Apple To Pay $60 Million Over iPad Trademark Dispute

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple To Pay $60 Million Over iPad Trademark Dispute

Posted by samzenpus on Monday July 2, 2012 @03:00AM 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."

77 of 120 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Live by the sword... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-02 03:05 · Score: 1, Insightful

...die by the sword.
1. Re:Live by the sword... by arkane1234 · 2012-07-02 03:09 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Especially against the Chinese. I mean, they're paramount for proper trademark usage!
  
  --
  -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
2. Re:Live by the sword... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-02 03:21 · 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."
The price of business in China. by CountBrass · 2012-07-02 03:08 · 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 Kenja · 2012-07-02 03:11 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  China protects its companies (many of which are at least partially state owned). The US does not. One of the reasons so much manufacturing is done in China is because that's the only way to sell there. China puts high import taxes on goods made elsewhere, while the US does not. So if a company wants to sell their product in China they can only do so in a cost effective way by making said product there. If the US matches Chinas tarifs things would be very different.
  
  --
  
  "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
2. Re:The price of business in China. by 0100010001010011 · 2012-07-02 03:25 · Score: 2
  
  Not just that you can't sell 'directly' there. Your company can make a joint venture with the government and sell that product.
3. Re:The price of business in China. by SlowGenius · 2012-07-02 03:31 · Score: 2
  
  Good point. Now that SCOTUS has determined that corporations are really people, coporations presumably have the same rights as rich people to bribe with impunity.
  
  --
  Listen to what I say, not what I mean...
4. Re:The price of business in China. by vlm · 2012-07-02 03:37 · 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
5. Re:The price of business in China. by Nerdfest · 2012-07-02 03:38 · 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.
6. Re:The price of business in China. by k(wi)r(kipedia) · 2012-07-02 03:40 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  China protects its companies (many of which are at least partially state owned). The US does not. One of the reasons so much manufacturing is done in China is because that's the only way to sell there.
  
  This I think reflects more the failure of laissez faire capitalism. Capitalism without controls or government intervention only works if everybody plays fair. And it's not just tariffs. China's labor laws are less strictly enforced than in most First World countries. Of course these two reasons by themselves cannot account for China's popularity over, say, India as a manufacturing hub. I suspect China's advantage is that it's easier for a corporation to do business with what is effectively another large corporation.
7. Re:The price of business in China. by gl4ss · 2012-07-02 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  + import restrictions imposed on the requests of american companies. so wtf?
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
8. Re:The price of business in China. by bhcompy · 2012-07-02 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  Incorrect. Certain bribes are generally not illegal, such as facilitation payments
9. Re:The price of business in China. by clarkkent09 · 2012-07-02 04:30 · 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.
10. Re:The price of business in China. by clarkkent09 · 2012-07-02 04:35 · 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.
11. Re:The price of business in China. by hairyfeet · 2012-07-02 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  Which is why I've said for years we need to slam down hard on any globalist who starts the "free trade" bullshit, because what we have now is NOT free trade, what we have is a handful of countries rigging the living hell out of the system and we take it like good little corporate drones. What we need is FAIR trade, where our goods and services are freely exchanged for their goods and services on an even playing field which is pretty fucking far from what we have right now with India and China. Oh and we need to tell anyone that says nationalistic like its a dirty word to STFU, as we've seen time and time again the countries that watch out for their own people first tend to do well while those that put every man for himself as the mantra tend to go to shit.
  As for TFA $60 million? Hell that wouldn't even be considered pocket change to Apple. While the Chinese gov might consider that a decent bribe Apple will cut a check without a second thought and just write it off as the cost of business.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
12. Re:The price of business in China. by teg · 2012-07-02 04:37 · Score: 2
  
  China protects its companies (many of which are at least partially state owned). The US does not.
  Sure it doesn't.
13. Re:The price of business in China. by clarkkent09 · 2012-07-02 04:46 · 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.
14. Re:The price of business in China. by fnj · 2012-07-02 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  China protects its companies (many of which are at least partially state owned). The US does not.
  
