taiwan affiliate to sell that trademark for use in Mainland China. Keep spouting Apple's talking points there without telling the whole story though carry on.

This should be interesting... by alispguru · 2012-02-20 03:54 · Score: 1

Chinese nationalism vs. Chinese gadget lust

The immovable object meets the irresistible force - get your tickets now!

--

To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.

Re:Good by timeOday · 2012-02-20 03:57 · Score: 4, Funny

Apple paid $4 to download the trademark from allofmp3.com, so it's theirs fair and square :)

Re:Good by sjames · 2012-02-20 03:58 · Score: 1

Yes, if you buy it from a fence.

OTOH, they say they bought the rights in 10 different countries. Was mainland China amongst the 10?

Re:Good by Theaetetus · 2012-02-20 03:58 · Score: 1

And the company that OWNS the trademark denies that the company that SOLD it had the right to do so.

... of course, they're the same company:

Apple contends that it acquired the iPad name when it bought rights in various countries from a Proview affiliate in Taiwan in 2009 for 35,000 British pounds ($55,000). Proview won a ruling from a mainland Chinese court in December that it was not bound by that sale.

Re:Good by sribe · 2012-02-20 03:59 · Score: 5, Interesting

And the company that OWNS the trademark denies that the company that SOLD it had the right to do so.

And Apple presented solid evidence in Taiwan that the company that OWNS the trademark was fully aware, fully involved in the negotiations, and fully approved the transaction--that the claim that the company that sold the trademark had no right to do so is a flat-out lie, invented after they found out the trademark rights had been sold to Apple.

Ironic by riverat1 · 2012-02-20 04:00 · Score: 0

How ironic considering that iPad's are made in China.

Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 04:00 · Score: 0

Because chickenhawks like Bush and Obama only do that to countries that cannot fight back. Hardly the case with the Chicoms.

Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 04:04 · Score: 4, Informative

Typically when you buy worldwide rights, it applies to the entire world, no?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/15/us-apple-proview-idUSTRE81E0BE20120215

I would think if Proview has an issue, then they need to speak to whoever was claiming to own the worldwide rights to the trademark, rather than Apple. Claiming they were developing a 'similar' technology in 2000 with absolutely nothing to show for the last 12 years is a stretch in the best of cases, where their current financial situation would more likely imply that they are simply trolling trying to stay afloat given they are already going under.

By all means though, post without telling the whole story...

Re:Good by erroneus · 2012-02-20 04:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

The issue is whether the Taiwan operations had the right to sell to Apple. China believes they didn't. It's kind of like the SCO ownership of Unix... they didn't.

Intermediate People's Court? by ddd0004 · 2012-02-20 04:10 · Score: 1

Don't worry Judge Wapner will over turn this in the Supreme People's Court.

Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 04:11 · Score: 1

How does this get modded "Insightful" when Apple PAID for the trademark. Regardless of the shenanigans that Proview is now pulling ("Oh, you paid Bob, who works for us? Yeah. No. You gotta pay me."), Apple didn't steal a damn thing - they paid for the trademark.

Shoe is on the other foot by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 04:14 · Score: 0

This is exactly the kind of world Apple has been trying to create nearly its' entire existence. Apple should be ecstatic.

For those who feel inclined... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 04:14 · Score: 1

Violins available. Please take one: . . . . . . . . . . .

Wapner. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 04:15 · Score: 0

4:30.

Re:Good by donscarletti · 2012-02-20 04:17 · Score: 1

They are both subsidiaries of the same company. Furthermore I dare you to walk into a Chinese court and base your case on the claim that Taiwan is not part of China. Losing the case would be the least of your worries, losing your head would be the bigger concern.

Weiguan are a bunch of desperate scheming pricks. However, iPad is also a stupid name, which sounds like a lady's sanitary product and is not worth what Apple paid for it to begin with, let alone the cost of this court battle.

--
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem

This is just precious by erroneus · 2012-02-20 04:17 · Score: 1

I have never before seen such a global scale legal war over a class of products. Usually, before things get this big, someone works out a deal. But Apple is simply vicious. Even if the businesses which Apple attacks are licensed or otherwise permitted under law, they find ways to legally destroy competition. The Fanklin Ace (which later became the Apple IIe) was the first thing I bore witness to in this regard. Psystar was a clever way to sell "Apple Compatibles" and should have been completely legal... they probably would have prevailed if they had a legal staff like Google's. And before anyone chimes in about the Franklin saying "Franklin was licensed to make a compatible, but not to make one that's BETTER" is just full of crap. If I am licensed to make, say, an Intel x86 compatible chip and then I enhance it the way AMD did when they created the default standard for 64 bit instructions, it is perfectly legal to do so. Intel, of course, did not like the competition leading the way as they did in the AMD 64 bit processor incident, but they handled it better than Apple has. The fact was, Apple didn't want another company to lead the way for them or, in other words, out-innovate them.

But to watch this globally fought war where Apple creates more enemies than they can handle is just amazing to me and will certainly result in volumes of books on this story in the next 10 years. We live in interesting times...

Re:This is just precious by sribe · 2012-02-20 04:58 · Score: 3, Informative

Good lord, what a load of crap to get modded insightful!

And before anyone chimes in about the Franklin saying "Franklin was licensed to make a compatible, but not to make one that's BETTER" is just full of crap.
Franklin did not have a license from Apple for anything at all. They just copied Apple's ROMs and OS on the theory that copyright would not apply, and they lost that gamble in court.

Psystar was a clever way to sell "Apple Compatibles" and should have been completely legal... they probably would have prevailed if they had a legal staff like Google's.
Well, if Psystar had sold "OS X ready" machines with instructions on how to get OS X installed and running, they might have been OK. But instead they modified OS X and sold the modified versions. Regardless of whether or not you think this should be legal, it clearly is not.
Re:This is just precious by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 05:07 · Score: 1

Is this just a rant you've had sitting around on your computer and got a little desperate to use? Because what you're describing has pretty much fuck all to do with this article, except that it hits on the keywords Apple and IP. Proview has nothing to do with any of the lawsuits Apple has brought; it's just a bankrupt company who is pulling a desperate move to try to get money from Apple after having already sold them the rights. The company leader's reasoning for the suit is:

Yang said the company had been developing a tablet product called the iPad back in 2000.
"We spent a lot of resources on it. It's the same concept as the iPad today, except that back then, there were practically no LCD screens,"
That's right. They developed a product called the iPad that's almost exactly like the iPad, except that they never actually made it, much less sold it. Somehow, when screens became available... well, golly, I guess they just plumb fergot.

