"The customs have told us that it will be difficult to implement a ban because many Chinese consumers love Apple products."
...yet if they ban exports, they'll be far more of them available for the Chinese consumers...?
Chinese firm Proview has admitted it might be tough to get a ban on iPads in China, despite the ruling that the name infringes on their trademark, because the local customs authorities are unlikely to get involved. Proview International Holdings, which claims to have held the trademark on the name "IPAD" since 2000, won its …
"We spent a lot of resources on [developing our IPAD]. It's the same concept as the iPad today, except that back then, there were practically no LCD screens,"
Just out of interest, when was 'back then'? 1968? Were there also touchscreens 'back then'? Perhaps there weren't low-power CPUs, or lithium ion batteries?
Was the Proview IPAD by any chance a Pentium 4 desktop?
Had a pair of 15" Proview monitors, got them from Scan in Bolton if i remember correctly.
I only chucked them a year or two ago, when the shed leaked.
Must have been around the late 90's. They were immensely popular. They were pretty much what we used exclusively at work as well. Not quite as good as the Trinitron's but a damn sight cheaper, and you didnt really notice.
Never heard of the IPad before Apple though.
I would have thaught the more logical thing to do would be to ban Imports. It would be silly to ban Exports, as it sounds like Apple *definately* have the trademarks everywere else, and i thaught trademark law just banned you from selling something.
Of course, it would mean that Proview couldnt screw them over quite as effectively which would involve the judge taking an interest in the public interest rather than a companies'. Of course, its not the US, so it may be possible...
@FatsBrannigan: "Was the Proview IPAD by any chance a Pentium 4 desktop?"
No, no - it was intended to be an LCD screen with the letters I - P - A - D written on it - just like the iPad, only far larger, 20x heavier, no CPU or memory, no operating system, no inputs (except for some buttons), and - the iPad doesn't have this innovative feature yet - VGA cables attached! The poor dears spent a fortune developing this concept, but sadly had only one CRT screen in the office to demonstrate it with. So they saved up for 10 years and just splashed out on an LCD monitor, lovingly pasted I - P - A - D on it, put it up for sale on Amazon, and - OMG - Apple has stolen our idea!
Undoubtedly Steve Jobs was visiting China at the time and copied it. They should at least be awarded all rights to the iPad, iPhone, and iOS. The iMac is probably copied too - they just changed the I - P - A - D to I - M - A - C. Practically the same, it looks just like an LCD monitor. The court should just award them Apple in its entirety. These guys are clearly serious innovators who've taken the world by storm - well, the guy in the office next door was very interested for a while. Will we ever plumb the depths that Apple can sink to!
@Craigness - Proview does appear to claim that the IPAD is like the iPad
Quote - "We spent a lot of resources on [developing our IPAD]. It's the same concept as the iPad today, except that back then, there were practically no LCD screens,"
This claim seems to have surfaced suddenly and is in addition to the name claim. I can't find any pix of the IPAD but I suspect a Reg Playmobil mock up will be reasonably close to the truth.
I'll likely get a few downvotes for this but it's a genuine query of sorts. Why should the popularity of a device / any product affect whether or not it can be banned? If it's against the law or found to be in violation of some trademark shouldn't it be banned regardless? The Apple hater in me wants to say, "Typical, one rule for Apple and their money, another for everyone else." but I'm trying to avoid downvotes :P
There's hardly any point protecting a trademark against violaters who make so little money that there's nothing to sue them for. It's like with the Winklevoss twins - people complained that because they didn't sue Zuckerberg when facebook had a few thousand members, they had no right to sue when it had a few hundred million.
Well, since Proview is likely to be shown to be more cash poor than Apple, who is cash rich at the moment, it shouldn't be a stretch to prove that Apple bought the rights to the iPad name and that Proview is only trying to extort money from them, hence the mention of a willingness to "Settle in or out of court". How can they choose a particular settlement amount when use of the iPad name isn't causing Proview to lose money or customers. They don't make any Tablets. Sales of the iPad isn't hurting any of their business. It's just the case of a small unsuccessful company extorting money from an American Capitalist company. Apple can do away with this nonsense by changing the name of the iPad and then what can Proview do but go down in flames with no cash for all the trouble?
Surely the same reason turkeys don't vote for Christmas. If you are a judge, and you, your friends, your wife and your children all own and really like their iPad's you aren't going to be as inclined to offer the benefit of the doubt as you otherwise may.