  HA HA HA HA! Maybe not the same way, but they are mollycoddled with disgusting patent and other legal protections that represent cozy bedfellow status. Oh, and seems to me like some prominent US corporations are largely state owned as well.
  And what about the US protectionist solar energy tariffs?
15. Re:The price of business in China. by catmistake · 2012-07-02 04:55 · Score: 2
  
  That's not what's happening here. Proview is in bankruptcy... and was seeking a windfall to save the company. Apple was generous to even go to court with them. Had Apple waited another year, maybe Proview would be no more, and Apple could have used the name in the Chinese market without dispute. Here, FWIW, is their product. The Proview iPAD is not a tablet computer but a 800x600px 15" CRT-based 256Mhz AIO Linux desktop w/ 32MB RAM and a 16GB HDD... maybe its just me but I think it looks all too familiar. At any rate, I don't think Apple's iPad was competing with it nor putting their sales at risk. Hopefully this sheckle Apple has thrown to Proview allows them to restructure and stay in business.
  
  --
  The Admin and the Engineer
16. Re:The price of business in China. by TankSpanker04 · 2012-07-02 04:58 · Score: 2
  
  If the US matches Chinas tarifs things would be very different.
  Indeed, because we would likely be at war with China over it. Tensions flare up every time China senses even a hint of U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods that aren't a result of an ongoing dispute (e.g. solar panels). Frankly I'm surprised the U.S. govt doesn't have bigger balls when it comes to growing trade deficit with China.
17. Re:The price of business in China. by fnj · 2012-07-02 04:58 · Score: 2
  
  You don't see a problem with paying them to industrialize on a breathtaking scale while we completely demolish our own industrial base? What do you think is going to happen when the prices they charge us skyrocket and we don't have anyone stupid enough to finance rebuilding our own industrial base?
18. Re:The price of business in China. by Bill_the_Engineer · 2012-07-02 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  China protects its companies (many of which are at least partially state owned). The US does not.
  Not necessarily true. The US provides subsidies to its corporations especially ones that export.
  
  China puts high import taxes on goods made elsewhere, while the US does not.
  There is no free trade agreement with China and the US does impose punitive duties on goods that threaten US companies with dumping. Solar panels is the latest example of the U.S. raising duties on chinese imports.
  
  --
  These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
19. Re:The price of business in China. by fnj · 2012-07-02 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  If you took your head out of the sand and extrapolated the trends, you might try giving a fuck about where this process is going to end up.
  I'll make it easy for you.
  Per capita GDP, 2002 -> 2010, China +111%, US +30%
  GDP real growth rate, 2002 to 2010 average, China +8.3%/annum, US +2.2%/annum
  GDP purchasing power parity, 2002 -> 2010, China +77%, US +41%
  Unemployment rate trend, 2004/2009, China 10.1/4.3%, US 5.5/9.3%
  External debt, exchange rate basis, 2002 -> 2011, China +172%, US +1522%
20. Re:The price of business in China. by oh_my_080980980 · 2012-07-02 05:30 · Score: 2
  
  He's from the Heritage foundation and consequently doesn't know what capitalism is....
21. Re:The price of business in China. by clarkkent09 · 2012-07-02 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  Would you prefer to make your shoes yourself if it costs you $50 in labor and materials even if another person is willing to sell you the exact same pair already made for $10? Would you impose a tariff on that other person of $40 so his shoes cost the same as the ones you make? Why?
  
  --
  Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
22. Re:The price of business in China. by clarkkent09 · 2012-07-02 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  You can't compare the growth in a developing economy like China to a developed one like the USA. In a developed country the workforce is already mostly employed in highly efficient work and, baring some major revolutions in productivity through some new technology, the growth comes from marginal improvements. In China the growth comes from moving the population in bulk from extremely inefficient participation in the economy or no participation at all (subsistence farming etc) to moderately efficient which is easy as long as there is capital. It will get harder and harder though and the days of double digit growth in China will be over long before it reaches anything like the US per capita GDP. Then it will have to catch up the hard way, through innovation (good luck there) and small improvements in productivity which will take forever.
  
  --
  Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
23. Re:The price of business in China. by fnj · 2012-07-02 06:07 · Score: 2
  
  I must admit that's a novel form of contrary reasoning.
  China's industrial expansion is paid for by consumers in the US and other countries sending a lot of currency to China in return for goods. To think otherwise is just fantasy.
  The destruction of our industrial base is our own doing, by offshoring all the manufacturing, and by simply buying instead of manufacturing.
  The rising prices of the imported goods is not some nefarious scheme by evil foreigners; rather a blatantly obvious consequence of a rising standard of living in China as their economy grows to dwarf our own.
  I really shouldn't have to explain this stuff. It's obvious as hell to anybody who isn't blinded by propaganda.
24. Re:The price of business in China. by fnj · 2012-07-02 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  It will get harder and harder though and the days of double digit growth in China will be over long before it reaches anything like the US per capita GDP
  
