Chinese Court Orders Ban On Apple's iPad 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.'"
Deja Vu (Score:5, Interesting)
"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: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Yes Mr Ray Mai and I are located in Shenzhen. But trademark is not belong to Shenzhen company but Taiwan company. That the reason why we chose the meeting location in Taiwan.
The Shenzhen company definitely own the trademark for China, not the Taiwan holding company.
Apple acknowledges that there was a mistake and the trademark for China was not owned by the Taiwan holding company but believe the agreement was made with the full consent of the owner of the trademark and the owner of the trademark had deliberately set out to decieve them (corporate hypocracy considering Apple was us
Re: (Score:2)
The list of countries included in the transaction clearly includes China (Schedule A) and the deal was signed off by Proview's legal consul from the mainland Chinese office in Shenzhen (Ray Mai.)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 l
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:3, Funny)
looks like Apple should have patented the concept of Suing the competiton out of business.
Re: (Score:2)
Move? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
it would lock out apple from the chinese market - which is bigger than the us one....
Re:Move? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
What makes you think the device wouldn't have iOS?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re:Move? (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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 t
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Report: Apple Has Opened a New iPad Factory in Brazil http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2392962,00.asp [pcmag.com]
The drama continues... (Score:2)
http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=29390955 [slashdot.org]
This should be interesting... (Score:2)
Chinese nationalism vs. Chinese gadget lust
The immovable object meets the irresistible force - get your tickets now!
Timing is everything (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's Proview's attempt to make some money - they're in financial trouble now and are looking for a fast buck.
And yet where are they made? (Score:2)
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.
See this is why they have to manufacture in China (Score:2)
So...don't sell there. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
An international conglomerate give up a potential share of the market without a fight?
Bwahaahahhahahha!
Not a problem (Score:3, Informative)
That's okay (Score:2)
The Chinese will still just sell cheap knockoffs "iiPadds" to one another like they do abroad.
fine ban the iPad (Score:2)
I hear foxconn has a couple
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
That's all well and good, except for the fact that they paid for the trade mark.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
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: (Score:3)
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Hypocrisy, maybe. But, at least 60% of our "intellectual property" is unethical bullshit.
Slide to unlock, anyone?
Re:Good (Score:4, Interesting)
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 real driver here seems to be mainland Chinese banks had loans to Proview, and Proview wanted to declare bankruptcy. If that is the end of it, Chinese banks (aka Chinese government) will lose money. If mainland Chinese courts are told to find for Proview and award billions of dollars, the loans are paid off or mitigated with Apple money.
Welcome to business in a country without rule of law.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Ahhh, history repeating itself all over the globe? Not that long ago the US were doing exactly that with European "intellectual property", blatantly ignoring patents and copyrights whenever it suited them. Rather hypocritical indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how many Yuan it will take to "show" that...
$10 million and they can buy iPad from Proview China [sfgate.com] "A Hong Kong court document shows that once the dispute arose, Proview demanded $10 million for the iPad name in China."
10 million is what, about what Apple makes in an hour? [msn.com] Just pay it.
Re: (Score:2)
Because extortion is always ok as long as the victim can afford it, and in no way encourages someone else to try the same trick again once you make known you'd rather pay an fight. Right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because extortion is always ok as long as the victim can afford it, and in no way encourages someone else to try the same trick again once you make known you'd rather pay an fight. Right?
Right.
What's fair and what's cheapest isn't always the same. Is it fair what they're doing? Maybe, maybe not, but the fastest and cheapest way out of this is just pay the 10 million and call it a day.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Apple bought iPad from Proview: [reuters.com] "Apple says it bought Proview's worldwide rights to the trademark in 10 different countries several years ago, including rights to the iPad name from a Taiwan subsidiary of Proview International. Back then, the Proview Taiwan unit had sold the rights to IP Application Development Ltd, a London-based company that was set up by Apple, for 35,000 pounds, Proview's executives and lawyers said."
If your wife sells the family car, and you realize later the car's been sold, i th
Re: (Score:2)
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," Yang said. LOL an iPad with no LCD? How the hell would that work?
Well, He said practically no LCDs. There were definitely LCDs around in 2000. This may also be a translation issue and he was suggesting that lack of availability of LCDs is what stopped them from proceeding.
Re: (Score:2)
If your wife sells the family car, and you realize later the car's been sold, i think that's between you and your wife, not the buyer's fault.
But this is not a family car. This is a system where you and your wife live apart in two countries under different legal systems, and those legal systems don't recognise any concept of joint ownership, but do recognise that you each have an individual property right in that country. Transnational corporations do not have joint ownership of property.
It's more like: "If your brother registers a trademark in one country, and you register the same trademark in another, then your brother licenses his trademar
Re:Good (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Good (Score:4, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually just the opposite. Taiwan doesn't consider itself part of China, while China considers Taiwan another province, completely owned and controlled by China.
