4 ms·

“Their copyright infringement is very clear.” Wrong translation, wrong statement or different laws? Other than that: Boring.

by ugh 15y ago

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
tomp 15y ago
Correct translation, correct statement, same laws. The article describes a case of a Chinese company that registered the iPad trademark long before Apple used it. Apple bought it from this company, except for use in mainland China. Now, Apple is selling iPads under the name iPad in mainland China, so it's infringing on this Chinese company's trademark.
PakG1 15y ago
When I read the article, it actually seems a bit complicated and not so cut and dry. If foreign companies want to enter China, they need to obey Chinese law, especially when those laws aren't malicious, make sense, and are enforced correctly, even if the result is ludicrous. Any country should expect the same when a foreign company comes to compete within their shores. And in this particular case, it doesn't seem ludicrous. Here's a ludicrous example, a close cousin to domain name squatting: http://www.chinahearsay.com/coca-cola-plays-it-smart-in-its-ip-fight-with-nongfu-spring/ http://www.chinahearsay.com/coca-cola-plays-it-smart-in-its-... What Apple has going for it here is the fact that it has Foxconn as a key manufacturing partner, which is a huge employer in China. That may give it some political power. Who knows. In the end, $1.6b is chump change for Apple, and it may be worth it for them to just settle.
- pjin 15y ago
  What Apple has going for it here is the fact that it has Foxconn as a key manufacturing partner, which is a huge employer in China. That may give it some political power. Foxconn is a Taiwanese company. That doesn't count as "political power" in China.
  - czhiddy 15y ago
    Foxconn employs over a million Chinese citizens. They undoubtably have enormous amounts of guanxi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanxi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanxi) with all levels of the government, from local to national.
    - pjin 15y ago
      I am familiar with how China operates. Being close with the govt/CCP in China is standard practice. So you must also be aware that Foxconn has come under very intense media scrutiny in _China_ since a couple of years ago. Consider this sequence of events: [1] http://news.softpedia.com/news/Foxconn-Sues-Two-Journalists-for-Disclosing-the-Poor-Working-Conditions-34226.shtml http://news.softpedia.com/news/Foxconn-Sues-Two-Journalists-... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Chinese_labour_unrest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Chinese_labour_unrest [3] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/07/business/global/07foxconn.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/07/business/global/07foxconn.... Of course this observation doesn't depend on Foxconn being Taiwanese. But the two are not necessarily unrelated given the increasingly nationalist trajectory of Chinese policy. And more in response to the nature of Foxconn's guanxi with the govt, no amount of it can save Foxconn from uniform wage increases or increasingly negative _Chinese_ media coverage.
- nitrogen 15y ago
  Here's a ludicrous example, a close cousin to domain name squatting: http://www.chinahearsay.com/coca-cola-plays-it-smart-in-its-ip-fight-with-nongfu-spring/ http://www.chinahearsay.com/coca-cola-plays-it-smart-in-its-... It would be more useful if other bottles were included in the comparison. It doesn't matter if two brands of water bottle look alike, if all the other water bottles not pictured also look that way.
redthrowaway 15y ago
The article's pretty clear. Proview registered the iPad trademark in 2001, Apple licensed it for use outside of China in 2009, but then went on to use the trademark in mainland China without signing a licensing agreement. That's copyright infringement, plain and simple.
- ugh 15y ago
  That sounds a lot like trademark infringement, not copyright infringement.
  - redthrowaway 15y ago
    I'm far from an expert in Chinese law, but I could see the two being reasonably treated as equivalent.
    - dctoedt 15y ago
      Trademarks and copyrights aren't equivalent. I'm not licensed to practice in China, but from everything I've ever read, Chinese law [1] isn't so different (at this level) from that of other countries. TRADEMARKS: Generally speaking, a trademark is something that signifies or evokes a product provided, sponsored, or endorsed by a particular source. TRADEMARK EXAMPLES: * Word marks such as Apple and iPad; * Logos such as the apple logo; * Sounds such as the "Intel inside" sequence of notes; * Colors, even (sometimes) such as pink for Owens-Corning-brand attic insulation. (Trademarks are for products; service marks serve the same function for services.) In a sense, the "owner" of a trademark is really just its government-appointed custodian or guardian. (It's sort of like the old joke: Dogs have masters, cats have staff.) When a trademark owner enforces its rights against an infringer, what the owner is really doing is performing a public service, namely keeping the market free of marks that would be likely to confuse the public. COPYRIGHT: In contrast, copyright applies to original works of "authorship," regardless whether associated with a product or service. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property_in_the_Peoples_Republic_of_China#National_legal_framework http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property_in_the_Pe...