  Why - because that's how wishful thinking wants it to play out?
25. Re:The price of business in China. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-02 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  In short, it doesn't work in the long run. Protectionism at its best takes from something you are good at (making you less competitive there) and puts it into something else that you suck (relatively) at. Countries fund protection by taking from successful industries (taxes), people (taxes), printing money (inflation), borrowing (bonds), and of course blood (war). Over time you run out of funding money either cause no one wants to give you anymore, your people are tired of low standard of living, your money isn't worth much, your successful industries are competitively beaten, or someone came & killed you.
  To make matters worse, protectionism results in competitive protectionism which is basically an arms race and a waste of money. This only hastens the former.
  Having said that, Free Markets SUCK... they are simply horrible. Anyone who tells you otherwise, isn't telling you everything. But in real terms it's better than all the alternatives we have invented so far. Now, I am not saying protectionism shouldn't exist, cause as a populace on the whole, we are greedy, needy, & lazy. We need something to blunt & spread out the heavy punches that the Free Market throws us, and protectionsim does this. There is a cost to it, and the problem isn't so much protectionsim as much as humans ignoring and growing the cost till it hurts more than anything the Free Market could dish out.
  China, right now is protecting cheap labor jobs at the expense of growth in standard of living.
26. Re:The price of business in China. by Archangel+Michael · 2012-07-02 06:50 · Score: 2
  
  You seem to not understand what "we" actually mean. Short sighted corporations are not "we" Americans. The Corporations are short sighted because that is what investors want. The big institutional investors like big short term profits, and sell before the stock prices collapse once the Corporations have exploited all the short term gains from the market.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
27. Re:The price of business in China. by jopsen · 2012-07-02 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  What generally happens when we trade with other countries (ie. no protectionism) is that other countries become more wealthy. This, means less poverty and other unpleasent things, I think that's good.
  
  Also keep in mind that just because the chinees comes out of poverty and gets a decent living standart, doesn't mean that you go poor.
  In fact most likely, the chineese will start bying products from the US.
  
  Anyways, I think history indicate that trade is good for everybody and strongly encourages peace.
28. Re:The price of business in China. by Bill_the_Engineer · 2012-07-02 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  Would you prefer to make your shoes yourself if it costs you $50 in labor and materials even if another person is willing to sell you the exact same pair already made for $10? Would you impose a tariff on that other person of $40 so his shoes cost the same as the ones you make? Why?
  let's paraphrase your statement to better fit the situation:
  Would you prefer to purchase your shoes from your neighbor if it costs your neighbor $50 in labor and materials even if another person outside your country is willing to sell you the exact same pair already made for $10?
  Yes because I don't want to export currency for trinkets. If I purchase from my neighbor, I increase the likelihood that he will purchase something from me, my employer, or a store we both shop at in the neighborhood. Money that stays in the community benefits the community.
  Would you impose a tariff on that other person of $40 so his shoes cost the same as the ones your neighbor makes? Why?
  Yes because it benefits my community. If we allow someone else to play the currency market or be able to produce goods without the regulatory overhead that we place on a local producer then we undercut both our community's value and the intent of the regulations. Meaning if there is an overhead of $1 to keep from polluting the local water supply, we shouldn't encourage manufacturers to build elsewhere and import that good just to save the $1. Not only does it means less jobs for the community, but it also exports the pollution we were trying to prevent in the first place.
  
  --
  These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
29. Re:The price of business in China. by Bill_the_Engineer · 2012-07-02 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  What generally happens when we trade with other countries (ie. no protectionism) is that other countries become more wealthy. This, means less poverty and other unpleasent things, I think that's good.
  Good for them.
  
  Anyways, I think history indicate that trade is good for everybody and strongly encourages peace.
  citation please.
  