Proview at this point are a new breed: a trademark troll.
Re:This is just precious by tlhIngan · 2012-02-20 05:11 · Score: 3, Informative

Franklin did not have a license from Apple for anything at all. They just copied Apple's ROMs and OS on the theory that copyright would not apply, and they lost that gamble in court.
The only licensed use was Bell and Howell's Apple II clone. You can find them around (they're in black cases).
Franklin's case is a bit muddy since Franklin claimed that since Apple published the schematics and ROM listing, they were free to take it and build their own. Which of course isn't true (otherwise it would doom Open Source as well - publishing the source code allows anyone to take it? No GPL advocate would go for that)

Well, if Psystar had sold "OS X ready" machines with instructions on how to get OS X installed and running, they might have been OK. But instead they modified OS X and sold the modified versions. Regardless of whether or not you think this should be legal, it clearly is not.
The other thing is the whole Hackintosh community was also against Psystar - they had to change their licensing of all the tools required from some freeware to explicitly "no commercial use allowed".
Anyhow, back on topic - the ProView "iPad" was actually an iMac-styled (this was back in 2000, remember, so it was the bulbuous one) appliance computer. Not even a tablet - just an iMac ripoff design for an internet appliance.
(Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/02/18/proviews-ipad-was-it-an-imac-or-an-ipaq/ images (marketing materials from Proview): http://micgadget.com/22151/proview-has-manufactured-20000-%E2%80%98ipad%E2%80%99-devices-this-is-what-it-looks-like/ ). Funny, apparently Compaq would have a much better claim against Apple with the iPaq...
Re:This is just precious by jo_ham · 2012-02-20 05:13 · Score: 3

If Psystar's selling of OS X against the licence (ie, free to ignore Apple's software licence at will for commercial gain) was ruled legal then the effect on things like the GPL would be catastrophic.
If one company is free to ignore a software licence and has been backed up by a court in such an enterprise, then what chance does the GPL have? Psystar could have rolled up some GPL code into their distribution, modified it and refused to release changes. How is that any different to wilfully ignoring Apple's licence terms for OS X?
Just because you disagree with them? That lawsuit affected all licences.
They could have released a machine that was 99% of what they had, just with no copy of OS X provided and they would have been fine (they're essentially selling a normal PC at this point). What you can't do commercially is sell OS X running on non-Apple hardware unless you're Apple themselves and you release it under a different licence.
Re:This is just precious by sribe · 2012-02-20 05:45 · Score: 3, Informative

The other thing is the whole Hackintosh community was also against Psystar - they had to change their licensing of all the tools required from some freeware to explicitly "no commercial use allowed".
Yes, Psystar lied multiple times about the source of the bootloader modifications. They did not just rip off Apple, they ripped off open source software as well, without attribution. Their stories about almost everything they did kept changing throughout the court case--lose on one issue, change the story about what they're doing to something else and try again was their mode of operation throughout the whole case.
Re:This is just precious by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 07:29 · Score: 0

The Psystar case wasn't about Apple's license agreement. It was about their wholesale copying, modification, and redistribution of copyrighted works without permission; a.k.a. the Mac OS X boot loader.
You don't get to do that (legally).
Re:This is just precious by int69h · 2012-02-20 09:15 · Score: 1

The GPL and Apple's license are quite different. The GPL grants you freedoms that you did not legally have. Apple's license tries to restrict your legal freedoms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
Re:This is just precious by jo_ham · 2012-02-20 09:37 · Score: 1

That doesn't matter - it's *up to Apple* how it licenses its software, just as it's up to any individual developer how they licence their code - GPL/BSD/Apache/Proprietary/Other etc.
It doesn't matter if you disagree with it, it's their choice, and if it's legal for a commercial entity to ignore Apple's software licence then the same applies to any other software licence. As it happens, the legal decision went the right way. If you hate Apple then consider that a necessary evil that they "won" - the real victory is that (had the result gone the other way), then all that GPL code is as good as public domain, since there would be no way to enforce the licence. "Tivoisation" would be protected.
Re:This is just precious by phantomfive · 2012-02-20 11:14 · Score: 1

If Psystar's selling of OS X against the licence (ie, free to ignore Apple's software licence at will for commercial gain) was ruled legal then the effect on things like the GPL would be catastrophic.
No, the point in question is that there are some things that are legal to do in licenses, and some things that are not. For example, you can not sell yourself in slavery, no matter what kind of license or contract you accept. Any such contract is non-binding in American law, you can feel completely free to ignore it.

- The GPL gives you more freedom than is required by law. It is normal to not allow licensees to create and distribute derivative works, but the GPL gives you that freedom. They must give you that freedom with the GPL (or other similar license), otherwise you won't have it.
- The Apple license tries to restrict your freedom. It takes away your freedom to modify something you've legally bought. If they didn't explicitly remove that freedom, you would still have it.

The question in the Psystar case was whether this sort of restriction is legal under US law, and it turns out it is, but no matter how that turned out, the GPL would be unaffected.

IANAL

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:This is just precious by jo_ham · 2012-02-20 12:38 · Score: 1

IANAL
I can see that.
Again, this is not about things for sale, it is about things that you have licensed - OS X being one of them, and GPL code (by analogy) being another.
The point is the protection/limitations the licences offer *for all parties* - Apple is free to set the terms of its licence, as is anyone writing code that they choose to release as GPL. This also has a bearing on the parties that use things covered under those licences, but they are not the only parties that have to be considered.
If you (or anyone else) don't like the proprietary licence that a piece of software is covered by then you are free not to use it. You are *not* free to do anything you want with it though, just because it is restrictive. For example, Psystar cannot modify OS X and ship it with their computers. You don't have a "freedom that Apple removed" by having restrictive terms in the licence agreement since that presupposes your right to the software in the first place - it's Apple's (or any other entity that releases its code/software/etc) on what terms it is available. If the terms do not agree with you (or anyone) then simply do not use it. The same is true of the GPL but from the opposite direction - it emphasises freedom of the code, but it imposes restrictions on how you can use it. You can't simply roll it up into a closed binary and not release the changes to the source (assuming you release the software for use), for example. If that doesn't work for you (or anyone) you're free to not use GPL covered code - that's what the licence is there for.
It's not about whether the licences are diametrically opposed (clearly, they are pretty alien to each other), but rather the legal standing of the licence terms and how they affect each other. If Apple's licence is "legally ignorable" because it is restrictive then there is a precedent for saying the same thing about the GPL. It also contains restrictions (good ones) about what you can do with the code and what you must do if you use it.
Re:This is just precious by phantomfive · 2012-02-20 12:44 · Score: 1

If you (or anyone else) don't like the proprietary licence that a piece of software is covered by then you are free not to use it.

I don't think you understand. Not everything in a EULA is binding, nor does putting it in a EULA mean it is enforceable. It is entirely possible for an Apple license to be unenforceable and the GNU license to be enforceable. How you could write so much and not understand this point is beyond me.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:This is just precious by jo_ham · 2012-02-20 13:13 · Score: 1

Yes, that is true if they insert something that affects your statutory rights (for example, forfeit of your warranty by accepting the terms is unenforceable), but they didn't put that in, and that wasn't the claim under challenge. I'm aware that it's possible for unenforceable EULAs to exist, and that there have certainly been some, but this was about Apple's terms that you were *not* free to modify and resell OS X on non-Apple machines. They are perfectly entitled to release the code under those terms, since it doesn't conflict with other vendor or consumer rights. Psystar wanted to ignore that part of the licence and sell it anyway.
That clause is directly comparable to similar clauses in the GPL that work in reverse - that the code must not be distributed in a product unless the source and changes are provided.
Like I said before, you may not like Apple's licence (or any proprietary licence) - and you did start this whole discussion by emphasising that one of them enforces freedom while the other allegedly removes it - but the terms under challenge were not unreasonable. Apple is perfectly within its rights to impose such restrictions on the software they release, and the ability to break those terms at will *does* directly affect other software licences that set similar themed (if opposite in effect in the case of the GPL) terms - namely what the original author of the code wants to do with it.
Re:This is just precious by phantomfive · 2012-02-20 13:24 · Score: 1

Do you have the right to take something you own, modify it, and sell it again? That was the question in the Psystar case.