Saying that contracts in Taiwan don't apply in mainland China would be like saying that Taiwan is NOT a part of China, but an independent state, or some sort of autonomous zone, which is NOT what China has historically claimed, nor is the official position of the government.
Re:Good (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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 C
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
But if I bought the TV at Best Buy, paid the man in the blue shirt at the register and got a receipt for it, you can't realistically charge me with receiving stolen property if it turns out the cashier was manipulating the register on his day off and just pocketed the money.
Apple isn't claiming they bought it off the back of a truck from some guy, they claim to have done due dilligence and they did actually buy it from a company that should have had legal rights to transfer the rights in several jurisdictions. Proview Taiwan and Proview PRC aren't two companies with the same name, there's a real corporate link between the two.
Either Proview Taiwan fraudulently misrepresented the fact they had been empowered to sell on behalf of their parent company, or once Proview realized who really bought the trademark they figured they let it go too cheap and could extort a bit more money for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(*especially* in China of all places!)
I find that amusing. Legality and morality have little in common here in the US of A.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Typically when you buy worldwide rights, it applies to the entire world, no?
If Apple really did get what they thouight they'd bought, it was still only the rights to the trademark in the 10 countries that the Taiwanese subsidiary claimed was theirs to sell. So not worldwide rights then.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you suggesting that wives don't have the ability to sell a family car?
Under some legal systems, no, they don't. If your legal system doesn't recognise joint ownership of property (which is the case for international corporate law) then one person obviously does not have the right to sell the property of another.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
"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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pads of paper are rare these days. In my office, we have A5 notebook or rheems for the printer. Even though I'm male, there's quite likely a few sanitary pads stashed in my apartment somewhere (by my girlfriend), though I doubt if I have any traditional notepads.
It could be a dialectic thing, in Australian English a "notepad" explicitly refers to a book of tear off foolscap sheets bound with glue at the top and there really isn't any other name for those woman's things but simply "pads". I can't remember w
Re: (Score:2)
They are both subsidiaries of the same company.
Which means very little under international law. There is no joint ownership of property. That's one of the points of using an international limited liability corporation in the first place..
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
There are a bunch of emails from court documents on allthingsd. One email says that the Taiwan division actually owns the iPad trademark, not the Shenzhen office. This email is from people in the Shenzhen office (second one down)
http://allthingsd.com/20120216/take-a-look-at-some-of-apples-evidence-in-proview-ipad-dispute [allthingsd.com]
Further down the page is the list of countries included in the contract. China is clearly listed.
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
And the company that OWNS the trademark denies that the company that SOLD it had the right to do so.
Re:Good (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
"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: (Score:2)
"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.
They weren't just affiliates, unlike an advertiser and content provider. They were actually subsidiaries of the same multi-national. This actually is closer to Sony USA and Sony Japan, and yes, if one arm of Sony contracted to sell rights, in many cases, it can be deemed to be acting as an agent of the rest of Sony and the rest of the subsidiaries may be bound by the sale.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you read the emails in the court documents? There are Proview representatives from the mainland Chinese division (Shenzen) giving the sale the go-ahead, even saying that payment should go to Proview.
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
"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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
It's not dishonest nor dishonorable - it's done all the time.
Think about it - Proview sold the iPad trademark for around $50,000. Why should the value of that trademark be worth more if Apple was buying it? The ability of Apple to pay more has no bearing on the worth of the mark - only in what Proview might ask for.
Think about the flip side - a used car dealer sizing people up based on how they dress. If you wear jeans and a T-Shirt you get one price, if you wear a suit and dress shoes you get another price
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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".
The article doesn't say that. The article says "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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
"So when you pay for something, it's stolen?"
The legal term is, I believe, "Possession of stolen property". And, yes, there are probably tens of thousands of people in our prison system whose greatest crimes were "possession of stolen property". If it's a big enough item, then they were probably also charged with grand theft.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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:This is just precious (Score:4, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
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)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
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 (Score:4)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The GPL and Apple's license are quite different. The GPL grants you freedoms that you did not legally have. Apple's license tries to restrict your legal freedoms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't matter - it's *up to Apple* how it licenses its software, just as it's up to any individual developer how they licence their code - GPL/BSD/Apache/Proprietary/Other etc.
It doesn't matter if you disagree with it, it's their choice, and if it's legal for a commercial entity to ignore Apple's software licence then the same applies to any other software licence. As it happens, the legal decision went the right way. If you hate Apple then consider that a necessary evil that they "won" - the real vic
Re: (Score:2)
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.
No, the point in question is that there are some things that are legal to do in licenses, and some things that are not. For example, you can not sell yourself in slavery, no matter what kind of license or contract you accept. Any such contract is non-binding in American law, you can feel completely free to ignore it.
- The GPL gives you more freedom than is required by law. It is normal to not allow licensees to create and distribute derivative works, but the GPL gives you that freedom. They must give you