Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Chinese Court Orders Ban On Apple's iPad

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the build-but-don't-touch dept.

China 190

zacharye writes "A lawyer representing Proview International on Monday announced that the Intermediate People's Court in Huizhou, a city in southern China, ruled that distributors should stop selling iPads in China. From the article: 'The ruling, which was also reported widely in China's state media, may not have a far-reaching effect. In its battle with Apple, Proview is utilizing lawsuits in several places and also requesting commercial authorities in 40 cities to block iPad sales. Apple Inc. said in a statement Monday that its case is still pending in mainland China. The company has appealed to Guangdong's High Court against an earlier ruling in Proview's favor.'"

cancel ×

190 comments

Good (-1, Flamebait)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#39099595)

It's about time an American company got pimp-slapped for trying to steal someone else's REGISTERED trade mark.

Re:Good (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39099625)

That's all well and good, except for the fact that they paid for the trade mark.

Re:Good (1, Troll)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#39099763)

That's all well and good, except for the fact that they paid for the trade mark.

They say they paid for the trademark. The court decides whether they legally bought or licensed the trademark.

I think Apple will win this one because they'll be able to show that they really did pay for the trademark in China.

Re:Good (2)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 2 years ago | (#39100877)

I wonder how many Yuan it will take to "show" that...

Re:Good (5, Insightful)

flyingsquid (813711) | more than 2 years ago | (#39101221)

Am I the only one who finds the existence of this lawsuit a bit hypocritical? China isn't exactly known for its strict policy towards intellectual property. The New York Times recently did an article about how companies won't let their employees bring their personal laptops and cell phones to China, because they're worried that the Chinese will hack into them and steal their technology and designs. A few days ago there was a case where a Chinese programmer at the Fed stole a piece of software that they'd spent ten million dollars trying to develop. A couple months ago, the Wall Street Journal reported a case of a Chinese wind turbine manufacturer paying for control software stolen from an American firm. And are there even any estimates on how many pirated copies of Windows are in mainland China?

American companies and American taxpayers fund the development of technology, and then China turns around and steals the designs and makes a profit off of it. We're basically subsidizing Chinese industry, with U.S. corporations and taxpayers paying money to help China put U.S. workers out of business. The Chinese government turns a blind eye to all of this, or perhaps more likely, the government is actively encouraging this industrial espionage, just like the Soviets had a strategy of stealing Western technology during the Cold War.

Yes, Apple should obey the letter of the law, and perhaps they didn't do that in this case. But it seems remarkably hypocritical for a Chinese company to be dragging a Western company to court for intellectual property violations. Somehow when the theft goes the other way, nobody seems to notice.

Re:Good (4, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 2 years ago | (#39101275)

Hypocrisy, maybe. But, at least 60% of our "intellectual property" is unethical bullshit.

Slide to unlock, anyone?

Re:Good (4, Informative)

andydread (758754) | more than 2 years ago | (#39099813)

They paid from the trademark from the Taiwan affiliate. The mainland China Corporate office has denied that apple can use that trademark in mainland China and has denied permission for the Taiwan affiliate to sell that trademark for use in Mainland China. Keep spouting Apple's talking points there without telling the whole story though carry on.

Re:Good (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39099913)

Typically when you buy worldwide rights, it applies to the entire world, no?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/15/us-apple-proview-idUSTRE81E0BE20120215 [reuters.com]

I would think if Proview has an issue, then they need to speak to whoever was claiming to own the worldwide rights to the trademark, rather than Apple. Claiming they were developing a 'similar' technology in 2000 with absolutely nothing to show for the last 12 years is a stretch in the best of cases, where their current financial situation would more likely imply that they are simply trolling trying to stay afloat given they are already going under.

By all means though, post without telling the whole story...

Re:Good (5, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#39099933)

The issue is whether the Taiwan operations had the right to sell to Apple. China believes they didn't. It's kind of like the SCO ownership of Unix... they didn't.

Re:Good (2)

john82 (68332) | more than 2 years ago | (#39100625)

More likely, the PRC govt has determined that Taiwan (whom they view as a renegade province) should not dictate T&C to ANY entity of the PRC. Ergo, the sale of such an asset by company operating in Taiwan would BY DEFAULT have no bearing in the PRC.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39100375)

I would think if Proview has an issue, then they need to speak to whoever was claiming to own the worldwide rights to the trademark, rather than Apple.

No. Absolutely wrong. If someone sells your car without any right to do so then, yes, the seller is the person who is in the wrong but, no, it is not the actual owner who loses out. If Apple bought the Golden Gate bridge or a trademark or whatever from someone who didn't have the right to sell it then that isn't a problem that the actual owner has to sort out.