The GPL specifically says you can do whatever you want with the software (note: AGPL puts limitations). The the Psystar case is not relevant to the GPL.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:This is just precious by jo_ham · 2012-02-20 13:45 · Score: 1

You don't own the OS X code though, Apple does.
And the GPL *doesn't* say you can do whatever you want with it - that would be closer to the BSD licence - the GPL does have restrictions in it (ones I agree with, mind you).
Re:This is just precious by phantomfive · 2012-02-20 14:08 · Score: 1

You don't own the OS X code though, Apple does.
The Psystar case wasn't about source code.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:This is just precious by int69h · 2012-02-20 15:19 · Score: 1

If I buy a book, I can resell it. If I buy a CD I can resell it. If I buy a copy of OSX, I can't resell it. Surely you can see the flaw. If someone ignores the GPL and distributes they're guilty of copyright infringement, without using legal gymnastics to claim that loading a legally purchased copy of OSX into RAM without Apple's consent infringes copyright.
Re:This is just precious by jo_ham · 2012-02-21 05:25 · Score: 1

Well, that's the crux of the entire argument - the nature of licensing something vs buying it - why is it suddenly ok to ignore when Apple chooses to do it (re: Psystar)?
That's the model OS X is provided under, and it's Apple's choice. That doesn't mean you can ignore it or claim that they really sold it to you just because you want it to be so, in the same way that you can't ignore the provisions of the GPL, or the Apache licence, or Microsoft's software licences etc.
The decision was a good thing, and like I said before, if you hate Apple then consider the fact that they won to be necessary evil, since they were standing up for the enforcement of software licence terms, and that affects everyone.
Re:This is just precious by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-02 23:53 · Score: 0

Of course it matters. With the GPL, if you reject the license, the software is still copyrighted, the GPL is the only thing giving you the right to make and distribute copies. With an EULA that doesn't grant additional rights, if you buy software and refuse the EULA, you still have the right to sell the original copy of the software which you bought under first-sale doctrine, what you don't have is the right to make and distribute new copies, but you never had than even with the EULA.
Most EULAs expect you to accept them without giving you anything in return, so all you get is a bunch of restrictions. The GPL on the other hand offers you additional rights if you accept it which you don't have to do, but if you don't you are still bound by the restrictions of copyright law. If EULAs are to be valid, they should be presented at the point where you acquire the software (before download or sale) after that it is too late*.
Where Psystar went wrong, IIRC, was as well as going against the license Apple offered, they also went against copyright law by not distributing the same copies on the machines they sold as what they bought from their OSX supplier. Had Psystar scrupulously following copyright law, their case may have had a chance.
*Microsoft at least seems to recognize this at some level since they at least give you the option of returning you unused copy of Windows to the vendor you bought it from for a refund if you don't agree with the license.

Litigation come home to roost ? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 04:18 · Score: 0

Could this be Chinese retribution ? Could this be Android device makers protecting products they want to manufacture and sell worldwide without being sued in every market that Apple claims as their own ? Hmmm. Be careful who you sue because it could be your best customer.

Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 04:28 · Score: 0

But it's Apple, which makes it not only all right, but trendy.

Please. It's like you don't even understand the new world order. Are you not a Friend of Saint Jobs?

bad karma for bad apple by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 04:32 · Score: 0

I'm pleased that Apple is now on the receiving end of the lawsuits they keep filing against other companies. Granted, this one is trademark rather than patent, but still it warms my heart to see sales of their products banned. Sadly, I doubt it will change their strategy with other [Android] mobile phone makers

Who's Directing This? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 04:33 · Score: 0

(Posting AC because I'm at work)

I would be curious to know who's directing these shenanigans by Proview. Given that Proview sold the trademark rights to Apple (please, don't buy into the garbage that it was a subsidiary that didn't have the rights to blah blah blah - shenanigans!!), this entirely smacks of an effort orchestrated by someone else. While it could just be Proview attempting to salvage their failing business with some phat cash from Apple (they certainly wouldn't be the first to pull such a stunt), it seems more likely (in today's business climate...) that someone is pulling Proview's strings in an effort to hurt Apple/help their own efforts. I have some guesses but they're just that - guesses. I'd be curious to find out who is actually behind this.

Re:Good by Higgins_Boson · 2012-02-20 04:36 · Score: 1

It's about time Apple got pimp-slapped for trying to steal someone else's REGISTERED trade mark.

FTFY

Timing is everything by jesseck · 2012-02-20 04:38 · Score: 1

I wonder, with this lawsuit gaining ground recently, did Proview not realize that Apple has been using the iPad trademark for years until now? And this started up around the same time as Apple was investigating conditions at its component manufacturer's sites and popular media jumped on the story. Is this China's way of retaliating to Apple and the US media? I find it hard to think that a Chinese corporation could sue Apple without the involvement the Party.

Re:Timing is everything by jo_ham · 2012-02-20 05:15 · Score: 1

No, it's Proview's attempt to make some money - they're in financial trouble now and are looking for a fast buck.
Re:Timing is everything by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 05:54 · Score: 0

Not really ... Proview has been fuzzing about this for a long time now ... Courts moves slowly

And yet where are they made? by Karmashock · 2012-02-20 04:40 · Score: 1

So many of these companies just need to diversify manufacturing out of china so they're not so dependent. It would also give them leverage. China is in a great position to dictate terms and few companies have a means to respond.

--
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.

Re:And yet where are they made? by lexsird · 2012-02-20 13:04 · Score: 1

We need to put tariffs on anything NOT made here and tell the rest of the world to fuck itself and deal with trade like the war it is.
Of course we will have to march every politician in Washington out into the street and shoot them in the fucking head first, because they are all whores in bed with multinational corporations, all on the payroll of probably China too. They had a President of our bought and paid for, why not Congress as well?
Fuck Apple for making their products there. They can burn in hell.

--
Take the Red Pill.
Re:And yet where are they made? by Karmashock · 2012-02-20 13:18 · Score: 1

Enjoy partying like it's 1599, chaps.
THe whole modern economy would collapse and war would break out everywhere over everything. The international trade system amongst other things gives everyone a reason to be nice to each other. Take that away and the incentive for war increases and the disincentive decreases.
You say "but we have nukes, so screw em'!"? Well, at issue there is that these wars of conquest will rage throughout the world and at some point an ally or a resource we need will be threatened by a rival. At which point we'll become involved... and we'll be doing all that while our economy is getting starved of everything. We'll be better off then most for a lot of reasons but it will be bad.
Billions will die.
Up for some genocide? Sorry it leads there but it does. We need to beat the chinese at their own game... hte game that used to be ours.
We need to produce more, at a higher quality, for less.
We can do it. We have the technology. We merely need the will to use it. Automation. Real automation. The kind that makes the cheap labor of china irrelevant. We need to release the robots.
We'll just suffer until we do it. And if we never do it then someone else will do it long after we've choked on our own vomit. It is our best play. It isn't a panacea but it will solve certain problems.

--
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Re:And yet where are they made? by lexsird · 2012-02-20 13:47 · Score: 1

Are you kidding me? Automation = even fewer jobs.
The world's problems aren't ours. Fuck 'em. Besides, it will sort it's self out fine as soon as we rid the world of the scum at the top.

