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."

19 of 120 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

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 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
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
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!
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 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
3. 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!"
4. 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.
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."
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.
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.
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"
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 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)