Proview: Apple is Offering Us a Settlement Over “iPad” Trademark

| News

Apple vs. Proview

Following news late last month that Proview and Apple, both wary of continuing the protracted litigation over the use of the “iPad” trademark in China, had begun settlement negotiations, Apple has reportedly tabled a settlement offer to the failing Asian company, according to statements made to China’s government news service Xinhua by Proview attorney Xie Xianghui.

“We feel that the attitude of Apple Inc. has changed. Although they expressed that they were willing to negotiate, they have never taken any action before. But now, they are having conversations with us, and we have begun to consult on the case,” Mr. Xie said in an interview with Xinhua on Sunday.

Without disclosing further details, Mr. Xie claimed that Apple has tabled a settlement offer but that, thus far, Proview has not agreed to the deal.

The case dates back to Proview’s trademark in China of the term “IPAD” in 2000, long before Apple had envisioned its future product of the same name. In 2009, in preparation for the iPad’s launch the following year, Apple purchased the rights to the name from Proview via a third party company in Taiwan.

After the successful launch of the iPad, when Proview discovered that it had actually sold the rights to Apple, the company claimed that the deal did not cover trademark rights in mainland China.

Apple sued in 2010 but eventually lost the case in a late 2011 ruling. The Cupertino company appealed the case early this year, arguing that relevant documents and other information had been hidden or mischaracterized by Proview.

While the appeal is still underway in the Guangdong High Court, Apple’s initial loss, statements by Chinese government officials supporting Proview’s legal position, and Apple’s reluctance to sell the iPad in China until the dispute is resolved have likely encouraged Apple to seek a settlement, despite firmly believing that Proview cheated the company the first time around.

[via The Next Web]

Sign Up for the Newsletter

Join the TMO Express Daily Newsletter to get the latest Mac headlines in your e-mail every weekday.

Comments

CJ

You know that the MacObserver is published in the US, correct? So we use US English here. Which is why the above piece is so confusing. It states that Apple has tabled a settlement offer. In British English, that means that they put it on the table for consideration. In US English, that means that they postponed consideration.

Did the original piece maybe come from a European source?

Gary

You know that the MacObserver is published in the US, correct? So we use US English here.

How very high and mighty of you.  But MO publishes to an international audience.

And you wonder why “American English” is often mocked, for its corruptions and misunderstandings of “proper” English!  :-p

OldMorris

In US English, that means that they postponed consideration.

Actually this is the common use in US English.

To table, present for consideration, is also used in US English although less common.

In world English both definitions are also used but in reverse order. OS the article seems correct regardless.

BurmaYank

”...the above piece is so confusing. It states that Apple has tabled a settlement offer. In British English, that means that they put it on the table for consideration. In US English, that means that they postponed consideration.”

Spot on question!

“Actually this is the common use in US English.
To table, present for consideration, is also used in US English although less common.”

Is that so? Well, in my 60+ years of US English usage (several decades of it at the graduate level), I don’t EVER recall having encountered that purportedly “...less common use in US English”, and so, I would assume this article’s use of that phrase implies, in the US, actually the opposite of what the (presumably Yankee) author intended.

geoduck

I was watching TopGear (UK) this weekend. They were doing a piece on the Chinese auto industry. In part they showed a number of blatant copies of European cars, Mini, BMW, SmartCar, etc., all bolt for bolt copies of others designs. They mentioned that BMW even sued one company that had was selling a duplicate of one of their models. The court ruled against BMW even though the car was a clear rip off.

Yes Apple, settle this. I hate to say it but you may very well end up paying far more in a Chinese court no matter how solid your case is.

OldMorris

Is that so? Well, in my 60+ years of US English usage (several decades of it at the graduate level), I don?t EVER recall having encountered that purportedly ?...less common use in US English?,

Well, ok good for you. I don’t have the same experience, perhaps your jargon spectrum includes all US English… perhaps not. smile

furbies

And for good measure, colour is spelt with a “u”

But back on topic, the Chinese political & judicial systems are not what we in the west would describe as mostly free of corruption. Just look at the reports of regional & remote party officials illegally taking land for private development. And look at the court persecutions of those who raise such issues.

geoduck

Chinese political & judicial systems are not what we in the west would describe as mostly free of corruption.

I would not be surprised if the political embarrassment over Chen Guangcheng taking refuge in the US Embassy last week could very well influence the court to rule against Apple (a US company) this week.

PSMacintosh

Yes, I found the “tabling” language to be very confusing as well!
In fact, I had to read down into the comments to figure out “which direction” Apple was actually proceeding with this suit—that Apple was actually making and presenting an offer to Proview (that horrible, little, extorting company!).
I always thought that the connotation of “tabling” was that the matter (in this case, an Offer) was being PUT DOWN and PUT OUT OF CONSIDERATION, not that it was being presented for consideration.
To me, “tabling” is similar to “being shelved”, being “put at the bottom of the pile,” or being “dropped” from active consideration.
Taking it up from the table would signify that it was going to get some attention.  Tabling, the opposite.
So, obviously, some people use their table differently than I do my tables.
In the US, if I were in important negotiations with someone, I certainly would NOT say that I was “tabling their offer.” I expect them to think that I was conveying that I was taking their offer OUT OF ACTIVE AND IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION.  Maybe not actually saying NO to it at that moment, but certainly not moving it into active consideration and forward.
So where did my strongly-ingrained understanding/belief of the concept come from? 
Could so many of us commenters here, be so wrong?
I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that “tabling” has its root in some sort of English Parliamentary procedure that does actually mean “putting forth for consideration,” but, in American practice, that idea has been very lost.  Putting papers on the table (with the exception of the mental image of passing them out and around) gives more of a connotation of taking them OUT OF ONE’S HANDS and getting rid of them, as in burying them under a stack of papers and putting them ASIDE.
Regardless of whom is more correct in their language usage here, I can confirm that it was truly confusing and unclear to many of us—was Apple actively making an offer or retreating from such a concept.
Now I get it, Apple made an offer. (Personally, I wish that they hadn’t. Don’t sell iPads in China….and let the pressure build!)

Log-in to comment