On the Nature of Things | Forum

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90778/7720979.html

But Proview Shenzhen thinks that the deal in 2009 does not include the right to use the “iPad” trademark on the Chinese mainland. In April 2010, Proview Shenzhen asked Apple Inc to stop the infringement and compensate for the losses. But Apple Inc ignored the requests and continued the sales of its iPad products. In July 2010, Apple Inc and IP Application Development filed a lawsuit against Proview Shenzhen, but the recent court verdict found that the Shenzhen affiliate is not bound by the 2009 deal.

Once the iPad trademark infringement is verified, Apple Inc will face large sum of fines.

That wheel is a motherfucker, ain't it? Just keeps going 'round and 'round ...

noddy wrote:http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90778/7720979.html

But Proview Shenzhen thinks that the deal in 2009 does not include the right to use the “iPad” trademark on the Chinese mainland. In April 2010, Proview Shenzhen asked Apple Inc to stop the infringement and compensate for the losses. But Apple Inc ignored the requests and continued the sales of its iPad products. In July 2010, Apple Inc and IP Application Development filed a lawsuit against Proview Shenzhen, but the recent court verdict found that the Shenzhen affiliate is not bound by the 2009 deal.

Once the iPad trademark infringement is verified, Apple Inc will face large sum of fines.

Thank you Very Much for your post, Noddy.

Sounds like this is another of the Fox Con Jobs

Like that Apple products made in China are "American"................

Got to be careful of those Asian Foxes............. Can turn out to be Dragon Ladies or Boyz.............

Can really Badger you with their thieving Raccoon tricks ..... Can end going to the Dogs if not careful ..............

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_jobs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitsune

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanuki

to be honest, cant see any difference between this and trademarking words like "windows" and "apples" and "mcdonalds" ..

http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ulti ... 000971;p=0

america made this bed, hope its comfy.

noddy wrote:to be honest, cant see any difference between this and trademarking words like "windows" and "apples" and "mcdonalds" ..

http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ulti ... 000971;p=0

america made this bed, hope its comfy.

Thank you Very Much for your post, Noddy.

Got a chuckle from the link.......

In the spirit of Weird Al Yankovic and Elemental School children:

McDonalds is your type of place
They sell you rattlesnakes
French Fries between your toes
Hamburger up your nose

to be 100% clear, im not 100% clear when it comes to trademark/intellectual property protection!

for trademarks i think that the argument that these companies "own the branding and mindshare" of these words actually contradicts their ability to reuse existing words... how come they dont owe "society" for the pre-existing branding/mindshare of a word like "apple" or "window" which they exploit by choosing it !


with intellectual property its perhaps a sympton of having a lateral thinking/pattern based viewpoint.. the lines in the sand between "variation on a theme" and "groundbreaking new work" seem awfully dependant on levels of knowledge and the background of the person having an opinion... so much so that i mostly think that its purely a anti competitive system that rewards the people with the most lawyers.

if i do something really tricky and groundbreaking i already have the advantage of being first to market and the advantage of understanding the problem space before anyone else, giving me a headstart on the next innovation... i dont think the legal system is required to give me more advantages, i would only need that if my "innovation" was easily replicated by others from design principles... aka, its just a variation on a theme.