Re:Good (3, Informative)

CowTipperGore (1081903) | more than 2 years ago | (#39100759)

If you post a URL that doesn't even support your claim, you'll get modded up? Your link simply tells us that Apple says their front company bought the worldwide rights, which we already know they claim.

It seems there are two options here:

  * Proview China is lying in a last-ditch effort to save their company
  * Apple and/or their front company didn't do their homework

Nothing in your link sheds any light on the issue.

Re:Good (2)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#39100981)

It seems there are two options here:

    * Proview China is lying in a last-ditch effort to save their company
    * Apple and/or their front company didn't do their homework

I'm a betting man. I'd apply probabilities of 90% and 10% respectively if I was looking to bet on those options. We already know Proview is fucked. Their factories are closed down and their shares have been suspended from the stock exchange. They admit they're looking for an out of court settlement, whilst trying to push that by shopping around jurisdictions looking for injuctions. Which is the standard tactic of an IP troll.

Re:Good (1)

CowTipperGore (1081903) | more than 2 years ago | (#39101077)

It appears there is a third option - Proview is now claiming that Apple's front company agreed that the trademark would not be used to compete against them and that, while the technology is clearly different, Apple's iPad is loosely competing against Proview's IPAD. Unfortunately, most of the recent details around this are found only on Chinese media sites or John Paczkowski's blog on AllThingsD. Perhaps we'll know a bit more in a few days. In particular, who is Huy Yuan and did he really represent the Chinese Proview, as Apple claims?

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39101301)

Except for the fact that Proview indicates they have been working on a 'similar' idea since 2000, but have shown nothing to prove that this is really the case. If they really had been working on this the last 12 years, i would think that even a small company could have a prototype in more than a decade? They have shown nothing but a claim to a trademark which was sold to Apple.

Re:Good (4, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 2 years ago | (#39101339)

If I buy a car, stereo, computer, whatever from some dude, it's mine, right?

But, what happens when the cops knock on my door, with a search warrant, and search my home for that stuff I bought? They say it's stolen. And, I'm arrested, booked, and charged with "receiving stolen property".

I think Apple is in a parallel position here. They can expect to be slapped around a little for trying to bully the rightful owner of this "intellectual property".

Re:Good (1)

donscarletti (569232) | more than 2 years ago | (#39100015)

They are both subsidiaries of the same company. Furthermore I dare you to walk into a Chinese court and base your case on the claim that Taiwan is not part of China. Losing the case would be the least of your worries, losing your head would be the bigger concern.

Weiguan are a bunch of desperate scheming pricks. However, iPad is also a stupid name, which sounds like a lady's sanitary product and is not worth what Apple paid for it to begin with, let alone the cost of this court battle.

Re:Good (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#39101083)

The word "pad" makes you think of a ladies sanitary product before you think of a pad of paper? That seems a little odd to me.

I think it's fair to say most people are thinking of a mobile computing device when they hear "iPad" and they don't immediately think of sanitary towels.

I remember when Nintendo came out with the "Wii", which sounds exactly like children's slang for urine in the UK. Didn't seem to hurt sales at all. And no one bats an eyelid at eh question "Do you want to play with my Wii?"

Re:Good (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 2 years ago | (#39101405)

"I think it's fair to say most people are thinking of a mobile computing device when they hear "iPad" and they don't immediately think of sanitary towels."

In my day, a "pad" generally referred to brake pads, feminine hygiene products, or a hippy's home. I bought many tablets and notebooks, and I heard of "notepads", but I never bought or used a pad except for use in the wheels of my cars. The closest thing I ever used was "padding" when shipping something.

Re:Good (1)

aurizon (122550) | more than 2 years ago | (#39100343)

So, Apple says we are bringing ipad/iphone fabrication back to the USA - Chinese government throttles Proview ...

Re:Good (1)

s.petry (762400) | more than 2 years ago | (#39100783)

You know, that was one of the first things I was thinking. Here goes Apple, giving all their IP (whether they wanted to or not) to China. They move all their manufacturing there thinking "It's our in to make assloads of cash! China only does business with people that have lots of business in China! They told us so, and we saw how good that turned out for the Big 3!"

Dumbasses, great business model and planning.

Re:Good (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 2 years ago | (#39101249)

They paid for the trademark - yes. And, Proview is honoring that sale. Proview is not marketing an iPad in global markets, in international markets, or in any national markets - outside of mainland China.