  --
  These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
30. Re:The price of business in China. by Malc · 2012-07-02 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  China protects its companies [...]. The US does not. [...] One of the reasons so much manufacturing is done in China is because that's the only way to sell there. China puts high import taxes on goods made elsewhere, while the US does not
  Bullshit. Have you seen how many jobs have been lost in British Columbia (a province in a country that is the US's neighbour, ally and largest trading partner) at various times due to the softwood lumber dispute? The WTO ruled in favour of Canada, but that seemed to make little difference. If that's how the US treats its friends, it's little wonder the Chinese are so defensive.
31. Re:The price of business in China. by gstrickler · 2012-07-02 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  They're for Corporate "persons".
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
32. Re:The price of business in China. by clarkkent09 · 2012-07-02 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  It's not about the money. Money is just a tool for keeping the score. If I sell you something worth $20 for $10, yes technically you are "paying" me because you are handing me $10 bill, but I am really giving you a greater value than you are giving me. Sure, the prices will rise in China and correspondingly their products will become less competitive and India's or whatever will become more competitive. I know our schools are gone so far to the left that they are almost falling off the edge, but do they not even teach the basic economics anymore or were you sick that day?
  
  --
  Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
33. Re:The price of business in China. by AmiMoJo · 2012-07-02 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't work like that. If a company goes bust but has potentially valuable IP that can be litigated over then someone will buy the IP and head to court.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
34. Re:The price of business in China. by clarkkent09 · 2012-07-02 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  Look up broken window fallacy. I would also suggest Hazlitt's book Economics in One Lesson (the lesson being to not fall for the broken window fallacy like you are doing in your post). The growth of a nation's economy can never be achieved by a destructive behavior, be it by breaking a window or by buying something worth $10 (market price in this case) for $50. Instead of having a pair of shoes and $40 to spend on other things, you have only a pair of shoes. You are essentially giving your neighbor a gift of $40 which is very nice for him but it does not mean net growth, it just passing wealth for one person to another. Yes the currency goes outside the borders but so what? What do you think Chinese will do with it? They will buy other stuff or convert it into their currency so it will find its way back to the US one way or another.
  
  --
  Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
35. Re:The price of business in China. by Jesus_C_of_Nazareth · 2012-07-02 10:38 · Score: 1
  
  No, because he gives the impression of having a clue what he's taking about. Comparing percentages between developed and developing nations is plain silly. Let's say this year I'll pay you one dollar to shine my shoes, and next year I increase that to two. Wow, 100% salary increase. Next year I double it again to 200%. Wow, I get nowhere near that kind of annual raise. Guess I'll soon be the one shining your shoes. Wait, in ten years time you're still only earning 512 dollars per year, compared to my considerably higher salary. Also, your business model is not one that simply continue to scale up any more than a cleaner can expect to earn senior management pay by virtue of having mopped floors for a really long time.
  
  --
  JC
36. Re:The price of business in China. by catmistake · 2012-07-02 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  gee.. I wonder who might have had the cash just to pick up that IP if/when it became available?
  
  --
  The Admin and the Engineer
37. Re:The price of business in China. by Zaelath · 2012-07-02 12:33 · Score: 1
  
  You analogy fails, this is not the case of destroying your shoes to encourage the economy.
  Free trade is valuable for those interested in weath concentration. Bill's model is far more about wealth distribution. No one gets rich doing piece work, they get enough to survive, perhaps quite well, but not rich. If you want to get rich you need to corner the market by finding a (by local standards) slave workforce in another market that you can exploit to create product for you which you can sell at a higher profit and yet undercut your local competitors massively. This does not benefit the country, this benefits the individual.
  The free trade model taken to it's ultimate end will see a massive concentration of wealth in a tiny fraction of the world population and everyone else will be serfs; it's not like the US has a God given right to be wealthy and the rest of the world will lag behind forever, in fact you can't be wealthy unless there is poor and the Chinese might behind at the moment, but they're catching you at a breathtaking pace (http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:CHN&dl=en&hl=en&q=china+gdp - I'd call that an exponential curve).
  In any case, I hope you're one of the 1% Clark, otherwise you're proselytizing for your masters based on the "everyone can be rich in the US" fallacy.
38. Re:The price of business in China. by Fjandr · 2012-07-02 13:07 · Score: 1
  
