Proview rejects Apple settlement offer

Another bankrupt parasite trying to get rich without merit.
 
[)roi(];8223597 said:
Another bankrupt parasite trying to get rich without merit.
Click to expand...

Proview was actually using the name iPad in China long before Apple ever dreamed of registering it. They have an excellent case.
It helps when you actually know what is going on.
 
Garyvdh said:
Proview was actually using the name iPad in China long before Apple ever dreamed of registering it. They have an excellent case.
Click to expand...

Yes, they were actually selling a tablet, way before Apple did - and it was called the iPad.

A bit early for available technology, so not a huge success.
 
Garyvdh said:
Proview was actually using the name iPad in China long before Apple ever dreamed of registering it. They have an excellent case.
It helps when you actually know what is going on.
Click to expand...

Mmmhh clearly you don't read much :whistle: :p they sold the name to a shell company started by Apple, now at the brink of bankruptcy they deny they sold it (oh it wasn't fair) and now want to make a fortune.

Their iPad unit btw was a dismal failure.
 
AntiThesis said:
Dunno - if this account is actually true, it's pretty scummy.
Click to expand...

Exactly, what is wrong with that... Typical behavior in business circle to avoid overpaying for something you need. Hence their court case was kicked out in the US.

Example:
How many buy a house based on its listed price? Or do you try to get a lower deal?
How many people take the 1st price given at a flea market?

Proview were more than happy to sell the iPad name for use everywhere for $55,000 when they didn't know it was Apple; so do you really think it now justifies them asking >$1 billion?

Oh but some idiotic people think business should be fair and everyone must be nice :whistle: :p (being nice is a great way to get shafted...)
 
Last edited:
[)roi(];8224385 said:
Oh but some idiotic people think business should be fair and everyone must be nice :whistle: :p (being nice is a great way to get shafted...)
Click to expand...

Like Apple stealing the name of the Beatles' music company ?

But I suppose that USD500 million was fair compensation.
 
Jola said:
Like Apple stealing the name of the Beatles' music company ?

But I suppose that USD500 million was fair compensation.
Click to expand...
That appears to be such a foolish response; :whistle: :p the fact that the US government didn't tell them that the name was already secured by the Beetles in the UK does not make it their fault for the fact that it was legally registered to them in the US (oh wait, truthfully the Beetles had forgotten to register their claim to that name in the US)

What can you realistically expect from 3 guys starting a business in a garage?

Clearly if you've had to conduct any business negotiations or transacations you would get this or maybe it's just your disdain for all things Apple that makes you sound so moronic :whistle: :p Surely that statement cannot not be true for you?

Surely you do in someway realise Proview is the one at fault, similarly ruled by the US legal system.

Btw the Beetles music collection is not an equivalent to Proview's iPad name. You are foolish if you think it is, and hence imply that they should pay more for it.

The iPad name was worthless when Apple legally purchased the rights to it through a shell company. Now that the name means something, Proview wants to take advantage of that when clearly all they could do by themselves was to go bankrupt.
 
Last edited:
Companies are going to do what they can to make money. If you support Apple's use of shell companies to avoid tax and obfuscate their interests, then I can't see any way that you can complain about use of intellectual property rights to generate money by Proview.

Either we accept that doing anything legal is fine, or we move to making ethical judgments about these things, which would show both companies to be reprehensible in their conduct.
 
Rudimental said:
Companies are going to do what they can to make money. If you support Apple's use of shell companies to avoid tax and obfuscate their interests, then I can't see any way that you can complain about use of intellectual property rights to generate money by Proview.

Either we accept that doing anything legal is fine, or we move to making ethical judgments about these things, which would show both companies to be reprehensible in their conduct.
Click to expand...
The difference here is that they were outplayed by Apple (I.e. payment was already made), and only because the Chinese government's protection of its companies is done in opposition to standard global market business practice; are they able to push this in anyway.

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple changes the name of the iPad only for the Chinese market; simple really (logo on the back of the iPad, different printing on the packaging, a few posters and the Chinese website).

Apple's subsequent topup offer of $16 million is no small amount considering they settled much of their disputes with The Beatles for $29 million.

At some point the latter renaming approach is going to become financially feasible, and I'm sure Apple's management must already be bordering on that decision...

