Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple To Pay $60 Million Over iPad Trademark Dispute

Posted by samzenpus on from the money-fixes-everything dept.

tekgoblin writes "Today a Chinese court has stated Apple, Inc. has agreed to pay a Chinese company $60 Million dollars to settle their infamous iPad name dispute. In 2006 Apple purchased the Taiwanese rights to the name 'iPad' from the company Proview Electronics. In China however, the trademarked name was still owned by Proview Technologies, a Shenzhen based subsidiary of Proview Electronics. Since 2011, Proview Technologies has battled Apple in the Xicheng district court and in 2012 the Santa Clara Superior Court. Both cases are still ongoing."

12 of 120 comments (clear)

  1. Live by the sword... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...die by the sword.

    1. Re:Live by the sword... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "So you see, judge, we NEED to block sales of the Galaxy Nexus. Those big Chinese meanies made us give them the very little lunch money that we could scrabble together because of our iPad name that we totally made up, is completely unique, and was not at all predicted by two-bit sketch comedy writers and if anyone says anything different well then they're fat stupid fat stupidheads. Because of that, we're feeling really really depressed and now everyone else's phones are selling better than ours, so we innovated voice search away from Google so we can feel better about ourselves. And as daddy Steve said before he di... before he ascended into iHeaven, that's what's most important, that Apple feel better about itself at all times. So block sales right now, judge. No, now. NOW."

  2. The price of business in China. by CountBrass · · Score: 5, Insightful

    US companies are forbidden by law to pay bribes so they have to go about it a round about way.

    This is just the price of doing business in China.

    --
    Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
    1. Re:The price of business in China. by vlm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      US companies are forbidden by law to pay bribes so they have to go about it a round about way.

      Oh spare me. Its called hiring an onsite expediter, not all this legal foolishness. Sometimes you have to hire a whole team of expediters. All above board, income taxes paid and everything. Amazing how nothing happens over there until you "hire" an "expediter" and then magically everything works. Sometimes they're called "inspectors". There's a whole culture organized around it.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:The price of business in China. by Nerdfest · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The US does not protect its companies? Have you seen the way copyright protections are headed? They're not for the people.

    3. Re:The price of business in China. by clarkkent09 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ah, the old protectionism. That boat has sailed a long time ago and free traders have won. Get used to it.

      Btw, the USA is 4th in the world in the standard of living (HDI rankings), China is 101st. Our per capita GDP is around $50K, China's is about $8K. Why do you think their way of doing things is better?

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    4. Re:The price of business in China. by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Free market capitalism is actually better for us even if they don't "play fair", subsidize their companies or impose tariffs on our exports. Why should we stop them from providing us with cheap state subsidized manufacturing service?

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    5. Re:The price of business in China. by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Now that SCOTUS has determined that corporations are really people
       
      No it didn't. It determined that a group of people have the right to pool their money to support a candidate just like a single rich person always had. This applies to unions just like it applies to profit and non-profit corporations and any other groups of people. The court interpreted the constitution correctly, which is it's job. You, and millions of others who repeat the point in your post ad nauseam, are, in a nutshell, tools used to intimidate the court just like those who are wielding you, including the POTUS, intended.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
  3. 60 Million only part of deal by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm betting the flood of Apple investment in Chinese factories during these proceedings was the larger part of the deal with the Chinese government to allow Apple to use the trademark. The 60 million is more for show so Apple can be painted as being in the wrong instead of being shook down. In the end, Apple will continue to make billions and the Chinese government will get a cut.

  4. Re:How ironic by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually... Apple paid for the name in good faith.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  5. Its amazing by Osgeld · · Score: 1, Insightful

    how buthurt they get when someone rips them off

  6. One China Policy or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seems like it's "One China, except when two Chinas can charge you twice"