  Whether he's correct or not, I'm pretty sure the argument is that China is underselling but getting something worth more than the balance in money in return.
  Money is not the only way to keep score, and even if it is you can turn an interim loss into a long-term gain if you play your cards right. In the case of China, if countries continue to use them for manufacturing to the detriment of their own manufacturing bases, the long-term effect will be China making far more in the balance by eventually ending up with the majority of control over world-wide manufacturing, thus being able to charge massive amounts until the rest of the world rebuilds their domestic manufacturing industries. The pace at which other countries respond will determine the amplitude and wavelength of the resulting price swings.
  Like most things, it's something which will self-correct eventually if it is actually the case, but the logic itself isn't at fault. Whether it actually applies in this situation is another question entirely, and one I'm not going to dive into at this time.
39. Re:The price of business in China. by FirephoxRising · 2012-07-02 19:16 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but the playing fields must be level, Chinese goods should be taxed to compensate for their appalling work conditions, terrible pollution and the cost of the Carbon to make it there and ship it over. I would rather make it locally, pay locals and do it cleaner. The current system benefits only mega-corporations, real standards of living have been falling since the 70s. Lots of people work casually who don't want to, work two jobs or have both parents working because they have to, just to support their families. It's bad for families and communities and great for companies.
That should really hurt Apple by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-02 03:09 · Score: 2, Funny

For the couple minutes it takes them to make it back.
1. Re:That should really hurt Apple by MilwaukeeMadAss · 2012-07-02 03:15 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  "Say there Peg, would you be a gem and take some money out of petty cash and send it to China. M'kay? Thanks."
whose press release are you regurgitating? by sribe · 2012-07-02 03:15 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.
According to Proview's creditors. There's plenty of evidence to the contrary.
1. Re:whose press release are you regurgitating? by chrb · 2012-07-02 03:28 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  According to Proview's creditors. There's plenty of evidence to the contrary.
  No there isn't - there are only Apple's claims on one side, versus Proview's claims and this settlement on the other. Apple have never disclosed the text of the contract between their front "IP Application Devlopment" and Proview Electronics. The U.S. case was dismissed because the U.S. court decided it had no jurisdiction to rule on the contract. From all we know right now, Apple may have signed a contract that didn't include China rights, or that failed to specify exactly where the parent company did own the rights, and whether or not that included China. International multi-jurisdictional law is complicated, perhaps Apple's lawyers made a mistake. Or maybe they didn't. But either way, unless you know of someone who has actually seen the contract, then there is no real evidence here. Infer what you will from the fact that Apple settled.
2. Re:whose press release are you regurgitating? by UnknowingFool · 2012-07-02 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  Also Apple might have gotten ProView down to an acceptable figure to make it all go away. ProView was asking for billions if I remember correctly.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
3. Re:whose press release are you regurgitating? by samkass · 2012-07-02 04:11 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  http://allthingsd.com/20120216/take-a-look-at-some-of-apples-evidence-in-proview-ipad-dispute/
  From everything I've read, Proview actually signed the agreement then backed out when they found out it was Apple because they figured they could milk them for a lot more money. I guess, it being Chinese law, they were right.
  
  --
  E pluribus unum
4. Re:whose press release are you regurgitating? by sribe · 2012-07-02 04:17 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  No there isn't - there are only Apple's claims on one side, versus Proview's claims and this settlement on the other. Apple have never disclosed the text of the contract between their front "IP Application Devlopment" and Proview Electronics. The U.S. case was dismissed because the U.S. court decided it had no jurisdiction to rule on the contract. From all we know right now, Apple may have signed a contract that didn't include China rights, or that failed to specify exactly where the parent company did own the rights, and whether or not that included China. International multi-jurisdictional law is complicated, perhaps Apple's lawyers made a mistake. Or maybe they didn't. But either way, unless you know of someone who has actually seen the contract, then there is no real evidence here. Infer what you will from the fact that Apple settled.
  You're wrong about that. Both the entire contract, and a good number of emails from the negotiations leading up to the contract, came out during the case. The emails are particularly damning, in that the people who said the contract must be signed in Taiwan because that's where the rights were actually held, were the same people who later said "aha! you did not sign in mainland China!"
5. Re:whose press release are you regurgitating? by Anubis+IV · 2012-07-02 04:31 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  According to Proview's creditors. There's plenty of evidence to the contrary.
  No there isn't - there are only Apple's claims on one side, versus Proview's claims and this settlement on the other.
  You apparently missed the case in Hong Kong that preceded this one. Proview first attempted to sue Apple there back in 2010, and the judge came down extremely hard on Proview, ruling that they had engaged in exploitative behavior (I believe I also saw the word "conspiracy" being used in some other reports at the time). The person at the head of both Proview branches is the same person, so he had full knowledge of the business dealings, and the Hong Kong judge, who we have every reason to believe was privy to the details of the contract, ruled that Proview had indeed sold Apple the worldwide rights to the trademark, both for the Taiwanese branch and the PRC subsidiary. Proview only sued Apple in the PRC after that previous case failed and they declared bankruptcy.
  What you should infer from this settlement is that Apple didn't want to take chances with their multi-billion USD business in a court system that may play favorites with a local company.
6. Re:whose press release are you regurgitating? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-02 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  Proview was looking for $400M in a settlement - basically enough to rescue them from bankruptcy. They got 15% of that.
  This is Apple writing a check, and putting "Fuck off." on the memo line. This is "go away" money.
7. Re:whose press release are you regurgitating? by Anubis+IV · 2012-07-02 06:53 · Score: 2
  