--
Take the Red Pill.
Re:And yet where are they made? by Karmashock · 2012-02-20 19:54 · Score: 1

Your "idea" leads to self destruction. Your primary source of employment will be soldiers fighting in wars and at some point it will go nuclear... which will mean millions of americans dead to say nothing of the billions that will die elsewhere. Of course you don't care about anyone but americans... so you don't care about those billions. But you should at least care about the millions of dead Americans right?
Automation can mean jobs for the US. They're just not going to be your old job. Your old job is gone the same way the blacksmith is gone. How many people did it take to harvest a crop of wheat 1000 years ago? Lots. farmers would typically help each other by pooling labor. Every farmer would help harvest someone else's crop with the understanding that everyone would help when he needed to harvest his crop. Today, one machine can harvest more wheat then a thousand men in a day. At one point, over sixty percent of ALL human labor went into agriculture. That was just to feed ourselves. Today it's less then five percent.
Do you want to go back to the days when you had to harvest wheat by hand? Does that sound "rational" to you? You'd have more jobs. Of course, they're bad, uncompetitive, jobs that no one wants.
The factory jobs you want in the US don't exist anymore. If you want to bring them back to the US without automation then you need to accept MUCH lower wages and much lower benifits. PERIOD. The labor isn't worth what it was once worth.
We can give people high paying jobs in those factories IF we automate. It won't be as many jobs but we can build a LOT of factories. We can move our factories from Asia to the US... even if every factory only employs 100 people where once 10,000 might have been employed... that's still 100 jobs you wouldn't have otherwise. The company stays in the US. The production is controlled by the US. And the profits stay in the US. Everyone wins.
Fight automation if you want... it's as stupid as fighting tractors in modern agriculture. It's the only way you're going to bring manufacturing back to the US and your trade war idea will lead to ACTUAL war.

--
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Re:And yet where are they made? by lexsird · 2012-02-20 20:28 · Score: 1

You are dreaming.
In the mean time, the middle class slides into the poverty class and the rich get richer.
It's very simple. We have to gain control of our elected officials again, even if that means we have to put them down. The next batch will be more cautious about betraying us. Second we need to Constitutionally establish rules about bribery and I would have it a capital offense. Then we can truly have a democracy and a representative government.
We need to visit all treaties and also go back to how the original founders intended for the Feds to get their money and that was through tariffs. We lost serious control over them when they ILLEGALLY posed the income tax on us. Check, that was not legally ratified. There is a stink about that, which of course gets ignore. We were built upon "protectionism" and we intended to have our own economy and let the rest of the world frankly go fuck itself.
We've also allowed corporations to twist corporate law far out of what it was originally intended for. We've let it them grow until they are now our masters, they control those whom we are suppose to have representing us. Their reach goes into various high powered governments of the world. Look how they manipulated two enemies, the United States and China into being their lackey whores.
I'm not optimistic about any of this. The brainwashing that has established this form of slavery over modern mankind is elegant, and well thought out. It harnesses the very intellect, and base values and instincts of it's victims, to forge the chains on us all. Most people are just drones, living day to day on the mental pablum dished to them. I doubt very much the drones will awaken, they don't want to.
Your "automation" only sets us up for a fall as a species at this point. The most important thing on this planet isn't the ore or other inert resources, but the human beings on it. These are our most valuable assets, and we piss them away into slavery, or just let them rot. Automation is abomination when there are human hands around that live in a system like ours and need jobs to survive.
Lastly, our success can't be measure and dictated to us by those that are on top of a foul and corrupt system. We need to measure our success by that of the whole, not the privileged few. The "privileged few" are the bane of humanity. They will not only resist positive change that is need for the survival of the species, they will plummet us further and faster to our collective doom just to spite us. It is imperative that not only do we resist them with unbridled violence, but we set an example of complete and utter horror as a cautionary tale for those in the future.
I don't see us doing this, hence I foresee our doom. Trust me, it's far, far more horrifying that what I propose.

--
Take the Red Pill.
Re:And yet where are they made? by Karmashock · 2012-02-20 20:56 · Score: 1

it no more sets up the fall of the species then the agricultural revolution set up the fall of the species.
you're trapped in an outmoded ideological framework and lack the creatively, flexibility, and basic cognitive resources to see beyond your myopic reprogrammed perspective.
The universe is bigger then your ideology. It's bigger then your narrow conception of things. The very idea of classes pre supposes that their must be classes or that classes are even meaningful.
Please peddle your crypo-marxist bullshit elsewhere. It was tired 60 years ago and today it's petrified horseshit.

--
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Re:And yet where are they made? by lexsird · 2012-02-20 21:50 · Score: 1

Sez the drone

--
Take the Red Pill.
Re:And yet where are they made? by Karmashock · 2012-02-20 22:38 · Score: 1

I'm the drone because I'm thinking for myself? I'm the drone because I'm having my own thoughts based on my own values?
While you spout predigested crypto-Marxist bullcrap that was spoon fed to you? And you call me the drone?
lolcats.
The day you actually have an original thought is the day you get to even begin whether someone else might be a drone.

--
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Re:And yet where are they made? by lexsird · 2012-02-21 02:11 · Score: 1

Sez the frightened, frustrated little drone.

--
Take the Red Pill.
Re:And yet where are they made? by Karmashock · 2012-02-21 09:55 · Score: 1

I make a rational comment you reply with an infantile insult.
Game set match... better luck next time.

--
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Re:And yet where are they made? by lexsird · 2012-02-21 10:44 · Score: 1

One more time so you can be the last word freak.
SEZ THE DUMBASS DRONE.
That's all you get, you aren't worth anything more.
Now get that last word....

--
Take the Red Pill.
Re:And yet where are they made? by Karmashock · 2012-02-21 10:48 · Score: 1

Hmmm.. What to do?!
I can either say nothing thus leaving your insult in which you say you'll let me have the last word rot... Or I can mock you again for being a hilariously dense!
CHOICES!!!
You're a clown. You did nothing but repeat old tired philosophies from dead men you don't understand... and you call me a drone?
Get an actual education and try again.

--
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.

Re:Good by aurizon · 2012-02-20 04:44 · Score: 1

So, Apple says we are bringing ipad/iphone fabrication back to the USA - Chinese government throttles Proview ...

Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 04:47 · Score: 0

I would think if Proview has an issue, then they need to speak to whoever was claiming to own the worldwide rights to the trademark, rather than Apple.

No. Absolutely wrong. If someone sells your car without any right to do so then, yes, the seller is the person who is in the wrong but, no, it is not the actual owner who loses out. If Apple bought the Golden Gate bridge or a trademark or whatever from someone who didn't have the right to sell it then that isn't a problem that the actual owner has to sort out.

Apple will argue: Taiwan is part of China! by PythonM · 2012-02-20 04:53 · Score: 1

Chinese government says the Taiwan is part of China. The trademark in Taiwan is owned by Apple. Will Apple fight to make 9/10 of its workforce happy representing Chinease interests around the world?

Re:Good by shaitand · 2012-02-20 05:04 · Score: 1

"bought rights in various countries from a Proview affiliate"

An affiliated company is a separate company that is related or connected not the same company.You can sign up as an affiliate of adult friend finder and show their banner ads on your website to make click-through revenue. That doesn't give you the right to sell their trademark.

In similar fashion, Sony USA likely has no right to sell the rights to the Sony trademark in Japan. Despite sharing a name these companies have different officers.

Re:Good by shaitand · 2012-02-20 05:06 · Score: 1, Insightful

"invented after they found out the trademark rights had been sold to Apple"

Which is it were they fully involved and fully aware or did they find out the rights were sold after the fact? You can't have it both ways.

Re:Good by shaitand · 2012-02-20 05:09 · Score: 1, Insightful

So if I give the guy at the Apple store $10 for the global rights to the Apple trademark I'm good right? Or only if his name is Bob?

Re:Good by john82 · 2012-02-20 05:09 · Score: 2

More likely, the PRC govt has determined that Taiwan (whom they view as a renegade province) should not dictate T&C to ANY entity of the PRC. Ergo, the sale of such an asset by company operating in Taiwan would BY DEFAULT have no bearing in the PRC.

