California judge throws out Proview's U.S. iPad lawsuit
0. phoneArena 09 May 2012, 10:28 posted on
Proview's lawsuit against Apple in California was dismissed on the basis that they lacked grounds for a lawsuit with legal proceedings still pending in China...
This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here
1. ilia1986 (unregistered)
5. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)
Provide wasn't going to win this. There's no way Apple won't be able to use the iPad name. Here or China.
9. remixfa (Posts: 13902; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
Proview... not "provide". lol
they are not trying to ban the iPad name, they are trying to get PAID for Apple's illegal use of the name in china. Apple does not hold the rights to "iPad" in china, so thus they are infringing on Proview's trademark.. which had the name years before apple got into the mobile space.
If your going to comment, at least pretend you have some idea of what is going on.
12. taco50 (banned) (Posts: 5506; Member since: 08 Oct 2009)
And Apple paid for the name. Of course in your mind Apple is messing up because your anti Apple regardless of facts. You've proven that many times with your tactless and uneducated posts.
10. remixfa (Posts: 13902; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
I'm no expert in court law, but since when does an international case have any merit on judgments in american cases? If and when proview gets what they want in china, do they get to resue in america?
40. greathero1 (Posts: 458; Member since: 13 Jun 2008)
Maybe because the patent in question is exclusive to China. It has no bearing here in the US. No need to tie our courts up over something not relevant on our soil. This is about using the iPad name in China.
49. Lucas777 (Posts: 2121; Member since: 06 Jan 2011)
i am almost positive proview does not have the rights to ipad in america… if they do they are probably settling for the entire name everywhere… proview is just trying to get a second opinion in case the first failed, but apparently that backfired
51. Scott_H (Posts: 167; Member since: 28 Oct 2011)
Actually, under U.S. law companies can be held responsible for fraud, bribes, and other illegal activity that occurs in other countries. So if Proview could really show that Apple committed fraud, they might have a case.
But since they seem to have signed an agreement (or otherwise conveyed to Apple) that they agreed to deal with this issue in China, the U.S. judge saw no reason to hear the case.
31. remixfa (Posts: 13902; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
haha.. lol all the trolls gather. The more you side with taco, the more i know im right.. especially since taco's "evidence" reinforces exactly what ive been saying.
38. greathero1 (Posts: 458; Member since: 13 Jun 2008)
Not necessarily so. Taco has a very valid point.
"Proview claims that the Taipei subsidiary of its Hong Kong-based parent, Proview International Holdings Limited, registered the iPad trademark in a number of countries and regions as early as 2000."
Though Apple brought the rights to use the iPad trademark from Proview Taipei in 2009." If they paid the company who applied and registered the patent, then Apple does have a point as Proview Shenzhen did not apply or register the patent. If the patent was purchased for or in the name of the holding company, I fail to see how they paid the wrong person. Proview Shenzhen did not register for the patent, Proview Taipai did. Also, I really don't see Proview Shenzhen's argument. They say they are a different subsidiary but it should not matter. The patent was purchased for the holding company which they are apart of. I don't know. Maybe I am missing something here. Was there some kind of language with the patent that required approval from all of Proview Holding subsidiaries or something? This is a interesting one, either way.
39. troybuilt (Posts: 155; Member since: 16 Dec 2011)
Yes, I'm sure they're all taco's sub accounts. I'm sure he's got several of them. He has daily conversations with himself and thumbs up his own posts. lol
42. greathero1 (Posts: 458; Member since: 13 Jun 2008)
Oh ok. Now i see the part where it says that Proview Shenzhen did register the name in China. Well, looks like if they want to use the name in China, then they are going to have to pay to use it. My bad but I do think Taco has a valid point. This should have been thrown out in the US. Proview Shenzhen's patent is only applicable in China from the looks of it.
44. gallitoking (Posts: 4680; Member since: 17 May 2011)
this doesnt look good for remix.. track record...
45. remixfa (Posts: 13902; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
As far as I know they only hold the rights in china, not the entire world. I dont know if the american suite should be thrown out or not. None of us are lawyers working the case. They wouldnt have brought it here had they thought that there was nothing to gain, so there was a reason for it.
43. theoak (Posts: 320; Member since: 16 Nov 2011)
Proview needs to be careful.
Apple has to be making a boatload of money for China.
If they tick Apple off enough ... with the money that Apple has ... Apple could say ... "fine" ... and high tail it out of China and build the iStuff somewhere else.
I am not saying that it would be easy for Apple to do that. But if I was sitting on a pile of money and the locals were giving me a hard time ... I would have no reservations of jumping ship.
46. greathero1 (Posts: 458; Member since: 13 Jun 2008)
I don't think that will ever happen. Right now, the only way for Apple to squeeze the type of margins out of their products and supply chain is because where the manufacturing is done. The deal they are getting from the likes of Foxconn is too good. Maybe they could diversify production over time but that will take time. They should pay Proview $50 million and keep doing what they do best, make attractive products and money.
47. tedkord (Posts: 4268; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
With all the pirating and copying and stealing the Chinese turn a blind toward on their shores, I say screw 'em. I'm on Apple's side on this one.
53. InspectorGadget80 (Posts: 6122; Member since: 26 Mar 2011)
Yet another American judge gets paid by APPLE GREEDY LAWYERS.