Apple's market value exceeds 500 billion US dollars over Taiwan's GDP

In the early morning of March 1, Beijing time, Apple's market value hit another record high on Wednesday, breaking the $500 billion mark. Apple's stock price closed at 542.44 US dollars Wednesday, up 1.31%, the market value of up to 5016.24 billion US dollars. Last month, Apple surpassed Exxon Mobil to become the world’s largest listed company.

Up to now, only the market value of Apple, Microsoft, Exxon Mobil, Cisco, and GE have exceeded US$500 billion.

The main force of the release of important signals has seen tremendous changes in the flow of funds. The free Level-2 high-speed market charging software features limited time free Exxon Mobil at the end of 2007, when the price of oil rose sharply when the market value exceeded 500 billion US dollars, Microsoft, Cisco and General Electric's market value was also reached during the Internet bubble in 1999 One level.

Microsoft is by far the only company whose market value has exceeded 600 billion U.S. dollars.

Apple's current market value is even higher than the GDP of Poland, Belgium, Sweden, Saudi Arabia, and China Taiwan.

Despite its size, Apple is still one of the fastest growing high-tech companies. The company reported that in January 2011 sales increased by 73%, and Apple earned profits in the last quarter that were the second largest in the history of US listed companies.

The market value of Apple just exceeded 400 billion U.S. dollars a month ago. Its market value surpassed Exxon Mobil on January 25 to become the world’s largest listed company. ExxonMobil’s current market value is US$410 billion, making it the world’s second-largest listed company. PetroChina’s market value is 281 billion US dollars, ranking third, and the fourth is Microsoft.

On Tuesday, Apple issued an invitation to media reporters. The company will launch a new tablet next Wednesday (March 7th). At this time, Apple launched the iPad 2 in just about a year.

Apple: Yes, we let the "iPad" have the value of today. After the first trial failure in December last year, Apple v. Shenzhen Proview "iPad trademark infringement case" in the second instance of the Guangdong Provincial High Court hearing. As one of the most concerned intellectual property cases in China, a large number of media before the court flocked. In this case, both the prosecution and the defense agents indicated that they needed to solicit the opinions of the client. After the court concluded the trial, the judges would be sent on a daily basis.

【on site】

Another three courts were opened for the media. According to the court staff, the iPad trademark was heard at the second hearing and attracted more than a hundred Chinese and foreign media. The court opened three courts for the media to conduct live video broadcasts.

In court, both litigation agents conducted fierce clashes. Shenzhen Proview Lawyer Xiao Caiyuan said that Apple has always been negotiating with Taiwan Proview, and the emails involved do not have legal effect; in addition, the transaction amount was only handed over to Taiwan Proview and had no relationship with Shenzhen Proview. .

"When consumers see the iPad, they know that it comes from Apple, not from other companies, and the iPad has become synonymous with Apple's tablet." Apple's agent said that if the court decides that the trademark belongs to the other party, it will inevitably cause confusion and damage consumers. Interests.

【Cross】

apple:

The defendant’s behavior violated public interests before the court session. Informed sources told reporters that although Apple originally negotiated with Proviewer, its “main force” was intellectual property lawyers from England and Wales. The reason why "Taiwan Proview" and "Shenzhen Proview" cannot be separated precisely because the lawyer "does not understand Chinese" confused the two companies.

In the first-instance suit, although a Chinese lawyer appeared in court, the behind-the-scenes command “litigation” was from Beacon, the largest law firm in the United States. After the losing of the trial in the first instance, Apple finally learned its lesson and changed the case to Beijing King & Wood, a well-known law firm in China. In the intellectual property field of Jindu Law, there is a heavyweight "legal advisor" - Jiang Zhipei, former President of the Intellectual Property Division of the Supreme People's Court.

In court, an attorney from Apple believes there is an entrustment relationship between Shenzhen Proview and Proview. The e-mail exchange between IP company and Proview employees can confirm that the trademark in question has been transferred to Apple.

Apple’s lawyers also stated that according to the agreement between the IP company and Taiwan Proview, Hong Kong law should be applied. The attorney also proposed that Shenzhen Proview's behavior "infringed on the public interest."

Proview:

Apple belongs to "referring to deer for horses"

Shenzhen Proview lawyer stated that the core evidence submitted by Apple in the case such as agreement, power of attorney, Barclays bank draft amounting to 35,000 pounds, etc., the transferor in the agreement, the authorizer in the power of attorney, and the bank draft record The recipients are Taiwan Proview, not Shenzhen Proview, and they are “referring to the deer for the horse” and they have no binding force on Shenzhen Proview.

For the “core” evidence submitted by Apple, e-mails, Shenzhen Proview lawyers “remind” each other to understand the basic legal requirements of China: The owner of the e-mail is a foreigner, and the conduct of the e-mail takes place overseas, in accordance with China’s civil lawsuits. Evidence rules, it must be notarized by a foreign local, Chinese embassies and consulates to be certified before they can be used as evidence.

[last statement]

Apple: If the award to Proview was unfair to us in the final statement of the court, the appellant stated that it was through the operation of Apple that the current value was formed. It would be unfair to Apple if the second-instance court finally ruled that the “iPad” trademark should be owned by Proview. Shenzhen Proview Firm insists that Taiwan Proview does not have the right to handle the trademarks of Shenzhen Proview. The contract reached by both parties does not have legal effect on Shenzhen Proview. Shenzhen Proview and IP Application Development Co., Ltd. have not reached any trademark transfer contract. relationship. After the court inquired whether or not to conduct mediation, the prosecution and the defense both expressed the need to solicit the opinions of the client. After the court concluded the trial, the judge would be sent to a judge.