Apple got what they paid for. They have rights to the iPad name around the world - outside of China.

Re:Good (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39099635)

Problem is, this is mostly a test case scenario. If they profit from it, we'll see lots of similar stories in the the near future.

Re:Good (3, Informative)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | more than 2 years ago | (#39099645)

So when you pay for something, it's stolen?

FTA: "We bought Proview's worldwide rights to the iPad trademark in 10 different countries several years ago. Proview refuses to honor their agreement with Apple in China and a Hong Kong court has sided with Apple in this matter,"

Re:Good (5, Informative)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#39099709)

And the company that OWNS the trademark denies that the company that SOLD it had the right to do so.

Re:Good (4, Funny)

timeOday (582209) | more than 2 years ago | (#39099839)

Apple paid $4 to download the trademark from allofmp3.com, so it's theirs fair and square :)

Re:Good (1)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 2 years ago | (#39099845)

And the company that OWNS the trademark denies that the company that SOLD it had the right to do so.

... of course, they're the same company:

Apple contends that it acquired the iPad name when it bought rights in various countries from a Proview affiliate in Taiwan in 2009 for 35,000 British pounds ($55,000). Proview won a ruling from a mainland Chinese court in December that it was not bound by that sale.

Re:Good (1)

shaitand (626655) | more than 2 years ago | (#39100551)

"bought rights in various countries from a Proview affiliate"

An affiliated company is a separate company that is related or connected not the same company.You can sign up as an affiliate of adult friend finder and show their banner ads on your website to make click-through revenue. That doesn't give you the right to sell their trademark.

In similar fashion, Sony USA likely has no right to sell the rights to the Sony trademark in Japan. Despite sharing a name these companies have different officers.

Re:Good (5, Interesting)

sribe (304414) | more than 2 years ago | (#39099853)

And the company that OWNS the trademark denies that the company that SOLD it had the right to do so.

And Apple presented solid evidence in Taiwan that the company that OWNS the trademark was fully aware, fully involved in the negotiations, and fully approved the transaction--that the claim that the company that sold the trademark had no right to do so is a flat-out lie, invented after they found out the trademark rights had been sold to Apple.

Re:Good (1, Insightful)

shaitand (626655) | more than 2 years ago | (#39100575)

"invented after they found out the trademark rights had been sold to Apple"

Which is it were they fully involved and fully aware or did they find out the rights were sold after the fact? You can't have it both ways.

Re:Good (4, Interesting)

WillDraven (760005) | more than 2 years ago | (#39100813)

I'm not apprised of the situation at all except what I've read on this page, but the way I read that is that the company was fully aware of the sale, but didn't find out until later that the buyer was Apple, perhaps because they used a differently named subsidiary to make the purchase.

I would imagine such tactics are common for well known corporations and persons. After all, if Tim's Computers wants to buy your domain name (or trademark, or 500 widgets, etc.) you ask for $20. If Apple, Google, Microsoft, Foxconn, etc. want to buy your domain name, you'll be a lot more tempted to ask for $20,000 instead.

Re:Good (1)

Cerium (948827) | more than 2 years ago | (#39100957)

I think it's one of those emotional/human thing. We'd much rather help people who are like us (size of a company/owners/neighbors/etc.) than the giant corporation who will likely crush us and toss us aside once we've served our purpose. That's been my experience, at least.

That said, with the mindset I have, I find it incredibly dishonest and dishonorable for a company like Apple to use such tactics to get a better deal. Not sure what actions I'd take if I were of the responsible parties in this situation, but I know I wouldn't be very happy.

Re:Good (1)

sribe (304414) | more than 2 years ago | (#39100967)

Which is it were they fully involved and fully aware or did they find out the rights were sold after the fact? You can't have it both ways.

Good lord, try actually reading one of the articles sometime! They were fully involved and fully aware of the negotiations to sell the rights to the trademark to "IP Application Development Limited". They just did not know that the ultimate customer was Apple.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39100765)

Exactly. And in other news, I just bought all of Apple's IP rights from one of their janitors. $30, a little pricey but I think it might turn out to be a bit of a bargain.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39100165)

But it's Apple, which makes it not only all right, but trendy.

Please. It's like you don't even understand the new world order. Are you not a Friend of Saint Jobs?

Re:Good (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#39101157)

This is a company that's effectively bankrupt - all their factories are closed, and their shares have been suspended in the stock exchange. And they're talking about another subsidiary of the same?

I don't know why you capitalised "OWNS", when it's only "claims to own".