“Their copyright infringement is very clear.” Wrong translation, wrong statement or different laws? Other than that: Boring.

by ugh 15y ago

“Their copyright infringement is very clear.” Wrong translation, wrong statement or different laws? Other than that: Boring.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

tomp 15y ago

Correct translation, correct statement, same laws. The article describes a case of a Chinese company that registered the iPad trademark long before Apple used it. Apple bought it from this company, except for use in mainland China. Now, Apple is selling iPads under the name iPad in mainland China, so it's infringing on this Chinese company's trademark.

PakG1 15y ago

When I read the article, it actually seems a bit complicated and not so cut and dry. If foreign companies want to enter China, they need to obey Chinese law, especially when those laws aren't malicious, make sense, and are enforced correctly, even if the result is ludicrous. Any country should expect the same when a foreign company comes to compete within their shores. And in this particular case, it doesn't seem ludicrous. Here's a ludicrous example, a close cousin to domain name squatting: http://www.chinahearsay.com/coca-cola-plays-it-smart-in-its-ip-fight-with-nongfu-spring/ http://www.chinahearsay.com/coca-cola-plays-it-smart-in-its-... What Apple has going for it here is the fact that it has Foxconn as a key manufacturing partner, which is a huge employer in China. That may give it some political power. Who knows. In the end, $1.6b is chump change for Apple, and it may be worth it for them to just settle.

pjin 15y ago
What Apple has going for it here is the fact that it has Foxconn as a key manufacturing partner, which is a huge employer in China. That may give it some political power. Foxconn is a Taiwanese company. That doesn't count as "political power" in China.
- czhiddy 15y ago
  Foxconn employs over a million Chinese citizens. They undoubtably have enormous amounts of guanxi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanxi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanxi) with all levels of the government, from local to national.
  - pjin 15y ago
    I am familiar with how China operates. Being close with the govt/CCP in China is standard practice. So you must also be aware that Foxconn has come under very intense media scrutiny in _China_ since a couple of years ago. Consider this sequence of events: [1] http://news.softpedia.com/news/Foxconn-Sues-Two-Journalists-for-Disclosing-the-Poor-Working-Conditions-34226.shtml http://news.softpedia.com/news/Foxconn-Sues-Two-Journalists-... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Chinese_labour_unrest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Chinese_labour_unrest [3] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/07/business/global/07foxconn.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/07/business/global/07foxconn.... Of course this observation doesn't depend on Foxconn being Taiwanese. But the two are not necessarily unrelated given the increasingly nationalist trajectory of Chinese policy. And more in response to the nature of Foxconn's guanxi with the govt, no amount of it can save Foxconn from uniform wage increases or increasingly negative _Chinese_ media coverage.
nitrogen 15y ago
Here's a ludicrous example, a close cousin to domain name squatting: http://www.chinahearsay.com/coca-cola-plays-it-smart-in-its-ip-fight-with-nongfu-spring/ http://www.chinahearsay.com/coca-cola-plays-it-smart-in-its-... It would be more useful if other bottles were included in the comparison. It doesn't matter if two brands of water bottle look alike, if all the other water bottles not pictured also look that way.

redthrowaway 15y ago

The article's pretty clear. Proview registered the iPad trademark in 2001, Apple licensed it for use outside of China in 2009, but then went on to use the trademark in mainland China without signing a licensing agreement. That's copyright infringement, plain and simple.

ugh 15y ago
That sounds a lot like trademark infringement, not copyright infringement.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  I'm far from an expert in Chinese law, but I could see the two being reasonably treated as equivalent.
  - dctoedt 15y ago
    Trademarks and copyrights aren't equivalent. I'm not licensed to practice in China, but from everything I've ever read, Chinese law [1] isn't so different (at this level) from that of other countries. TRADEMARKS: Generally speaking, a trademark is something that signifies or evokes a product provided, sponsored, or endorsed by a particular source. TRADEMARK EXAMPLES: * Word marks such as Apple and iPad; * Logos such as the apple logo; * Sounds such as the "Intel inside" sequence of notes; * Colors, even (sometimes) such as pink for Owens-Corning-brand attic insulation. (Trademarks are for products; service marks serve the same function for services.) In a sense, the "owner" of a trademark is really just its government-appointed custodian or guardian. (It's sort of like the old joke: Dogs have masters, cats have staff.) When a trademark owner enforces its rights against an infringer, what the owner is really doing is performing a public service, namely keeping the market free of marks that would be likely to confuse the public. COPYRIGHT: In contrast, copyright applies to original works of "authorship," regardless whether associated with a product or service. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property_in_the_Peoples_Republic_of_China#National_legal_framework http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property_in_the_Pe...