Disclaimer: I am not a big app user (endomondo is my favourite app and am not particularly enamoured with games on phones or tablets) so my tastes are not "main stream".
I agree - especially with the poor execution. The marketing model they chose seems suited to their existing user base (primarily business) but it appears they tried targeting the general consumer.
I have a 9860 (my first Blackberry). The reason I got this was solely because they were bundling the playbook with it. With the products bundled together it made a good "product" and am glad I picked up such a great deal - individually, there were (and still are) problems trying to compete in the A / A world (imo). But with the playbook AND the phone, there are some really cool features that separates BB from A A.
Some of the things I like:
Bridging (this is not tethering), phone as a remote for the playbook, the "border" of the playbook, true multi-tasking (3 different modes), BBM, the Android player, the "phone" works. Oh, QNX seems to be a brilliant OS btw. I hope they manage to get QNX on to the phones (if) before they go under.
You are in business to make a living, give them a figure (say $5000 per workstation, $20000 per server plus expenses for the audit ) if they want an audit- since they are interfering with your business and you have done nothing wrong, you should be adequately compensated - contract drawn up of course.
Send an invoice with the letter for the time taken to reply too.
I must be missing something from your calculations, if current panels are $250 per 100 watt, that equates to 25000 for 10 kW, if panels are $40 per 100 watt (0.40 * 100), that equates to 4000 for 10 kW - a saving of $21000. Even tripling the cost still saves $13000 (by your calculations of cost). What have I missed?
I agree with most of your post but there is also evidence the plant was poorly maintained - Tepco admitted to falsifying maintenance records among several other misdemeanours.
TEPCO was also warned of the risk to the generators and did nothing to mitigate them - and still got an extension to their license (the 40 year old reactors' license had expired).
Hopefully something good will come out of this - Vermont (U.S. state) wants to refuse a request for a 20 year extension to the license of a similar design plant. A bit of backbone from our bureaucrats and politicians coupled with planning and foresight would go a long way in removing the stigma from nuclear (imo).
Usually an officer of a company has the legal authority to sell assets of the company, and the general consul is the chief legal officer. Keep in mind the only thing that matters is if someone legally able to sell the mark authorized the sale. It doesn't matter of the CEO didn't want to sell, or anyone else for that matter, all that matters is that someone legally able to sell the mark signed off on the contract. If the general consul sold the mark without authorization from the rest of the company, the company can sue the legal consul or fire him, but the contract transferring the mark is completely valid.
Usually is not always, in this particular case it appears the general consul that signed the document is of the Taiwan company.
This case is also complicated by the possible twist that the Shenzhen company was in the hands of the receivers from March 2009 - sale of assets is not allowed without the approval of the creditors (prevent asset stripping) - see link in one of my previous posts.
That's also pretty dicey for Proview to prove, since the iPad they developed is basically a first-gen iMac knockoff. They'd have to prove that a CRT based desktop computer (developed in 1998) competes in the same market as an LCD touchscreen tablet.
Then Apple can sue them and have the product removed from sale. That line does not help Apple Inc with the charge that they undertook not to use the name on a competing product (on email apparently - I use "apparently" because I haven't sighted the email).
The charges against Apple.
The fact Apple used a shell company would technically give them some room to manouver in the US but not neccessarily in China.
Additional information - apparently the company was in receivership as of March 2009 so the directors could not sell any assets without the approval of it's creditors (the documents provided by Apple show dates of November and December 2009). If this is true, the best Apple could realistically hope for imo is for the director to be convicted of defrauding them. This would not give them the rights to the name as it would have been illegal to sell the name without the bank's consent.
I wonder if the owner was trying to stuff his own pockets behind the bank's back - hence doing the deal in Taiwan then not having the ability to deliver.