Sounds like a last desperate attempt at double dipping to me.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39099721)

Well Ive a large bridge with matching Clock in London I can sell you dosnt mean its mine. I thought that was what the court case was to establish had they bought it or merely thought they had.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39099723)

"We bought Proview's worldwide rights [...]in 10 different countries"...

Ah, why not just buy worldwide right in the US and send in the Marines to defend their worldwide right??

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39099879)

Because chickenhawks like Bush and Obama only do that to countries that cannot fight back. Hardly the case with the Chicoms.

Re:Good (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#39099843)

Yes, if you buy it from a fence.

OTOH, they say they bought the rights in 10 different countries. Was mainland China amongst the 10?

Re:Good (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39099957)

How does this get modded "Insightful" when Apple PAID for the trademark. Regardless of the shenanigans that Proview is now pulling ("Oh, you paid Bob, who works for us? Yeah. No. You gotta pay me."), Apple didn't steal a damn thing - they paid for the trademark.

Re:Good (1, Insightful)

shaitand (626655) | more than 2 years ago | (#39100615)

So if I give the guy at the Apple store $10 for the global rights to the Apple trademark I'm good right? Or only if his name is Bob?

Re:Good (1)

Higgins_Boson (2569429) | more than 2 years ago | (#39100245)

It's about time Apple got pimp-slapped for trying to steal someone else's REGISTERED trade mark.

FTFY

Deja Vu (5, Interesting)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | more than 2 years ago | (#39099619)

FTA:

"Proview International's shares have been suspended from trading on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange since August 2010 and reports say it is deep in debt. It will be delisted in June if it cannot show it has sufficient assets, business operations and working capital."

SCO Mark 2?

Re:Deja Vu (1, Troll)

andydread (758754) | more than 2 years ago | (#39099759)

And Proview OWNS the trademark and has DENIED that its Taiwan affiliate had the rights to sell the trademark for use in mainland China. So no not SCO Mark 2. However Apple's suing Open-Source over trivial silly software-patents is SCO Mark 2.

Re:Deja Vu (1)

sribe (304414) | more than 2 years ago | (#39099877)

And Proview OWNS the trademark and has DENIED that its Taiwan affiliate had the rights to sell the trademark for use in mainland China.

Their own emails, presented in the court case in Taiwan, established that they are lying about this.

Re:Deja Vu (1, Troll)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#39100033)

Thats the second time you have said that, got any links to that "evidence", as its the first time I have heard it....

Re:Deja Vu (4, Informative)

sribe (304414) | more than 2 years ago | (#39100223)

Thats the second time you have said that, got any links to that "evidence", as its the first time I have heard it....

Oh, come, on. It's been reported all over the place--maybe you're just tuning out anything that contradicts your "evil Apple" preconceptions. 30 seconds with google turns up plenty of references. Here's one. [allthingsd.com]

Re:Deja Vu (1)

andydread (758754) | more than 2 years ago | (#39100349)

You probably won't see it in Apple friendly press because they don't want you to know that part. However if you read other press such as computerworld then you will see it. But since your probably don't I will post a link and quote it there.

Here is the link you requested. http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9224409/Apple_threatens_to_sue_Chinese_firm_in_iPad_trademark_dispute [computerworld.com]

and here is the relevant quote

"Monday's letter was sent just days after Proview's founder Yang held a press conference and said the trademark rights were never transferred because Apple had bought them from a Taiwan subsidiary company, and not from Proview itself."

Re:Deja Vu (1)

asdf7890 (1518587) | more than 2 years ago | (#39100081)

And Proview OWNS the trademark and has DENIED that its Taiwan affiliate had the rights to sell the trademark for use in mainland China.

At this point couldn't Apple turn around and sue the Taiwan office for selling something it didn't have, finish off the company with that legal battle (as they are already close being shut down duw to debt) and buy the trademark in the resulting fire-sale?

They know Proview (Taiwan) had no right to sell them that trademark, Proview have stated this in a court of law (presumably under oath though I know little of the Chinese legal system but I assume they have concepts equivalent to out oaths and purgery laws), so they should have a fairly string case (again, assuming that my assumptions of the Chinese legal system are close to correct).

Re:Deja Vu (1)

xeno314 (661565) | more than 2 years ago | (#39100515)

Assuming business orgs are similar to what they are in the U.S., suing the Taiwan office wouldn't kill the company, just that division. Companies typically protect themselves against that sort of liability where possible, particularly when you get to international and/or not strictly controlled by home base offices.