  You're probably talking about these e-mails, and yeah, they're pretty damning for Proview. They made it clear that they were selling the rights for the mainland Chinese subsidiary.
60 Million only part of deal by Sponge+Bath · 2012-07-02 03:16 · 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.
1. Re:60 Million only part of deal by Shag · 2012-07-02 10:16 · Score: 1
  
  In the end, Apple will continue to make billions and the Chinese government will get a cut.
  And Proview will probably still go bankrupt, since this is only 15% of the amount they were asking for.
  Unless they have rights to a whole lot of other product names, or something. :)
  
  --
  Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
Sorry, am I missing something here? by Viol8 · 2012-07-02 03:28 · Score: 1, Interesting

If they licensed the name from the parent corp then how can a subsidiary company make a claim on it? Surely a license from the parent by implication means a license from all the parts of the corporation? Or is chinese law just wierd?
1. Re:Sorry, am I missing something here? by UnknowingFool · 2012-07-02 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  There are probably a number of technicalities for the transfer to be legal which did not occur. Most of the time it probably would not have mattered. My personal opinion is that if ProView (parent) knew that Apple was buying the trademark, they would have asked for more money. Also there might have been prohibitions on using shell companies to purchase the trademark which Apple did.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
2. Re:Sorry, am I missing something here? by slew · 2012-07-02 03:53 · Score: 2
  
  IANAL, but the structure of many multi-national corporations are weird and complicated. The easiest way I've found to think about it is to treat multi-nationals as a big family with a super-patriarch/matriarch instead of thinking of a multi-national as a single person.
  For example, generally, in each country a multi-national generally sets up it's own division of the company which is chartered to do business in that location, which is usually structured as a mostly owned subsidiary of the parent company. The reason to do this is to satisfy the laws of that host country w/o imposing them on the parent company (e.g., ownership requirements, employment requirements, tax requirements, etc).
  Of course once you set up a bunch of these companies in different juristictions, now you can play all sorts of games. The biggest game that is played is the income tax shell game (moving income into companies that have the lowest tax rate). The other big game is to hid parent company liability for big disasters and legal lawsuits (parent company was just an investor in the local company).
  In China, they often require a certain percentage of chinese ownership or key employees for certain types of companies, and it's likely that this is why taiwanese Proview set up this china subsidiary in the first place. It's not inconcievable that the trademark on iPad needed to be registered in china and they chose to have the local company do that registration instead of the parent company in taiwan for legal reasons (they might not recognize the taiwan trademark law in china). Of course, it retrospect, that seemed like a brilliant decision, but I'm guessing they just did it by accident.
3. Re:Sorry, am I missing something here? by gl4ss · 2012-07-02 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  maybe mainland china rights don't have shit to do with the taiwanese branch juridically?
  maybe the taiwanese branch was in no position to license away the trademark for use in china, since it never held it in the first place.
  or maybe, maybe they KNEW apple was buying it or at least had a good hunch on it and decided to screw apple for acting through a front company(to pay a lower price).
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:How ironic by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-07-02 03:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

--

"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
new Chinese premier's family has billions by peter303 · 2012-07-02 04:01 · Score: 5, Informative

Chinese leadership wealth makes Romney look "middle class" in comparison.
Apple should close its stores in China by peter303 · 2012-07-02 04:05 · Score: 1

They should move the factories too, but Apple is too entrenched. The Chinese would still be able to get their iPhones the old way by mail order or US agents.