Yes it is listed, Proview doesn't have to argue rogue anything, where the legal counsel is from is irrelevant as far as I can see - unless the legal counsel had the power to authorise a sale from Shenzhen (I seriously doubt that) just that the contract for China can only be done with Proview Shenzhen's consent, Apple Inc has to prove this. As I stated previously, the lawyer involved in the assignment of rights from Proview Taiwan to Apple Inc didn't check the details deed of Assignment correctly and the trademark rights in China were not assigned - i.e. before transfer they should have made sure Proview Taiwan had what they claimed to have. The courts will decide if Proview Shenzhen (or the owner - the same for both companies) has broken any contracts or if they are obligated to transfer the trademark.
The courts will also decide if Apple Inc were deceptive and broke their end of the contract by putting a competing product on the market despite an undertaking by their legal team that they wouldn't.
Not acurate at all from my understanding of the case:
Proview Electronics, a subsidiary of Proview International Holdings, agreed to sell the global iPad trademark in 2006. The rights were sold to a company called IP Application Development (‘IPAD’), for $55,104. The contracts were drawn up by Apple's legal team, listing all trademarks including the one for China, the list was supplied by Proview Electronics (taiwan).
In 2010, Proview Shenzhen (also a subsidiary of Proview International Holdings) began the process of suing Apple for trademark infringement over the ‘iPad’ brand. Proview Taiwan did not own the China trademark, Proview Shenzhen did and not sign over the rights to Proview Taiwan (which had no right to sell it) and did not enter into a contract with Apple to sell it.
Apple claim a mistake was made when the contract was drawn up listing the Trademark as owned by Taiwan but the chairman of both companies was the same person and was fully aware that the China trademark was included and gave permission to sell it, they also claim that they dealt with Shenzhen (it was the Proview Shenzhen people that told Apple Taiwan owned the trademarks).
Apple has had a couple of minor victories in Hong Kong and Taiwan that allows them to keep using the name till the ownership is dicided.
Apple’s own case against Proview that the company was infringing on its trademark with their own product was rejected at the end of last year by a court in Shenzen. Apple is appealing this decision.
The lawyer involved in the assignment of rights from Proview to Apple Inc didn't check the details deed of Assignment correctly and the trademark rights in China were not assigned.
I believe the owner's eyes lit up when he saw that Apple was the real purchaser of the name and is taking full advantage of "buyer beware".
Another twist is apparently Apple's shell company lawyers emailed Proview stipulating that the trademark will not be used in competition with Proview, it was needed only because it was the company name. Apple are not denying this, merely saying it doesn't matter what the lawyers said - this is part of the Proview lawsuit recently filed in the U.S.
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.
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 -
imo it was and still is a good program, nothing needed apart for a bit of floor space.
These days the tabata protocol (basically 4 minutes of hiit) 4 times a week is my main form of exercise (no warm up), I also "play" with rings - this doesn't take much time as it is very taxing on the upper body. But for a change, nothing wrong with the 5BX calistenics.
They're not about to open up a Skype phonebook and say "I want to call Ookokook", the trainer would has to do everything and then hold it up for them.
Especially since Ookokook unfriended him on Facebook....
You're right, they need constant supervision with the tablets, they are not allowed to even hold the tablets. Imo it sounds much like the great revellation that Orangutans enjoy watching TV last year.
I was also taken aback by the sight of the primates penned up in such small cages - it looked worse than the cages used in Rise Of the Planet Of The Apes.
It seems that RQ-170s are based at Creech AFB. It's possible Iran have retailiated for stuxnet. I would be surprised if those toys would require external input to fly their mission, jamming it's signal should not bring it down (I hope....). Imo it indicates it had more than likely been re-programmed (it did not appear to have crashed).
Curious that this is a stealth drone that Iran managed to "detect". Someone on their payroll?
Slashdot Mirror
Disclaimer: I am not a big app user (endomondo is my favourite app and am not particularly enamoured with games on phones or tablets) so my tastes are not "main stream".
I agree - especially with the poor execution. The marketing model they chose seems suited to their existing user base (primarily business) but it appears they tried targeting the general consumer.
I have a 9860 (my first Blackberry). The reason I got this was solely because they were bundling the playbook with it. With the products bundled together it made a good "product" and am glad I picked up such a great deal - individually, there were (and still are) problems trying to compete in the A / A world (imo). But with the playbook AND the phone, there are some really cool features that separates BB from A A.