So in the end Proview might still only be left with the original $55,000 because clearly Apple will not pay a half billion or more to a parasite.
 
[)roi(];8224479 said:
That appears to be such a foolish response
Click to expand...

Really?

And the clear breach of the agreement between Apple Computer and Apple Music, whereby Apple Computer undertook to never enter the music business ?

Clearly you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about, so best sit down!

And the final settlement with the Beatles was said to be USD500 million.

On 5 February 2007, Apple Inc. and Apple Corps announced a settlement of their trademark dispute under which Apple Inc. will own all of the trademarks related to “Apple” and will license certain of those trademarks back to Apple Corps for their continued use. The settlement ends the ongoing trademark lawsuit between the companies, with each party bearing its own legal costs, and Apple Inc. will continue using its name and logos on iTunes. The settlement includes terms that are confidential, although newspaper accounts at the time stated that Apple Computer was buying out Apple Corps' trademark rights for a total of $500 million U.S.
Click to expand...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer#section_1
 
Last edited:
Jola said:
Really?

And the clear breach of the agreement between Apple Computer and Apple Music, whereby Apple Computer undertook to never enter the music business ?

Clearly you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about, so best sit down!
Click to expand...
Really? And you ascertain that hogwash by me not including the full history of the Apple / Beatle agreements. Didn't feel the need to dig up stuff that I credited you with knowing.

Silly, apparently you are that m......; I'm so sorry to have given you any credit :p

Btw support your statement of settlement by fact; as far as I am aware it's a closed settlement agreement, so you're wrong! (link?) oh in your books rumors are now truth... (Wikipedia written by the public is now the absolute truth, you've got to be joking :whistle: :p) Clearly even in this crap they state it was confidential...

Still to try to equate the Beatles stuff with Proview is only showing how m..... you really are :p
 
Last edited:
You really are being childish, are you allowed to be on here ?

In any event, it is quite clear from all of these cases that Apple is not a very ethical company, even up to the present with their tax avoidance strategies.
 
Last edited:
Jola said:
You really are being childish, are you allowed to be on here ?
Click to expand...

Hahaha Is that they only way you can respond when out played... Don't test the age; you're bound to lose as that's another silly tack on you part.

Clearly bringing the Beatles into this discussion carries no bearing on the Proview situation, yet you appear to be too m..... to get that.

To equate a successful music estate with marketable content, that was sought by Apple to complete its iTunes catalogue vs a bankrupt company that is only out to make a profit now that Apple has made their previous worthless iPad name a success; is very silly!

If you don't even appreciate that then clearly I gave you too much credit earlier.
 
Jola said:
In any event, it is quite clear from all of these cases that Apple is not a very ethical company, even up to the present with their tax avoidance strategies.
Click to expand...

Ethical by whose determination, YOURS?
Clearly you never negotiated anything in your life, and never owned or operated a business. Grow up.

Oh and clearly you don't know enough about the US situation beyond the sensationalism recently in the US media.

Firstly no laws were broken, and secondly you're foolish to believe Apple is the only one skillfully working tax laws (Google, Microsoft, Exxon Mobil, Chevron Texaco, ... to name but a few who also do the same), and finally it is the US government faulty policies that are pushing all international companies to avoid bringing money back and to manipulate the system (not illegally btw)
 
Last edited:
Jola said:
No, the USA establishment, read up about it.

http://business.time.com/2012/05/01/apples-tax-avoidance-evil-scheming-good-business-or-both/

You really must read more.

BTW, are you a tenderpreneur, sounds like it, with your business ethics ! Or just a teenager ?
Click to expand...
Ok let's deal with the article, where does it say it is a crime (ethics are too open for debate, point to the crime and the criminal case)? and where does it say Apple is the only company guilty of this?

Strange how the article's title references Good business... Clearly sensationalism, and you're a bit m..... for not getting this.
 
Last edited:
[)roi(];8224669 said:
Ok let's deal with the article, where does it say it is a crime (ethics are too open for debate, point to the crime and the criminal case)? and where does it say Apple is the only company guilty of this? Strange how the articles title references Good business... Clearly sensationalism, and you're a bit m..... for not getting this.
Click to expand...

I never said that they were guilty of a crime, I questioned their ethics, just like the article.

So aren't you the one not getting it ? Seems like it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X