Even if it *did* kill the company or the branch that owns the trademark, Apple really doesn't want that. Most likely, the trademark would then go up for sale with the rest of the company's assets, and you can bet Apple would have to pay far more when they're bidding against any companies that wanted to buy it for resale to Apple.

I see what they're doing, and I get it, but they're probably better off paying the ransom to end this and making damn sure their lawyers get airtight agreements for trademarks next time around.

Re:Deja Vu (1)

shaitand (626655) | more than 2 years ago | (#39100657)

The Taiwan company is another company. One that apparently doesn't have the trademark rights, so if you bankrupted them that doesn't bankrupt the Chinese company and they Taiwanese edition can't fire sale a trademark they don't own.

Turn around is a biatch (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39099647)

looks like Apple should have patented the concept of Suing the competiton out of business.

A landmark humanatarian decision! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39099649)

Saving all those people from losing their organs for an iPad3.

Move? (4, Insightful)

busyqth (2566075) | more than 2 years ago | (#39099653)

I wonder what would happen if Apple told Foxconn to transition their work to another country (say India) within 18 months.

Re:Move? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39099697)

it would lock out apple from the chinese market - which is bigger than the us one....

Re:Move? (5, Insightful)

El Torico (732160) | more than 2 years ago | (#39099705)

Foxconn would laugh, continue to make the iCrap, and sell it under their own (or Proview's) brand. Outsourcing to China by the US has created a new economic superpower/monster that doesn't need the US any more.

Re:Move? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39099783)

You are a complete idiot.

I love how people post opinion as fact.

Re:Move? (1)

El Torico (732160) | more than 2 years ago | (#39100885)

Read my sig. You're one of the blind that would crucify me given the chance.
You don't think China is an economic superpower? You're the idiot.
You think they need the US? You're arrogant too. The US isn't even China's largest trading partner now; it's the EU.

Re:Move? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39100025)

That would last for all of a few months to a year before they're no longer are capable of making the actual products and instead are just making outdated stuff or knock-offs, and there is no Chinese appliance computer maker with the design (both industrial and GUI) skills of Apple. Generally, if you buy knock-off electronics, well, they're of knock-off quality -- i.e., shitty. Your idea doesn't seem like a long-term plan for continued revenues.

Re:Move? (2)

El Torico (732160) | more than 2 years ago | (#39101009)

I recall people saying the same thing about Japan and then about South Korea. The Chinese should not be underestimated.
Foxconn might take a hit if they blatantly screwed over Apple, but I find it extremely unlikely that Cisco, HP, Vizio, Toshiba, and the rest of Foxconn's customers would wean themselves off of that low cost producer. One or two might, but only if they either thought long term or found an even lower cost producer.

Re:Move? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39100049)

Are you positing that China's economy would not be severely compromised if the U.S. no longer imported the products made in China? I'm not an economist, but that sounds illogical.

Re:Move? (1)

El Torico (732160) | more than 2 years ago | (#39100807)

I didn't say that China wouldn't be affected by a US ban on their imports, but they wouldn't sink into a depression either. If the US cut of all trade with China, both countries would suffer. China would suffer increased unemployment and there may be a knock on effect of popping their real estate bubble. On the other hand, the US would suffer even more inflation. Bear in mind that China runs trade surpluses with the EU, Japan, and probably a host of other countries (I'm still looking for a comprehensive list). I'm living in the Middle East right now and I see stores loaded with products made in (wait for it) China. Yes, Chinese domestic spending can't sustain their economy, but it doesn't have to. They have plenty of exports even without the US.
As for technological sophistication, does anyone truly believe that the Chinese are somehow incapable of learning to innovate? That's both racist and incredibly stupid.

Re:Move? (2)

gutnor (872759) | more than 2 years ago | (#39100075)

Yes - they produce but don't consume enough to keep their production level. So the problem is not as clear cut as you think. China need the US and the rest of the Western World to be wealthy enough to fund China rise to power, and once they have risen to power, they will just be another Japan. So when it is rough for the US, it is also rough for China. The difference is that rough in the US means people losing stuff, and rough in China means conditions not improving for people that have already nothing.

Re:Move? (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 2 years ago | (#39100117)

Especially once we've given them all the designs.

Re:Move? (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#39100147)

Yup. There's nothing unprecedented in what you assert. Chinese companies and the Chinese government have done this numerous times with various imported technologies. They lure these large businesses in with cheap labor and manufacturing and once the technology arrives, they shut them down and start making it for themselves.

Re:Move? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39100225)

Foxconn would laugh, continue to make the iCrap, and sell it under their own (or Proview's) brand.

And sell it where? China is certainly a huge market, but do you think they'd sell the same number—especially if the device doesn't have iOS?