Re:Good by CowTipperGore · 2012-02-20 05:22 · Score: 3, Informative

If you post a URL that doesn't even support your claim, you'll get modded up? Your link simply tells us that Apple says their front company bought the worldwide rights, which we already know they claim.

It seems there are two options here:

* Proview China is lying in a last-ditch effort to save their company
* Apple and/or their front company didn't do their homework

Nothing in your link sheds any light on the issue.

Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 05:22 · Score: 0

Exactly. And in other news, I just bought all of Apple's IP rights from one of their janitors. $30, a little pricey but I think it might turn out to be a bit of a bargain.

Re:Good by s.petry · 2012-02-20 05:23 · Score: 1

You know, that was one of the first things I was thinking. Here goes Apple, giving all their IP (whether they wanted to or not) to China. They move all their manufacturing there thinking "It's our in to make assloads of cash! China only does business with people that have lots of business in China! They told us so, and we saw how good that turned out for the Big 3!"

Dumbasses, great business model and planning.

--

-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

See this is why they have to manufacture in China by Beelzebud · 2012-02-20 05:25 · Score: 1

Because the US is just way too anti-business!

Re:Good by WillDraven · 2012-02-20 05:26 · Score: 4, Interesting

I'm not apprised of the situation at all except what I've read on this page, but the way I read that is that the company was fully aware of the sale, but didn't find out until later that the buyer was Apple, perhaps because they used a differently named subsidiary to make the purchase.

I would imagine such tactics are common for well known corporations and persons. After all, if Tim's Computers wants to buy your domain name (or trademark, or 500 widgets, etc.) you ask for $20. If Apple, Google, Microsoft, Foxconn, etc. want to buy your domain name, you'll be a lot more tempted to ask for $20,000 instead.

--
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.

Re:Good by Nethemas+the+Great · 2012-02-20 05:32 · Score: 2

I wonder how many Yuan it will take to "show" that...

--
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.

So...don't sell there. by Overzeetop · 2012-02-20 05:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

Take the iPad out of China; sell it in all the surrounding countries. Anybody know what the sales number is for iPads in mainland China? Apple can take the Chinese strategy of just "wait them out." It's not like the iPad market is going to live or die on Chinese sales, and they're already worried about meeting demand for iPads every time a new one pops up.

Meanwhile, get an agent to pursue purchase of the assets of the nearly defunct ProView.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?

Re:So...don't sell there. by msobkow · 2012-02-20 06:30 · Score: 1

An international conglomerate give up a potential share of the market without a fight?
Bwahaahahhahahha!

--
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Re:So...don't sell there. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 09:34 · Score: 0

No foreign company may own more than 49% of a Chinese company.
Re:So...don't sell there. by Auldclootie · 2012-02-20 23:49 · Score: 1

Quote: 'Anybody know what the sales number is for iPads in mainland China?' - Anecdotal? Yes! - I live in Suzhou and teach in a local university. I see a zillion iPads a day, there are close to 50 million people within a radius of 50 miles of here and an awful lot of them have iPads - many more (per capita) than I saw travelling around Australia last month...Never kid yourself that China has a consumer market whose value can be discounted... these are the guys about to rule the world - with a lot more potential buyers than Europe and the US combined.

Not a problem by WindBourne · 2012-02-20 05:39 · Score: 2, Informative

FoxxConn is already producing their own fPad for sale in China. It is half the price of an iPad and looks, and runs exactly like an iPad.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Re:Not a problem by lexsird · 2012-02-20 13:00 · Score: 1

Yet we don't take them to task over it. But we will fine the living shit out of teenaged girls for downloading some MP3. What a bunch of pussies.

--
Take the Red Pill.
Re:Not a problem by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 03:14 · Score: 0

The fPad:
http://www.ecvv.com/product/2806488.html
FR08-2 8" Fpad Android 2.2 Specs:
Screen: 8 inch ultra-thin high-definition LCD
CPU: Freescale 1.2GHz
Storage: 4GB
Memory: 512MB DDR2 1200Mhz
Operattion system: Android 2.2
Resolution: 800x600 high-brightness TFT LCD (4:3)
Touch screen: Full screen touch
Battery: 2500mAh Li-ion battery
Wireless network: WiFi 802.11b/g
Sound effect: Stereo power amplifier, audio output port, built-in Mic; stereo headphone port.
Camera: No.
Card port:; Support up to 32GB SD card
3G function: support
GPS navigation: support google map
Flash: support Flash 10
G-sensor : support
E-book : support
Game function: support 3D games
Network communication: QQ, MSN, SKYPE, GTALK,
Office software: supported by third-party software for office applications
Weight: 0.5 kg
Dimensions: 221X180X14 mm

Re:Good by Cerium · 2012-02-20 05:40 · Score: 1

I think it's one of those emotional/human thing. We'd much rather help people who are like us (size of a company/owners/neighbors/etc.) than the giant corporation who will likely crush us and toss us aside once we've served our purpose. That's been my experience, at least.

That said, with the mindset I have, I find it incredibly dishonest and dishonorable for a company like Apple to use such tactics to get a better deal. Not sure what actions I'd take if I were of the responsible parties in this situation, but I know I wouldn't be very happy.

Re:Good by sribe · 2012-02-20 05:42 · Score: 1

Which is it were they fully involved and fully aware or did they find out the rights were sold after the fact? You can't have it both ways.

Good lord, try actually reading one of the articles sometime! They were fully involved and fully aware of the negotiations to sell the rights to the trademark to "IP Application Development Limited". They just did not know that the ultimate customer was Apple.

Re:Good by BasilBrush · 2012-02-20 05:43 · Score: 2

It seems there are two options here:

* Proview China is lying in a last-ditch effort to save their company
* Apple and/or their front company didn't do their homework

I'm a betting man. I'd apply probabilities of 90% and 10% respectively if I was looking to bet on those options. We already know Proview is fucked. Their factories are closed down and their shares have been suspended from the stock exchange. They admit they're looking for an out of court settlement, whilst trying to push that by shopping around jurisdictions looking for injuctions. Which is the standard tactic of an IP troll.

Re:Good by CowTipperGore · 2012-02-20 05:51 · Score: 1

It appears there is a third option - Proview is now claiming that Apple's front company agreed that the trademark would not be used to compete against them and that, while the technology is clearly different, Apple's iPad is loosely competing against Proview's IPAD. Unfortunately, most of the recent details around this are found only on Chinese media sites or John Paczkowski's blog on AllThingsD. Perhaps we'll know a bit more in a few days. In particular, who is Huy Yuan and did he really represent the Chinese Proview, as Apple claims?

Re:Good by BasilBrush · 2012-02-20 05:52 · Score: 1

The word "pad" makes you think of a ladies sanitary product before you think of a pad of paper? That seems a little odd to me.

I think it's fair to say most people are thinking of a mobile computing device when they hear "iPad" and they don't immediately think of sanitary towels.

I remember when Nintendo came out with the "Wii", which sounds exactly like children's slang for urine in the UK. Didn't seem to hurt sales at all. And no one bats an eyelid at eh question "Do you want to play with my Wii?"

Re:Good by BasilBrush · 2012-02-20 05:58 · Score: 1

This is a company that's effectively bankrupt - all their factories are closed, and their shares have been suspended in the stock exchange. And they're talking about another subsidiary of the same?

I don't know why you capitalised "OWNS", when it's only "claims to own".

Sounds like a last desperate attempt at double dipping to me.

Chinese 420 scam? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 06:02 · Score: 1

One of the emails from Proview states..."As you know my company is an international company and it always keep to its promise. I can also promise you my company will sign the country assignment after you pay the money."

The only thing missing is, ...Please send the money western union...