Also, Chinese courts aren't as seperate from the state as they may be in the UK. Do you think a judgement would be passed/enforced that damaged the wider Chinese state, as such an export ban on Apple would do?
And that ignores the fact that iPad popularity = sales for Apple = profit for Apple = ability to hire expensive and influential lobbyists.
"If it's against the law or found to be in violation of some trademark shouldn't it be banned regardless?"
I'm inclined to ask the same question, based on the principle that everyone is equal under law. Of course, as we all know, this is often demonstrated to /not/ be the case.
I truly despair for my kids generation - the madness and hypocrisy shown in many recent court cases and decisions (IP and criminal alike), both home and abroad, illustrates to me just how screwed up things are - and to some degree how decisions can be 'bought'.
My personal opinion is - minnow or fat cat, friend or foe - you break the laws of the land, you suffer /equal/ penalty.
Personally, I think Apple are in need of, and well overdue for, a good legal spanking - in the same way the the proverbial playground bully deserves a good ****ing hiding. But then, I also believe that market consolidation, as we are seeing it now, is bad for just about everyone, except perhaps major shareholders. (I'm probably in the minority on these points though).
You despair of your kids generation? Perhaps they get it from you!
You think they deserve a good spanking rather than judge the individual case on its merits, thats hypocrisy. Apple think they have already bought the name, the patent holders don't agree or are after making a fast buck, Apple have won the case in Hon Kong and the china case is still pending.
OK cowardly troll, I'll bite...
"You despair of your kids generation? Perhaps they get it from you!"
Firstly, I don't despair /of/, my kids generation, but I do dispare /for/ my kids generation. There is a fundemental, almost polar, difference between the two. Your first mistake.
Secondly, when talking of the current generation I actually alluded to hypocrisy in the courts in a general sense. Not hypocrisy where just Apple are concerned, but also hypocrisy in criminal courts. If you believe that the legal system treat us all as equals and in an equal manner, you are simply a fool.
Do Apple deserve a good legal spanking? If they transgress the rules of any land of course they do, and when they do, financial penalties should be punative in a very real sense, not just in a notional sense.
Have Apple demonstrated theselves to be open, fair and honest? Of course not, only a fool would suggest otherwise. Me? I am long enough in the tooth to know that a leopard does not change it's spots so easily. So far Apple have been treated very delicately in many actions that have gone against them. I for one, believe that should change.
All that said however, with idiots like the USPTO in action, the childish behaviour we have seen from companies like Apple in recent years can only be encouraged to continue.
Yes, I believe Apple deserve to suffer real punative sanctions at their next transgression. Did I say they deserve such punative sanction in respect of the article matter? No, I did not. What I did say however was that I agreed that the question "If it's against the law or found to be in violation..." was a valid question IMO. Note the /if/.
Because if they did that an iPad would cost £1999.99 because of the higher wages and they wouldn't have ANY customers for it. Just because it's a US company with US customers doesn't mean they should manufacture them there or any less American because of it. If companies like Toyota, BMW, Sony and the tens of thousands of other non US companies all took the same kind of xenophobic views on manufacturing as you suggest American companies take, the US would be in a hell of a lot worse state than it is now
Apple sell internationally, not just in the US.
By manufacturing in China they are able to take advantage of cheaper labour as do most if not all large successful companies of this type, because the ones that don't simply can't compete on a price level. (There simply aren't enough truly ethical consumers out there.)
By manufacturing in countries such as China Apple indirectly contributes to the industrialisation, which, if the developed world is anything to go by should ultimately lead to at least a basic increase in the standard of living for the general population; eventually. However in the short term it advances the ability of China and other countries to produce the modern goods we so crave ever so cheaply.
This allows the shiny things so many people like to be sold at increasingly attractive prices (in real terms) which indirectly leads to increased revenue for the selling country in taxes and benefits in employment due to still needing to employ peopl to move/ship/sell the damn things.
So indirectly, they do.
Wow. Three people who seriously believe an iPad is "worth" £300 when a host of competitors somehow manage to make similar products and sell them for less than £100. I'll let you in on the secret - any product is only worth what a customer is willing to pay for it. Also thanks for letting me know you can buy an iPad outside the US. I had no idea.