And what do you think would happen with the rest of their customers when they see that Foxconn has ripped off one? Do you think they'd get contract many contract renewals, or would the rest of their customers start moving to their competitors?

Outsourcing to China by the US has created a new economic superpower/monster that doesn't need the US any more.

The domestic Chinese market is big, and certainly growing. But the Chinese have chosen a mostly export-based economy, and if foreign companies decide to stop making cheap crap there, China is going to have a lot of unemployed, unhappy people taking to the streets IMHO. People are happy to give up political liberties in exchange for the promise that the government will give them economic improvement. Woe onto them who don't provide is.

Re:Move? (1)

shaitand (626655) | more than 2 years ago | (#39100683)

What makes you think the device wouldn't have iOS?

Re:Move? (1)

andydread (758754) | more than 2 years ago | (#39099775)

Nothing. This has nothing to do with Foxconn. Apple would still not be able to SELL ipads in Mainland China that's point here. Has nothing to do with manufacturing.

Re:Move? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39099795)

That's apple's only move if they lose and things go south in China.

I don't think India is the right choice though. They're already too expensive. If apple could move into india, they could build them anywhere.

Re:Move? (4, Interesting)

Necroman (61604) | more than 2 years ago | (#39099907)

Doubtful. While I have not directly worked with manufacturing of goods from Apac countries, I have heard many stories from people that do.

China is an ideal place to manufacture goods for a number of reasons. The biggest I've seen are infrastructure and cost. On the infrastructure side, China invest a lot of money over the last 20 years to build a great transport system to move goods around the country. This makes it easier for small components suppliers to get their goods to manufacturers, which can then easily get their goods to major transport hubs to leave the country (be it a port or airport). The second major reason is cost. The Chinese government doesn't impose large fees when it comes to exporting goods from their country; combine this with cheap labor and its a great place to manufacture goods.

On the flip side there is India. This country has a horrible infrastructure. Just ask anyone what it is like getting around that country. Transport of goods from inland cities to a port or major airport is expensive and near impossible for larger items (like cars). On top of that, I believe India charges a large amount to export goods from their country. This is why India has become a hub for desk workers (phone centers, programmers, whatever) rather than a manufacturing country.

Re:Move? (1)

Ryanrule (1657199) | more than 2 years ago | (#39100623)

Chinese infrastructure isnt rainbows and puppies either. Clean water is a real issue, and brownouts in manufacturing are REALLY bad. And either country, you have to have a pretty fat graft/bribe budget if you want to succeed as well. "The Chinese government doesn't impose large fees when it comes to exporting goods from their country" Uh, what?

Re:Move? (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#39100115)

I think in the event they lose on appeal, They will rename the device "for use in China" and be done with it. The WalMart prices on labor in China is too important to Apple. There are all sorts of ways Apple could rename it that would make it even more appealing to the Chinese... "The people's pad"? "Ai-Pad"? "iTab" and lots more than I can think of with my limited imagination. And it wouldn't be the first time we have seen a product change its name when sold in another country. What's the deal with the Canon Kiss versus the Canon Rebel cameras? They are essentially the same camera series. And for the longest time, Nissan was known as Datsun in the U.S. There's probably thousands of examples of this sort of thing for various reasons and purposes.

This should be interesting... (1)

alispguru (72689) | more than 2 years ago | (#39099815)

Chinese nationalism vs. Chinese gadget lust

The immovable object meets the irresistible force - get your tickets now!

Ironic (0)

riverat1 (1048260) | more than 2 years ago | (#39099869)

How ironic considering that iPad's are made in China.

Intermediate People's Court? (1)

ddd0004 (1984672) | more than 2 years ago | (#39099951)

Don't worry Judge Wapner will over turn this in the Supreme People's Court.

Shoe is on the other foot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39099981)

This is exactly the kind of world Apple has been trying to create nearly its' entire existence. Apple should be ecstatic.

For those who feel inclined... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39099987)

Violins available. Please take one: . . . . . . . . . . .

Wapner. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39099995)

4:30.