Re:Good by flyingsquid · 2012-02-20 06:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

Am I the only one who finds the existence of this lawsuit a bit hypocritical? China isn't exactly known for its strict policy towards intellectual property. The New York Times recently did an article about how companies won't let their employees bring their personal laptops and cell phones to China, because they're worried that the Chinese will hack into them and steal their technology and designs. A few days ago there was a case where a Chinese programmer at the Fed stole a piece of software that they'd spent ten million dollars trying to develop. A couple months ago, the Wall Street Journal reported a case of a Chinese wind turbine manufacturer paying for control software stolen from an American firm. And are there even any estimates on how many pirated copies of Windows are in mainland China?

American companies and American taxpayers fund the development of technology, and then China turns around and steals the designs and makes a profit off of it. We're basically subsidizing Chinese industry, with U.S. corporations and taxpayers paying money to help China put U.S. workers out of business. The Chinese government turns a blind eye to all of this, or perhaps more likely, the government is actively encouraging this industrial espionage, just like the Soviets had a strategy of stealing Western technology during the Cold War.

Yes, Apple should obey the letter of the law, and perhaps they didn't do that in this case. But it seems remarkably hypocritical for a Chinese company to be dragging a Western company to court for intellectual property violations. Somehow when the theft goes the other way, nobody seems to notice.

Re:Good by Runaway1956 · 2012-02-20 06:07 · Score: 1

They paid for the trademark - yes. And, Proview is honoring that sale. Proview is not marketing an iPad in global markets, in international markets, or in any national markets - outside of mainland China.

Apple got what they paid for. They have rights to the iPad name around the world - outside of China.

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br

Re:Good by Runaway1956 · 2012-02-20 06:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

Hypocrisy, maybe. But, at least 60% of our "intellectual property" is unethical bullshit.

Slide to unlock, anyone?

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br

Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 06:12 · Score: 0

Except for the fact that Proview indicates they have been working on a 'similar' idea since 2000, but have shown nothing to prove that this is really the case. If they really had been working on this the last 12 years, i would think that even a small company could have a prototype in more than a decade? They have shown nothing but a claim to a trademark which was sold to Apple.

Re:Good by Runaway1956 · 2012-02-20 06:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

If I buy a car, stereo, computer, whatever from some dude, it's mine, right?

But, what happens when the cops knock on my door, with a search warrant, and search my home for that stuff I bought? They say it's stolen. And, I'm arrested, booked, and charged with "receiving stolen property".

I think Apple is in a parallel position here. They can expect to be slapped around a little for trying to bully the rightful owner of this "intellectual property".

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br

Re:Good by Runaway1956 · 2012-02-20 06:20 · Score: 1

"I think it's fair to say most people are thinking of a mobile computing device when they hear "iPad" and they don't immediately think of sanitary towels."

In my day, a "pad" generally referred to brake pads, feminine hygiene products, or a hippy's home. I bought many tablets and notebooks, and I heard of "notepads", but I never bought or used a pad except for use in the wheels of my cars. The closest thing I ever used was "padding" when shipping something.

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br

Re:Good by Runaway1956 · 2012-02-20 06:23 · Score: 1

"So when you pay for something, it's stolen?"

The legal term is, I believe, "Possession of stolen property". And, yes, there are probably tens of thousands of people in our prison system whose greatest crimes were "possession of stolen property". If it's a big enough item, then they were probably also charged with grand theft.

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br

Re:Good by ppanon · 2012-02-20 06:34 · Score: 1

Well, to be fair to the original poster, "pads" of paper are less and less common in offices now, and women's sanitary pads get a lot more advertising exposure on TV and other media than the writing kind these days.

--
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire

Re:Good by donscarletti · 2012-02-20 06:55 · Score: 1

Pads of paper are rare these days. In my office, we have A5 notebook or rheems for the printer. Even though I'm male, there's quite likely a few sanitary pads stashed in my apartment somewhere (by my girlfriend), though I doubt if I have any traditional notepads.

It could be a dialectic thing, in Australian English a "notepad" explicitly refers to a book of tear off foolscap sheets bound with glue at the top and there really isn't any other name for those woman's things but simply "pads". I can't remember what they're called in the UK, I was there a few weeks ago but it never came up.

--
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem

Re:Good by Theaetetus · 2012-02-20 06:56 · Score: 1

"bought rights in various countries from a Proview affiliate"

An affiliated company is a separate company that is related or connected not the same company.You can sign up as an affiliate of adult friend finder and show their banner ads on your website to make click-through revenue. That doesn't give you the right to sell their trademark.

In similar fashion, Sony USA likely has no right to sell the rights to the Sony trademark in Japan. Despite sharing a name these companies have different officers.

They weren't just affiliates, unlike an advertiser and content provider. They were actually subsidiaries of the same multi-national. This actually is closer to Sony USA and Sony Japan, and yes, if one arm of Sony contracted to sell rights, in many cases, it can be deemed to be acting as an agent of the rest of Sony and the rest of the subsidiaries may be bound by the sale.

That's okay by Chas · 2012-02-20 07:16 · Score: 1

The Chinese will still just sell cheap knockoffs "iiPadds" to one another like they do abroad.

--

Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!

Re:Good by LizardKing · 2012-02-20 07:17 · Score: 2

Typically when you buy worldwide rights, it applies to the entire world, no?

If Apple really did get what they thouight they'd bought, it was still only the rights to the trademark in the 10 countries that the Taiwanese subsidiary claimed was theirs to sell. So not worldwide rights then.

Re:Good by JBMcB · 2012-02-20 07:25 · Score: 1

It's not dishonest nor dishonorable - it's done all the time.

Think about it - Proview sold the iPad trademark for around $50,000. Why should the value of that trademark be worth more if Apple was buying it? The ability of Apple to pay more has no bearing on the worth of the mark - only in what Proview might ask for.

Think about the flip side - a used car dealer sizing people up based on how they dress. If you wear jeans and a T-Shirt you get one price, if you wear a suit and dress shoes you get another price. Saying this is dishonest is like saying it's dishonest to visit a used car dealership wearing junky clothes.

--
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.

Re:Good by iamhassi · 2012-02-20 07:29 · Score: 2

That's all well and good, except for the fact that they paid for the trade mark.

They say they paid for the trademark. The court decides whether they legally bought or licensed the trademark.

I think Apple will win this one because they'll be able to show that they really did pay for the trademark in China.

Apple bought iPad from Proview: "Apple says it bought Proview's worldwide rights to the trademark in 10 different countries several years ago, including rights to the iPad name from a Taiwan subsidiary of Proview International. Back then, the Proview Taiwan unit had sold the rights to IP Application Development Ltd, a London-based company that was set up by Apple, for 35,000 pounds, Proview's executives and lawyers said."

If your wife sells the family car, and you realize later the car's been sold, i think that's between you and your wife, not the buyer's fault.

But since Proview China is suing and blocking sales, can't Apple sue Proview Taiwan for selling something it didn't own? Like if I sued the buyer to get the family car back, the buyer would just sue my wife for selling something she didn't own, so really I'm suing myself.....

this is confusing :-/

But this is funny: Yang said the company had been developing a tablet product called the iPad back in 2000. "We spent a lot of resources on it. It's the same concept as the iPad today, except that back then, there were practically no LCD screens," Yang said.

LOL an iPad with no LCD? How the hell would that work?

--
my karma will be here long after I'm gone

Re:Good by iamhassi · 2012-02-20 07:34 · Score: 1

I wonder how many Yuan it will take to "show" that...