Customers in China account for 12% of Apple revenues. This may double soon as their demand is insatiable.
1. Re:Apple should close its stores in China by devleopard · 2012-07-02 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  Math never has been your strongest subject, has it?
  Apple earned almost $8B in revenue last quarter alone in China. So they pull out and lose their ability to legally sell there, over a hissy fit equating to pocket change?
  Let's equate this to a typical Slashdotter job: pizza delivery. Your boss asks you to buy a $2 nametag, and out of principle, you quit a job that pays $400 a week (considering your mom isn't charging you rent, that's a pretty sweet gig)
  
  --
  The best thing about a boolean is even if you are wrong, you are only off by a bit.
Its amazing by Osgeld · 2012-07-02 04:06 · Score: 1, Insightful

how buthurt they get when someone rips them off
1. Re:Its amazing by Anubis+IV · 2012-07-02 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  Proview didn't rip Apple off. Apple didn't rip off Proview. What are you talking about? This is a case of a trademark dispute. Apple claims it was sold to them, Proview claims otherwise. The e-mails between the two companies support Apple's case rather well, as does the fact that a Hong Kong judge ruled that Proview was engaging in exploitation in suing Apple in the way it was.
highway robbery. by swschrad · 2012-07-02 04:36 · Score: 1

other stories have noted that Apple bought the iPad trademark in 2007 from Protech, worldwide... except for China. "hello again, I now have copies of the negatives for sale, and I already have one bid..."

--
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
One China Policy or not? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-02 05:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

Seems like it's "One China, except when two Chinas can charge you twice"
Re:Pick A Less Costly Naming Convention by NatasRevol · 2012-07-02 05:21 · Score: 1

They can afford it on one day's sales, so why not?

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Re:How ironic by fnj · 2012-07-02 05:28 · Score: 1

And fucked up big time. Due diligence? NOT!
Re:And guess who's going to pay for it. by devleopard · 2012-07-02 05:34 · Score: 2

My understanding is that this only affects the sale of iPads in China, so I'd imagine they'd tack on an extra fee only for Chinese iPad customers. Even if all iPads had a price increase, since Apple is selling almost 60M of them a year (http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post.aspx?post=b738b448-5097-44bd-9bdb-48b8d7c8b083) that'd mean just about $1/unit to recoup all costs within a year. So about the price of a single app, or less than the price of gas to drive up to the Apple store.

--
The best thing about a boolean is even if you are wrong, you are only off by a bit.
Re:And guess who's going to pay for it. by devleopard · 2012-07-02 05:42 · Score: 2

I love how a disparaging play on a company's name gives your point so much more added weight.
Does it work the same if I say I don't buy Motorhole-a or SameSong phones? How about referring to the Galaxy NextCopy?
No, I sound like an idiot. My arguments lose weight due to communication noise, and using such non-sequiturs actually makes me a bit dumber each time I use one. Given the frequency that I hear that on Slashdot these days (the intellectual equivalent of "Your mom's a poo poo head!"), that explains a lot.

--
The best thing about a boolean is even if you are wrong, you are only off by a bit.
What's up with the article selection? by devleopard · 2012-07-02 05:57 · Score: 5, Informative

I know a hot topic gets multiple selections, so do Slashdot editors pick the one with the single worst article? This news items is covered in several reputable places, yet, they selected a submission that looks like it was written by an 8th grader. They use AP's Tweet to make it look like an official AP story/headline. There's brilliantly nonsensical lines like "Proview is continuing their lawsuit in Santa Clara for $1.5 billion dollars while allging fraud and unfair competition. The case was soon after thrown out by a judge."

--
The best thing about a boolean is even if you are wrong, you are only off by a bit.
Re:How ironic by Stewie241 · 2012-07-02 06:04 · Score: 1

They purchased the rights for Taiwan, not China.
Purchasing rights to use a trademark in Mexico does not give one rights to use a trademark in the United States.
Re:How ironic by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-07-02 06:19 · Score: 4, Informative

Except... that's not what happened.
They bought what they thought were the world-wide rights to the trademark. What Apple did that you really should be bitching about is they created a dummy corp and lied to Proview about what the trademark was for. "Oh well we're just a piddly lil company that needs that acronymn, it's hardly worth anything but if you'd like to part with it..."

--

"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How ironic by Provocateur · 2012-07-02 06:34 · Score: 1

Don't you mean iRonic? They better quit it now before they get bitten again with all the i-something stuff.

--
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
Re:And guess who's going to pay for it. by kaatochacha · 2012-07-02 08:41 · Score: 1

iSee what you did there! :)
Headline Correction: by pubwvj · 2012-07-02 11:00 · Score: 1

"Chinese Court Sides with Nationalistic Blackmailers Against Apple in Blatant Racism."
Tell it like it is.