This is just precious (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#39100019)

I have never before seen such a global scale legal war over a class of products. Usually, before things get this big, someone works out a deal. But Apple is simply vicious. Even if the businesses which Apple attacks are licensed or otherwise permitted under law, they find ways to legally destroy competition. The Fanklin Ace (which later became the Apple IIe) was the first thing I bore witness to in this regard. Psystar was a clever way to sell "Apple Compatibles" and should have been completely legal... they probably would have prevailed if they had a legal staff like Google's. And before anyone chimes in about the Franklin saying "Franklin was licensed to make a compatible, but not to make one that's BETTER" is just full of crap. If I am licensed to make, say, an Intel x86 compatible chip and then I enhance it the way AMD did when they created the default standard for 64 bit instructions, it is perfectly legal to do so. Intel, of course, did not like the competition leading the way as they did in the AMD 64 bit processor incident, but they handled it better than Apple has. The fact was, Apple didn't want another company to lead the way for them or, in other words, out-innovate them.

But to watch this globally fought war where Apple creates more enemies than they can handle is just amazing to me and will certainly result in volumes of books on this story in the next 10 years. We live in interesting times...

Re:This is just precious (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39100445)

Is this Tim Cook's way of saying "I suck at this since I ain't good at designing, innovation and creating products but if I sue everyone and make sure every patent belongs to me, then Apple will still be #1 in the market since I will monopolize."

It might be harsh to say that but this is what I get as a message from the ceo of Apple. To me, his reputation is very low...and frankly, i don't like apple's business. Like it or not, if your a big name in a sector you should set an example to others. This is what he's doing right now. I can't say he started it but lately, its patent suing after patent suing after court orders and all. It's getting out of control. Instead of innovation, its suing time.

Re:This is just precious (3, Informative)

sribe (304414) | more than 2 years ago | (#39100493)

Good lord, what a load of crap to get modded insightful!

And before anyone chimes in about the Franklin saying "Franklin was licensed to make a compatible, but not to make one that's BETTER" is just full of crap.

Franklin did not have a license from Apple for anything at all. They just copied Apple's ROMs and OS on the theory that copyright would not apply, and they lost that gamble in court.

Psystar was a clever way to sell "Apple Compatibles" and should have been completely legal... they probably would have prevailed if they had a legal staff like Google's.

Well, if Psystar had sold "OS X ready" machines with instructions on how to get OS X installed and running, they might have been OK. But instead they modified OS X and sold the modified versions. Regardless of whether or not you think this should be legal, it clearly is not.

Re:This is just precious (3, Informative)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 2 years ago | (#39100641)

Franklin did not have a license from Apple for anything at all. They just copied Apple's ROMs and OS on the theory that copyright would not apply, and they lost that gamble in court.

The only licensed use was Bell and Howell's Apple II clone. You can find them around (they're in black cases).

Franklin's case is a bit muddy since Franklin claimed that since Apple published the schematics and ROM listing, they were free to take it and build their own. Which of course isn't true (otherwise it would doom Open Source as well - publishing the source code allows anyone to take it? No GPL advocate would go for that)

Well, if Psystar had sold "OS X ready" machines with instructions on how to get OS X installed and running, they might have been OK. But instead they modified OS X and sold the modified versions. Regardless of whether or not you think this should be legal, it clearly is not.

The other thing is the whole Hackintosh community was also against Psystar - they had to change their licensing of all the tools required from some freeware to explicitly "no commercial use allowed".

Anyhow, back on topic - the ProView "iPad" was actually an iMac-styled (this was back in 2000, remember, so it was the bulbuous one) appliance computer. Not even a tablet - just an iMac ripoff design for an internet appliance.

(Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/02/18/proviews-ipad-was-it-an-imac-or-an-ipaq/ [forbes.com] images (marketing materials from Proview): http://micgadget.com/22151/proview-has-manufactured-20000-%E2%80%98ipad%E2%80%99-devices-this-is-what-it-looks-like/ [micgadget.com] ). Funny, apparently Compaq would have a much better claim against Apple with the iPaq...

Re:This is just precious (3, Informative)

sribe (304414) | more than 2 years ago | (#39100997)

The other thing is the whole Hackintosh community was also against Psystar - they had to change their licensing of all the tools required from some freeware to explicitly "no commercial use allowed".

Yes, Psystar lied multiple times about the source of the bootloader modifications. They did not just rip off Apple, they ripped off open source software as well, without attribution. Their stories about almost everything they did kept changing throughout the court case--lose on one issue, change the story about what they're doing to something else and try again was their mode of operation throughout the whole case.

Re:This is just precious (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39100587)

Is this just a rant you've had sitting around on your computer and got a little desperate to use? Because what you're describing has pretty much fuck all to do with this article, except that it hits on the keywords Apple and IP. Proview has nothing to do with any of the lawsuits Apple has brought; it's just a bankrupt company who is pulling a desperate move to try to get money from Apple after having already sold them the rights. The company leader's reasoning for the suit is:

Yang said the company had been developing a tablet product called the iPad back in 2000.

