Apple claims Qualcomm stole idea for smartphone boot-up tech from engineer

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 28
    GrannieSmithgranniesmith Posts: 3unconfirmed, member
    The previous link has a few extra characters. This should work better https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.538308/gov.uscourts.casd.538308.645.0.pdf
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 22 of 28
    knowitallknowitall Posts: 1,648member
    Hmm, not much of an idea, let allone an invention. This kind of follows logically from the problem at hand.
    I will give away a similar invention:  instant boot a computer aperatus by using ROM memory and running the os from it ...
    edited March 2019
    watto_cobra
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 23 of 28
    GrannieSmithgranniesmith Posts: 3unconfirmed, member
    flydog said:
    MplsP said:
    Well, is anyone surprised by this? It should be pretty easy to prove if they have the e-mail trail.
    E-mails are hearsay, and are inadmissible except for limited purposes such as cross-examination.
    It seems Apple and Qualcomm have a different idea of who gave whom the idea regarding the '949 patent and Qualcomm's has some same day notes memorializing the events from its CC w/Apple. Qualcomm believes these notes and related testimony are admissable evidence in their filing here https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.538308/gov.uscourts.casd.538308.645.0.pdf ;

    Snip on admissability standard

    Under Fed. R. Evid. 803(6), statements recording an act or event are admissible if
    “(A) the record was made at or near the time by – or from information transmitted by – someone with knowledge;
    (B) the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business, organization, occupation, or calling, whether or not for profit;
    (C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity;
    (D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified witness; and
    (E) the opponent does not show that the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness.” 
     
    Snip on Background

    On February 3, 2010, Apple engineer S. Aon Mujtaba and other Apple employees requested a call with Qualcomm’s “relevant Gobi protocol experts” to discuss “the image transfer protocol from the AP to the BB.” PX0592 at 5 (Feb. 3, 2010 9:27 pm email). The request was relayed to Qualcomm’s “resident Gobi ‘image transfer protocol’ experts,” Billy Oostra and Claudia De Andrade, who, along with Qualcomm employee Ravi Soordelu, scheduled a call with Apple for 10 am on February 5, 2010. Id. at 2-3 (Feb. 4, 2010 10:35 am and 4:46 pm emails). 

    Mr. Soordelu emailed the Apple team with details of the scheduled call on February 5, 2010. PX0809 at 11 (Feb. 4, 2010 9:57 pm email). Before the call, Mr. Soordelu was asked by Jim Willkie of Qualcomm to take and “post minutes from this meeting.” PX0812. 

    Mr. Soordelu confirmed that he would, and at 7:19 pm on February 5, 2010, he sent Mr. Willkie, Mr. Oostra, Ms. De Andrade and others an email setting forth the topics discussed during the call a high level including “details on the protocol used in Gobi” and how “boot mechanism for Gobi” can be leveraged, among other things. Id. 

    In addition to the email setting out “high level topics,” Mr. Soordelu also created consistent, but more detailed, meeting minutes with the file name “2010_02_05_GobiDownloadcall.txt.” PX0066.   
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 24 of 28
    1st1st Posts: 443member
    Apple vs Qcom should have outstanding NDA prior to the tech exchange - Look like both side need to provide Notebook level of developing record up to the date of meeting to trace idea of origin.  However, it is not surprise stealing idea occur, usually is the user (in this case, like Apple) stealing from supply chain (like Qcom), because the user usually is bigger, and can get away with it.  the supplier dealt with a weak hand - you do not want to tick  off the hand that feed you.. This case is rather unique, both are titans... (matter of fact, to steal idea from vendor is not uncommon - more so last 20 years... population grow, I guess number of theivs in the world also increased).  
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 25 of 28
    normmnormm Posts: 653member
    mac_dog said:
    Whoever gets to the patent office first gets the rights. Isn’t that how the game is played?
    Everyone who contributed to the conception of the invention is an inventor, and should be listed on the patent.
    edited March 2019
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 26 of 28
    icoco3icoco3 Posts: 1,474member
    knowitall said:
    Hmm, not much of an idea, let allone an invention. This kind of follows logically from the problem at hand.
    I will give away a similar invention:  instant boot a computer aperatus by using ROM memory and running the os from it ...
    My 8-bit computer did that back in the 80’s. 
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 27 of 28
    Dr. G.dr. g. Posts: 1unconfirmed, member
    Funny that the main inventor of the patent was never even called into question - that's me! I have never even heard of this engineer before. The fact that he said he invented it is beyond me 🙂
    gatorguy
     0Likes 0Dislikes 1Informative
  • Reply 28 of 28
    1st1st Posts: 443member
    Dr. G, with all due respect, it is not unusual to NOT knowing there are other parties in the field on the same track.  history proven that is true in many aspect (I am sure you can find examples).  Idea exchange, especially within a super tech engineering groups can spark patent ideas (that is why notebook record is important), mostly via intermediate exchange.  ("I heard xyz.... " over lunch, may get neuron moving even to the chap sitting next table, that can lead to a new direction of research).  IMHO.  1st to patent law distorted 1st invent in this neck  of the woods.  Stealing (I am not imply in this case) from vendor, specially from start up, smaller firm that depend on contract of large firm or can not risk lawsuit for its fragile reputation, is not unusual in the field.  Never heard VP demand engineering group need average x patent per year per head? support staff included? travel expanse went up the same year - visit conference, university, vendor, partners, etc.... a big coincidence?  It happened before, hopefully never again (but I doubt it... until the law change to 1st invent).  
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.