thompr
About
- Username
- thompr
- Joined
- Visits
- 37
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 149
- Badges
- 0
- Posts
- 1,521
Reactions
-
Lawsuit alleges Apple feigned partnership with Valencell to glean key Apple Watch heart rate sensor
Not true at all. You don't need an NDA or non-compete agreement to protect your patents, which describe methods and are publicly available for all to see (and hopefully license or avoid). In some sense, a patent is the opposite of an NDA. It reveals to everybody that you are interested in doing something (whether you end up doing it or not) and how you would accomplish it. Then others are not supposed to use your tech to compete with you. No other agreement required.SpamSandwich said:If this company cannot produce a non-compete agreement or evidence of a violated NDA, they're spitting into the wind.
If this company can produce proof that they have a patent along with evidence that Apple violated it, then they have a case. All of the documentation they provided about meetings and/or downloads is only there to prove that Apple was aware of and interested in the tech. (Willful violation could lead to triple damages.) Now they still have to prove that Apple actually built something that violates the patent. And they need to hope that their patent isn't deemed invalid during the process.
-
Lawsuit alleges Apple feigned partnership with Valencell to glean key Apple Watch heart rate sensor
When you just toss a question out there like that without offering any opinion of your own it's very easy for people to read into it whatever they want, usually derived from their own biases. These folks may know you and each other very well, but asking a rhetorical question (or a leading one, if it wasn't rhetorical) is often a recipe for misunderstanding.Soli said:
Your first question you infer I have stated Apple is guilty.lkrupp said:So Apple is guilty by accusation alone? Are you assuming Apple is guilty? Why?
Your second question you ask if I'm assuming Apple is guilty, despite having already proffered a rebuttal that infers that I think Apple is guilty
Your third question doesn't use a qualifier like, "If so, … ," but instead just asks "Why?," which is now asking for my reasons for believing Apple is guilty, despite my lack of implication.
I think it's a legitimate question. Not that offered the two opposing, general answers, as well as asked about companies, not Apple. I feel Apple holds themselves to a higher standard than other companies, but my opinion of Apple (or inefficient information regarding this lawsuit to be able to create a specific option for or against Apple), does mean I think Apple should be held to a different standard than any other company. Most interesting are that all replies to my query assumed I felt Apple was guilty. Did any of you even consider that I might think that those filing a lawsuit may be acting unethically?
For how many years have we been reading each other's comments on this board and Slack? Over a decade, I believe. If I had to come to such a conclusion don't you think I'd 1) state it as a statement, and 2) back up my statement with how I arrived at my opinion, likely with additional details or links other sites to support my position? I'm pretty sure I would.