$10 million and they can buy iPad from Proview China "A Hong Kong court document shows that once the dispute arose, Proview demanded $10 million for the iPad name in China."

10 million is what, about what Apple makes in an hour? Just pay it.

--
my karma will be here long after I'm gone

Re:Good by JBMcB · 2012-02-20 07:35 · Score: 1

Did you read the emails in the court documents? There are Proview representatives from the mainland Chinese division (Shenzen) giving the sale the go-ahead, even saying that payment should go to Proview.

--
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.

BWAHAHAHAHA! by haggus71 · 2012-02-20 07:38 · Score: 1

I love all those arguing the "fairness" side of the issue. Apple is screwing the pooch on this one. They thought they could bring their holier-than-thou attitude to the PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA! General Motors, GE, et al, could have warned them, from years of business, that they need to kiss some ass and pay some respect to the Government there. Blizzard did the same thing a few years ago. When the PRC shut down their servers and told them to either do business with who they wanted them to, or take a hike, they calculated the fact that about half their subs are in the PRC into the equation and started the ass-kissing.

Grow up, children. Yes, what they are doing blurs the lines of legality. This is the nation in which one of their leaders was responsible for the deaths of 70 million of his OWN PEOPLE! How much do you think they care about Apple's punk ass. There is nowhere in the world that has the training, size, or infrastructure, at the low cost they offer, that China does. So put your dicks back in your pants, because The ChiComm's is much MUCH bigger!

Re:BWAHAHAHAHA! by lexsird · 2012-02-20 12:57 · Score: 0

We can thank Bill ChiComm Clinton for this shit. I have always said we would never live to see the end of the repercussions of the things he betrayed us on.

--
Take the Red Pill.

Re:Good by usuallylost · 2012-02-20 07:39 · Score: 1

The mainland Chinese office is not the "corporate office" of Proview. Both Proview in Shenzhen and the Proview in Taiwan are subsidiaries of Proview International Holdings listed in Hong Kong. According to this article they first tried this in a Hong Kong court which ruled in Apple's favor. So the "Corporate" office tried this once failed and then moved onto another subsidiary that was in a jurisdiction known for less than honest courts. Their claim may still be valid but the jurisdiction shopping aspect of this makes it look less likely to me. What I don't understand is why Apple would deal with the Taiwan portion of the company vs. the Hong Kong parent in the first place. They defiantly made a mistake by not going to the top of the organization. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/hardware/chinese-firm-in-ipad-row-threatens-to-sue-apple-in-us/articleshow/11925050.cms

Re:Good by JBMcB · 2012-02-20 07:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

Actually just the opposite. Taiwan doesn't consider itself part of China, while China considers Taiwan another province, completely owned and controlled by China.

Saying that contracts in Taiwan don't apply in mainland China would be like saying that Taiwan is NOT a part of China, but an independent state, or some sort of autonomous zone, which is NOT what China has historically claimed, nor is the official position of the government.

--
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.

Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 07:48 · Score: 0

The iPAD trademark was filed in 2001 by the Proview company's chinese name. It seems like it should have been trivial to do this research, and indeed that's probably why Apple thought they had purchased the rights to it.

But in 2011 (see WIPO) you later find out that Apple was not granted worldwide rights to the trademark in mainland china and various parts of the Arab and Russian economic sphere.

Given the iPad trademark is probably well known everywhere, it would be very hard to claim that the iPad that Apple makes in any way damages the existing iPAD Proview item when they haven't made it in years. (Look it up, it looks a lot more like a G3 iMac, which is probably what it was meant to rip off in the first place and pre-dates the the Proview iPAD by 3 years (1998.))

Re:Good by Algae_94 · 2012-02-20 08:06 · Score: 1

Yang said the company had been developing a tablet product called the iPad back in 2000. "We spent a lot of resources on it. It's the same concept as the iPad today, except that back then, there were practically no LCD screens," Yang said. LOL an iPad with no LCD? How the hell would that work?

Well, He said practically no LCDs. There were definitely LCDs around in 2000. This may also be a translation issue and he was suggesting that lack of availability of LCDs is what stopped them from proceeding.

Re:Good by Sponge+Bath · 2012-02-20 08:11 · Score: 3, Interesting

Am I the only one who finds the existence of this lawsuit a bit hypocritical? China isn't exactly known for its strict policy towards intellectual property.

The real driver here seems to be mainland Chinese banks had loans to Proview, and Proview wanted to declare bankruptcy. If that is the end of it, Chinese banks (aka Chinese government) will lose money. If mainland Chinese courts are told to find for Proview and award billions of dollars, the loans are paid off or mitigated with Apple money.

Welcome to business in a country without rule of law.

Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 08:20 · Score: 0

NO! the real driver here is the complete lack of any civil code in China, ever (until recently). The Chinese, of course, are aware of IP laws, but now they are "deploying IP law" in ways that only serve themselves. The Chinese Courts, its government leadership, and most of their top corporate officials are a den of worker-abusing, IP-hating, thieves that are all kicking back to one another. Of course, Western firms are all too happy to play there because the difference between paying a living American wage, and the slave wages in China, makes penalties like this appear as chicken feed. That said, screw the Chinese government, their courts, and their "new China" bullshit.

Re:Good by voidptr · 2012-02-20 08:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

But if I bought the TV at Best Buy, paid the man in the blue shirt at the register and got a receipt for it, you can't realistically charge me with receiving stolen property if it turns out the cashier was manipulating the register on his day off and just pocketed the money.

Apple isn't claiming they bought it off the back of a truck from some guy, they claim to have done due dilligence and they did actually buy it from a company that should have had legal rights to transfer the rights in several jurisdictions. Proview Taiwan and Proview PRC aren't two companies with the same name, there's a real corporate link between the two.

Either Proview Taiwan fraudulently misrepresented the fact they had been empowered to sell on behalf of their parent company, or once Proview realized who really bought the trademark they figured they let it go too cheap and could extort a bit more money for it.

--
This .sig for unofficial government use only. Official use subject to $500 fine.

Re:Good by voidptr · 2012-02-20 08:44 · Score: 1

Because extortion is always ok as long as the victim can afford it, and in no way encourages someone else to try the same trick again once you make known you'd rather pay an fight. Right?

--
This .sig for unofficial government use only. Official use subject to $500 fine.

Re:Good by marnues · 2012-02-20 08:46 · Score: 1

Are you suggesting that wives don't have the ability to sell a family car?

Re:Good by Nethemas+the+Great · 2012-02-20 08:47 · Score: 1

Well that's how much it "used" to cost. However, now that they've involved other actors and Proview has an already proven case this is probably not how much it will now cost to show this. I wonder how much the iPad market is worth in China.

--
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.

Re:Good by Nethemas+the+Great · 2012-02-20 08:49 · Score: 1

In this case I think it's more likely plain and simple arrogance. This time Jobs' legacy might bite them a bit harder than $10M.

--
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.

Re:Good by hherb · 2012-02-20 09:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

Ahhh, history repeating itself all over the globe? Not that long ago the US were doing exactly that with European "intellectual property", blatantly ignoring patents and copyrights whenever it suited them. Rather hypocritical indeed.

Re:Good by JBMcB · 2012-02-20 09:07 · Score: 1

There are a bunch of emails from court documents on allthingsd. One email says that the Taiwan division actually owns the iPad trademark, not the Shenzhen office. This email is from people in the Shenzhen office (second one down)

http://allthingsd.com/20120216/take-a-look-at-some-of-apples-evidence-in-proview-ipad-dispute

Further down the page is the list of countries included in the contract. China is clearly listed.

--
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.