Some of the things I like:
Bridging (this is not tethering), phone as a remote for the playbook, the "border" of the playbook, true multi-tasking (3 different modes), BBM, the Android player, the "phone" works. Oh, QNX seems to be a brilliant OS btw. I hope they manage to get QNX on to the phones (if) before they go under.
Pity about the current doctor though..... where's a decent evil dustbin when you need one.
So.... which video games have Messrs Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove et al been playing?
I suspect Mr Clinton's favourite was Leisure Suit Larry....
You are in business to make a living, give them a figure (say $5000 per workstation, $20000 per server plus expenses for the audit ) if they want an audit- since they are interfering with your business and you have done nothing wrong, you should be adequately compensated - contract drawn up of course.
Send an invoice with the letter for the time taken to reply too.
This (Futurama S06E09 exerpt) sums it up quite well imo.
posting to remove accidental modding
Put a symbol up and call it "The Pub Formally Known As The Hobbit"....
I must be missing something from your calculations, if current panels are $250 per 100 watt, that equates to 25000 for 10 kW, if panels are $40 per 100 watt (0.40 * 100), that equates to 4000 for 10 kW - a saving of $21000. Even tripling the cost still saves $13000 (by your calculations of cost). What have I missed?
lol.
I agree with most of your post but there is also evidence the plant was poorly maintained - Tepco admitted to falsifying maintenance records among several other misdemeanours.
TEPCO was also warned of the risk to the generators and did nothing to mitigate them - and still got an extension to their license (the 40 year old reactors' license had expired).
Hopefully something good will come out of this - Vermont (U.S. state) wants to refuse a request for a 20 year extension to the license of a similar design plant. A bit of backbone from our bureaucrats and politicians coupled with planning and foresight would go a long way in removing the stigma from nuclear (imo).
On a lighter note, we should take our manga comics more seriously - it appears one had predicted the Fukushima incident.
Now THAT deserves mod points.
Yeah, but haven't you noticed its better when someone takes a dump on your ipad compared to your keyboard? Much easier to clean up in my experience.
That hasn't happened to my notebook or tablet..... who did you piss off?
No answer that might make Apple sound in the wrong would satisfy you so... no answer
There were several times that this was done by the ninth "circus" court - a few:
MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc
TRIAD SYSTEMS CORPORATION v. SOUTHEASTERN EXPRESS COMPANY
Blizzard V MDY
Well said.
Usually an officer of a company has the legal authority to sell assets of the company, and the general consul is the chief legal officer. Keep in mind the only thing that matters is if someone legally able to sell the mark authorized the sale. It doesn't matter of the CEO didn't want to sell, or anyone else for that matter, all that matters is that someone legally able to sell the mark signed off on the contract. If the general consul sold the mark without authorization from the rest of the company, the company can sue the legal consul or fire him, but the contract transferring the mark is completely valid.
Usually is not always, in this particular case it appears the general consul that signed the document is of the Taiwan company.
This case is also complicated by the possible twist that the Shenzhen company was in the hands of the receivers from March 2009 - sale of assets is not allowed without the approval of the creditors (prevent asset stripping) - see link in one of my previous posts.
That's also pretty dicey for Proview to prove, since the iPad they developed is basically a first-gen iMac knockoff. They'd have to prove that a CRT based desktop computer (developed in 1998) competes in the same market as an LCD touchscreen tablet.
Then Apple can sue them and have the product removed from sale. That line does not help Apple Inc with the charge that they undertook not to use the name on a competing product (on email apparently - I use "apparently" because I haven't sighted the email).
The charges against Apple.
The fact Apple used a shell company would technically give them some room to manouver in the US but not neccessarily in China.
Additional information - apparently the company was in receivership as of March 2009 so the directors could not sell any assets without the approval of it's creditors (the documents provided by Apple show dates of November and December 2009). If this is true, the best Apple could realistically hope for imo is for the director to be convicted of defrauding them. This would not give them the rights to the name as it would have been illegal to sell the name without the bank's consent.