"Proview Technology, the Chinese company embroiled in a legal battle with Apple Inc over the iPad name, said on Wednesday that customs authorities had told it that the sheer size of the market and the popularity of iPads would make it difficult to impose a ban."
Proview wants Apple to settle on their terms before the appeal at the end of the month. To that end they've been threatening Apple with a ban on their ability to export and import. No doubt, Proview or their agents, are responsible for the rumor that their settlement price has gone to $1.6 billion.
But best of all is the statement above, which reminds Apple of the enormous size of the Chinese market and the legions of fanbois with handfuls of Renminbi. This is how prisoners are lured into signing confessions of guilt.
Am wrong to assume that the district court didn't hear of the dummy Corp. Apple set up to buy the trade mark? Will it come up before the Appellate court?
If only Steve Jobs, like the ghost of Marley, would return to Cupertino and tell Tim Cook what to do.
Well, I graciously welcome our new, obscure, mysterious, oriental, claim-filing, I-trademark-bearing overlords !
Although Proview has a pretty outrageous trademark claim (reminds me of the VAX vacuum cleaner debacle), it is fun to see the tables turned on Apple's legal team who just can't stop claiming ownership of every tech innovation to hit the tablet/phone interface space in recent years. Last I heard, the jury is still out on the alphabet (except for the letter I) and the wheel.... but give them time.
Perhaps these new shenanigans will cause the Cupertino legal team to reflect, call time-out and chill for a while.
You really couldn't make it up.
In America we say "He bought the Brooklyn Bridge." And we laugh at the man who thinks he bought it. In this case that would be Apple.
1) Proview won in the District Court.
2) The Court will hear that IPADL bought the trade mark for $50k and sold it for £10 to Apple.
3) The Appellate Court must decide who is right when a dummy corp. buys a trademark from a subsidiary that doesn't own it.
The question at The Reg is will fanbois save Apple's a$$?
The answer is an unqualified yes. If one of those fanbois is Wen Jiabao.
With respect, Ms Parnell, you are confusing the flash-bang of media negotiations for a settlement out of court with reality. Apple is under extreme pressure to settle before the court hears their case because if they lose this one the settlement price goes up. Apple will continue to whistle in the graveyard until a day or two before the trial in an effort to budge down Proview. Whatever the results are, you and I and the fanbois will never know the damages. Non-disclosure and all that.
"Apple is currently appealing the ruling that HELD UP Proview's claims of ownership of the trademark."
I was really thrown for a moment, thinking you meant the judgement had been delayed by Apple's defence.
Are you aware that, in native English, this can mean the opposite of what I think you mean. To "hold up" usually means either to delay or to rob, when not being used in its simplest sense of holding up an object or an example. Perhaps you meant, "upheld"?
Really, in a professional journal, on or off line, sub-editors to correct mistakes and translate into English etc. as necessary, e.g. from American or Greek or colloquial or whatever, are usual and accepted.
Back to the topic: I should love to know if the sillier comments would have been written if, for example, a Chinese company claimed rights to Android or a Samsung Galaxy S II.
From some of the details printed in other reports, it sounds as if Apple made an honest attempt at buying the use of the name, for a non-trivial price, in good faith some time ago. Using a legal ruse to preserve commercial secrecy is common and understandable.
So just what is wrong with all these clever commentators who neglected to make millions with their clever ideas before Apple did?
the courts seem to disagree with your claim "Apple made an honest attempt at buying the use of the name" its more like apple tried to be clever seting up a sham corp and buy the equivalent of London bridge from a 3rd party conman claiming to own the trademark rights on the cheap but OC said conman didn't.
LOL some Chinese company DO rightly claim rights to the Galaxy S II trademark, they made it after all and you said their name already LOL, what where you smoking at the time you posted that, must be good to screw up your logic so badly like that.... AND for fun
a Chinese company Could claim rights to "Android" as a tech item, but they would have to get past the prior art from Tony Sale, 81 an his 63 year old "George Android" as seen at The National Museum of Computing at Bletchley Park, Bucks.LOL
http://web.orange.co.uk/article/quirkies/Britains_first_robot_walks_again
PCWorld just reported that Proview is considering suing Apple in the US for buying the trademark, I Pad, through a dummy Corp. The fanboi brigade got bogged down.
Everything we've read in the last couple of days, including this threat of a US lawsuit is nothing more than hardball negotiations for a larger or smaller settlement depending whether you're the plaintiff or the defendant. :-)