Re:Good by nightfell · 2012-02-20 09:38 · Score: 1

They can expect to be slapped around a little for trying to bully the rightful owner of this "intellectual property".

They might be the legal owner, but Apple did buy the trademark from the company. It's not like buying a car randomly off the street. It's like buying a car from a legitimate new car dealer and expecting it to be a legal sale.

Apple isn't trying to bully anyone. They bought the copyright. If Proview Taiwan didn't have the legal right to sell the trademark for Proview Mainland, then Proview is the ones who committed fraud, and Proview is trying to shakedown Apple.

The "iPad" Proview is claiming the rights to is an iMac clone from many years ago. It's extremely apparent that Proview is simply trying to cash in on a random confluence of events (possibly orchestrated towards the end to deliberately bring about this scenario, by making Apple *think* they bought the rights, cue Ackbar).

As for the end result, the ultimate end result is going to be Apple will own the iPad trademark in China. The only question is whether they will have to pay any more money to do so. In moral terms (which Slashdot posters like to pretend they don't care about, all the while making posts about companies like Apple, MS, Google, and things like Linux, Open Source, and Free Software, that are almost purely moral), Proview is being far more shady than Apple on this.

Legality, which is not strongly tied to morality (*especially* in China of all places!), is a separate matter.

Re:Good by Runaway1956 · 2012-02-20 09:47 · Score: 1

(*especially* in China of all places!)

I find that amusing. Legality and morality have little in common here in the US of A.

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br

Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-20 10:28 · Score: 0

Apple bought the rights through a shell company so they wouldn't know it was Apple buying them. If they knew it was Apple, the price would have been in the millions likely.

Re:Good by chrb · 2012-02-20 10:28 · Score: 1

If your wife sells the family car, and you realize later the car's been sold, i think that's between you and your wife, not the buyer's fault.

But this is not a family car. This is a system where you and your wife live apart in two countries under different legal systems, and those legal systems don't recognise any concept of joint ownership, but do recognise that you each have an individual property right in that country. Transnational corporations do not have joint ownership of property.

It's more like: "If your brother registers a trademark in one country, and you register the same trademark in another, then your brother licenses his trademark, you have still not licensed yours."

Now, there may be an argument that transnational corporations should be liable and bound by actions of their subsidiaries or sister corps, but that would require some form of unified worldwide regulations, and that is not how the international corporate legal framework works at the moment.

Re:Good by chrb · 2012-02-20 10:32 · Score: 1

Are you suggesting that wives don't have the ability to sell a family car?

Under some legal systems, no, they don't. If your legal system doesn't recognise joint ownership of property (which is the case for international corporate law) then one person obviously does not have the right to sell the property of another.

Re:Good by iamhassi · 2012-02-20 10:32 · Score: 1

Because extortion is always ok as long as the victim can afford it, and in no way encourages someone else to try the same trick again once you make known you'd rather pay an fight. Right?

Right.

What's fair and what's cheapest isn't always the same. Is it fair what they're doing? Maybe, maybe not, but the fastest and cheapest way out of this is just pay the 10 million and call it a day.

--
my karma will be here long after I'm gone

Re:Good by chrb · 2012-02-20 10:35 · Score: 1

They are both subsidiaries of the same company.

Which means very little under international law. There is no joint ownership of property. That's one of the points of using an international limited liability corporation in the first place..

Re:Good by chrb · 2012-02-20 10:39 · Score: 1

Good lord, try actually reading one of the articles sometime! They were fully involved and fully aware of the negotiations to sell the rights to the trademark to "IP Application Development Limited".

The article doesn't say that. The article says "Apple contends that it acquired the iPad name when it bought rights in various countries from a Proview affiliate in Taiwan in 2009 for 35,000 British pounds ($55,000). Proview won a ruling from a mainland Chinese court in December that it was not bound by that sale."

Re:Good by drawfour · 2012-02-20 11:04 · Score: 1

You can't be charged with "receiving stolen property" or "posession of stolen property" unless you actually knew (or had a reason to suspect) that it was stolen. Otherwise, you're a victim of fraud because you were fraudulently sold goods.

fine ban the iPad by Osgeld · 2012-02-20 12:12 · Score: 1

I hear foxconn has a couple

Re:Good by arose · 2012-02-20 12:42 · Score: 1

That's all well and good, except SCO paid Novell for Unix.

--
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.

Re:Good by wasme · 2012-02-20 12:47 · Score: 2

Well, actually Taiwan officially claims to *be* China (specifically they claim to be the 'Republic of China' [ROC] and that they have territorial rights over all of China (and Mongolia and parts of India and parts of Burma and parts of ...)) and that the Chinese Communist Party [CCP] government (the People's Republic of China [PRC]) is illegitimate. Meanwhile the PRC claims Taiwan is a rebel province under their jurisdiction. So they both claim Taiwan is part of China, just they claim it's part of *different* Chinas.

(There has been growing support for officially declaring Taiwan an independent country and no longer holding onto the claim to be the real government of China. But a lot of people in Taiwan oppose this because such a declaration would seriously anger the CCP and could lead to war.)

I would like to sum up my sentiments in this: by lexsird · 2012-02-20 12:54 · Score: 0

Fuck China and anyone who deals with them.

--
Take the Red Pill.

Wow by morgauxo · 2012-02-20 16:38 · Score: 1

So things really are the same all over the world huh

Re:Good by Auldclootie · 2012-02-20 23:37 · Score: 1

Quote: "Typically when you buy worldwide rights, it applies to the entire world, no?" Unquote... Definitely NO. The Apple name belonged to the Beatles and it always was an uneasy truce between them... the 'Hilton Hotel' name does not legally belong to the Hilton Hotel chain around the world - if you don't believe me, have a drink at the unassuming pub called the Hilton Hotel in Adelaide South Australia - not far away from the 'real' Hilton which has been forced to change its name by court order... McDonald's restaurants has multiple name owners in multiple jurisdictions. World wide rights don't really exist - since there is no super global authority to buy them from... Woolworths US and UK were two entirely separate entities - even I-pad has its rival owners. It is probably not a stretch to say 'world wide rights' are more a sign of belligerent bullshit than ownership...

Re:Good by AmiMoJo · 2012-02-21 01:38 · Score: 1

Proview Taiwan fraudulently misrepresented the fact they had been empowered to sell on behalf of their parent company

Even if Proview Taiwan did misrepresent what they sold it wouldn't change the fact that Apple still needs a license to use the iPad name from Proview in the PRC. Just because they got ripped off or misunderstood or whatever doesn't give them a free license.

This sort of stuff happens all the time in the west, it is hardly unique to China. Sports broadcasting rights are notorious for it.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC

think of the children! by prgrmr · 2012-02-21 04:39 · Score: 1

Especially the ones assembling the ipads.

Apple was told? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-21 06:53 · Score: 0

Maybe it's time to move the manufacturing of the iPads to another third-world country like, well the USA? At least here, Apple can sue everyone and win (well, most of the time).

Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-21 13:11 · Score: 0

Actually both of these companies are subsidiaries under the parent corporation in Hong Kong, which is also the place that ruled in favor of Apple.

More hardware for us and eu-markets by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-21 21:12 · Score: 0

... the good thing is, that there will be more iPad 3's for the european and american market in march...

Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 05:27 · Score: 0

"Either Proview Taiwan fraudulently misrepresented the fact they had been empowered to sell on behalf of their parent company, or once Proview realized who really bought the trademark they figured they let it go too cheap and could extort a bit more money for it."

I can guarantee you, this is the case.

Slashdot Mirror

Chinese Court Orders Ban On Apple's iPad

190 comments