I wonder if the owner was trying to stuff his own pockets behind the bank's back - hence doing the deal in Taiwan then not having the ability to deliver.
Yes it is listed, Proview doesn't have to argue rogue anything, where the legal counsel is from is irrelevant as far as I can see - unless the legal counsel had the power to authorise a sale from Shenzhen (I seriously doubt that) just that the contract for China can only be done with Proview Shenzhen's consent, Apple Inc has to prove this. As I stated previously, the lawyer involved in the assignment of rights from Proview Taiwan to Apple Inc didn't check the details deed of Assignment correctly and the trademark rights in China were not assigned - i.e. before transfer they should have made sure Proview Taiwan had what they claimed to have. The courts will decide if Proview Shenzhen (or the owner - the same for both companies) has broken any contracts or if they are obligated to transfer the trademark.
The courts will also decide if Apple Inc were deceptive and broke their end of the contract by putting a competing product on the market despite an undertaking by their legal team that they wouldn't.
....or an "agreement" will be reached.....
Not acurate at all from my understanding of the case:
Proview Electronics, a subsidiary of Proview International Holdings, agreed to sell the global iPad trademark in 2006. The rights were sold to a company called IP Application Development (‘IPAD’), for $55,104. The contracts were drawn up by Apple's legal team, listing all trademarks including the one for China, the list was supplied by Proview Electronics (taiwan).
In 2010, Proview Shenzhen (also a subsidiary of Proview International Holdings) began the process of suing Apple for trademark infringement over the ‘iPad’ brand. Proview Taiwan did not own the China trademark, Proview Shenzhen did and not sign over the rights to Proview Taiwan (which had no right to sell it) and did not enter into a contract with Apple to sell it.
Apple claim a mistake was made when the contract was drawn up listing the Trademark as owned by Taiwan but the chairman of both companies was the same person and was fully aware that the China trademark was included and gave permission to sell it, they also claim that they dealt with Shenzhen (it was the Proview Shenzhen people that told Apple Taiwan owned the trademarks).
Apple has had a couple of minor victories in Hong Kong and Taiwan that allows them to keep using the name till the ownership is dicided.
Apple’s own case against Proview that the company was infringing on its trademark with their own product was rejected at the end of last year by a court in Shenzen. Apple is appealing this decision.
The lawyer involved in the assignment of rights from Proview to Apple Inc didn't check the details deed of Assignment correctly and the trademark rights in China were not assigned.
I believe the owner's eyes lit up when he saw that Apple was the real purchaser of the name and is taking full advantage of "buyer beware".
Another twist is apparently Apple's shell company lawyers emailed Proview stipulating that the trademark will not be used in competition with Proview, it was needed only because it was the company name. Apple are not denying this, merely saying it doesn't matter what the lawyers said - this is part of the Proview lawsuit recently filed in the U.S.
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.
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 -
imo it was and still is a good program, nothing needed apart for a bit of floor space.
These days the tabata protocol (basically 4 minutes of hiit) 4 times a week is my main form of exercise (no warm up), I also "play" with rings - this doesn't take much time as it is very taxing on the upper body. But for a change, nothing wrong with the 5BX calistenics.
just replying to my own post - didn't realise I wasn't logged in (using the playbook).
They're not about to open up a Skype phonebook and say "I want to call Ookokook", the trainer would has to do everything and then hold it up for them.
Especially since Ookokook unfriended him on Facebook....
You're right, they need constant supervision with the tablets, they are not allowed to even hold the tablets. Imo it sounds much like the great revellation that Orangutans enjoy watching TV last year.
I was also taken aback by the sight of the primates penned up in such small cages - it looked worse than the cages used in Rise Of the Planet Of The Apes.
It seems that RQ-170s are based at Creech AFB. It's possible Iran have retailiated for stuxnet. I would be surprised if those toys would require external input to fly their mission, jamming it's signal should not bring it down (I hope....). Imo it indicates it had more than likely been re-programmed (it did not appear to have crashed).
Curious that this is a stealth drone that Iran managed to "detect". Someone on their payroll?
Warning! Pure conjecture on display.