"We spent a lot of resources on it. It's the same concept as the iPad today, except that back then, there were practically no LCD screens,"

That's right. They developed a product called the iPad that's almost exactly like the iPad, except that they never actually made it, much less sold it. Somehow, when screens became available... well, golly, I guess they just plumb fergot.
 
Proview at this point are a new breed: a trademark troll.

Re:This is just precious (3)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#39100667)

If Psystar's selling of OS X against the licence (ie, free to ignore Apple's software licence at will for commercial gain) was ruled legal then the effect on things like the GPL would be catastrophic.

If one company is free to ignore a software licence and has been backed up by a court in such an enterprise, then what chance does the GPL have? Psystar could have rolled up some GPL code into their distribution, modified it and refused to release changes. How is that any different to wilfully ignoring Apple's licence terms for OS X?

Just because you disagree with them? That lawsuit affected all licences.

They could have released a machine that was 99% of what they had, just with no copy of OS X provided and they would have been fine (they're essentially selling a normal PC at this point). What you can't do commercially is sell OS X running on non-Apple hardware unless you're Apple themselves and you release it under a different licence.

Litigation come home to roost ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39100021)

Could this be Chinese retribution ? Could this be Android device makers protecting products they want to manufacture and sell worldwide without being sued in every market that Apple claims as their own ? Hmmm. Be careful who you sue because it could be your best customer.

bad karma for bad apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39100201)

I'm pleased that Apple is now on the receiving end of the lawsuits they keep filing against other companies. Granted, this one is trademark rather than patent, but still it warms my heart to see sales of their products banned. Sadly, I doubt it will change their strategy with other [Android] mobile phone makers

Who's Directing This? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39100207)

(Posting AC because I'm at work)

I would be curious to know who's directing these shenanigans by Proview. Given that Proview sold the trademark rights to Apple (please, don't buy into the garbage that it was a subsidiary that didn't have the rights to blah blah blah - shenanigans!!), this entirely smacks of an effort orchestrated by someone else. While it could just be Proview attempting to salvage their failing business with some phat cash from Apple (they certainly wouldn't be the first to pull such a stunt), it seems more likely (in today's business climate...) that someone is pulling Proview's strings in an effort to hurt Apple/help their own efforts. I have some guesses but they're just that - guesses. I'd be curious to find out who is actually behind this.

Timing is everything (1)

jesseck (942036) | more than 2 years ago | (#39100267)

I wonder, with this lawsuit gaining ground recently, did Proview not realize that Apple has been using the iPad trademark for years until now? And this started up around the same time as Apple was investigating conditions at its component manufacturer's sites and popular media jumped on the story. Is this China's way of retaliating to Apple and the US media? I find it hard to think that a Chinese corporation could sue Apple without the involvement the Party.

Re:Timing is everything (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#39100675)

No, it's Proview's attempt to make some money - they're in financial trouble now and are looking for a fast buck.

Re:Timing is everything (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39101103)

Not really ... Proview has been fuzzing about this for a long time now ... Courts moves slowly

And yet where are they made? (1)

Karmashock (2415832) | more than 2 years ago | (#39100303)

So many of these companies just need to diversify manufacturing out of china so they're not so dependent. It would also give them leverage. China is in a great position to dictate terms and few companies have a means to respond.

Apple will argue: Taiwan is part of China! (1)

PythonM (2184020) | more than 2 years ago | (#39100447)

Chinese government says the Taiwan is part of China. The trademark in Taiwan is owned by Apple. Will Apple fight to make 9/10 of its workforce happy representing Chinease interests around the world?

See this is why they have to manufacture in China (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39100803)

Because the US is just way too anti-business!

So...don't sell there. (3, Insightful)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 2 years ago | (#39100925)

Take the iPad out of China; sell it in all the surrounding countries. Anybody know what the sales number is for iPads in mainland China? Apple can take the Chinese strategy of just "wait them out." It's not like the iPad market is going to live or die on Chinese sales, and they're already worried about meeting demand for iPads every time a new one pops up.

Meanwhile, get an agent to pursue purchase of the assets of the nearly defunct ProView.

Not a problem (2, Informative)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 2 years ago | (#39100937)

FoxxConn is already producing their own fPad for sale in China. It is half the price of an iPad and looks, and runs exactly like an iPad.

Chinese 420 scam? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39101203)

One of the emails from Proview states..."As you know my company is an international company and it always keep to its promise. I can also promise you my company will sign the country assignment after you pay the money."

The only thing missing is, ...Please send the money western union...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...